Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Devender Alias Rajat And Ors on 2 September, 2014
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Surinder Gupta
CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-221-MA-2014 (O&M)
Decided on : 02.09.2014
State of Haryana ..... Appellant
VERSUS
Devender @ Rajat and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr.Baldev Singh, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the appellant.
*******
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
CRM-4896-2014 Heard.
For reasons stated in the application and arguments addressed, delay of 68 days in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned.
CRM-A-221-MA-2014 The State of Haryana has filed an application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., for leave to appeal against order dated 21.08.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, acquitting respondents No.1 to 3 of charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 406 and 34 of the IPC.
Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that the CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [2] deceased-Rinki, admittedly, passed away by consuming acid. The trial Court has, however, acquitted the respondents unmindful of the presumption that arises under Section 113B of the Evidence Act read alongwith Section 304B of the IPC. PW-1 Ram Kishan, the complainant, has clearly deposed that barely a month after the marriage, the respondents began harassing his daughter for bringing insufficient dowry and as they were not satisfied with the quality of dowry articles. PW-1 has also deposed that he gave a mobile phone to his daughter but her in-laws did not allow her to make calls and eventually her husband broke the mobile phone. The deposition by PW-1 duly supported by other witnesses, gives rise to a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act read alongwith Section 304B of the IPC. The prosecution having proved essential ingredients of an offence under Section 304B of the IPC, the trial Court has erred in holding that the evidence on record does not establish harassment or demand of dowry and as the deceased committed suicide as she was suffering from a serious ailment i.e. blockage of veins in her brain for which she was being treated before and after her marriage, no offence is made out. The said finding is not based on any medical evidence and is, therefore, contrary to the record. It is prayed that as the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the record, leave to appeal may be granted.
We have heard counsel for the State of Haryana and CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [3] perused the record which was summoned.
The deceased was married to respondent No.1-Devender @ Rajat, son of Bhopal Singh, on 25.04.2012. The deceased was admitted to NIMS Hospital where she passed away on 23.01.2013. Devender, husband of the deceased informed Rinki's father. Ram Kishan, father of the deceased, made a statement Ex.PA, to the police that Rinki was being harassed by her husband Devender, mother in law-Kusum Devi and father-in-law-Bhopal Singh, for dowry. Rinki was not allowed to meet them and when they gave her a mobile phone, her husband broke the phone. After reaching the hospital, he came to know that the respondents have murdered his daughter by forcing her to consume acid. The statement Ex.PA, signed by PW-1 Ram Kishan led to registration of FIR Ex.PA/1 under Sections 498- A, 304-B/34 of the IPC.
After arrest of the respondents and completion of investigation, the police filed a final report which was placed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, where charges under Sections 498-A, 406 and 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC were framed. As the respondents pleaded their innocence, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined the following witnesses.
PW-1 is Ram Kishan, the complainant, who has deposed in accordance with his statement made before the police. PW-2 is CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [4] Anoj Kumar, Draftsman, who proved the scaled site plan Ex.PD. PW-3 is Rambir, elder brother of PW-1 Ram Kishan, who deposed that Devender, Kusum, Bhopal, Kavita and Monoj, husband, mother- in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law respectively, used to harass and torture Rinki by demanding dowry and did not allow Rinki to meet them. PW-4 is Seema, mother of the deceased- Rinki, who has deposed that the respondents harassed Rinki, demanded dowry and did not allow Rinki to meet them. PW-5 is HC Shish Pal, who has deposed with respect to arrest of respondent No.3-Kusum Devi and that she suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PE. PW-6 is EHC Jamshed Ali, who went to the hospital with ASI Anil Kumar, was handed over the dead body of Rinki, for postmortem and after postmortem handed over a sealed envelope containing documents etc. to ASI Anil Kumar on 24.01.2013, vide memo Ex.PG. PW-6 has also deposed with respect to disclosure statements Ex.PH and Ex.PI suffered by Devender @ Rajan and Bhopal, respondents No.1 and 2, leading to recovery of a plastic bottle containing a white fluid which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ. PW-7 is Dr. Sadan Prasad, Medical Officer, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-7/A regarding the postmortem conducted by a board of doctors, proved postmortem report Ex.PN and stated that in the opinion of the board, recorded after receiving the FSL report Ex.PM, Rinki died of hydrochloric acid poisoning which was ante mortem and was sufficient to cause CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [5] death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-8 is HC Bhupinder Singh, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-8/A regarding deposit of case property etc. PW-9 Constable Vikas Kumar, has deposed with respect to delivery of special report. PW- 10 EHC Virender Singh, is another formal witness, who deposed with respect to deposit of case property at FSL, Madhuban. PW-11 is ASI Ram Kumar, who recorded the FIR Ex.PA/1 etc. PW-12 is Dr.Katar Singh, who deposed that on 23.01.2013, he medico-legally examined Rinki and proved MLR Ex.PO. PW-13 ASI Anil Kumar, is the investigating officer and PW-14 is Tara Chand, photographer, who proved photographs Ex.P3 to Ex.P12.
Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances were put to the respondents but they denied their involvement and produced DW-1 Sumit Kumar, Field Officer, Shri Jee Manpower Contractor Private Limited, to prove that Bhopal, father-in-law of the deceased, works as a helper in the company, was on duty on 23.01.2013 and applied for a gate pass at 3:40 PM, Ex.D1.
The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the respondents by holding that PW-1 Ram Kishan, PW-3 Rambir, PW-4 Seema have not been able to prove any specific act of cruelty or harassment and the general allegations regarding demand of dowry, are not sufficient to make out a case against the respondents. The trial Court also held that particularly PW-1 Ram CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [6] Kishan has admitted in cross-examination that there was no demand of dowry before marriage and that he did not make any complaint regarding demand of dowry till the death of his daughter. The trial Court also held that PW-1 had admitted that no car, scooter, conveyance or any specific article was demanded by the respondents. The deposition by PW-4 Seema was similarly held to be devoid of specific facts that would prove a demand for dowry or harassment.
This apart, the trial Court made a reference to the cross- examination of PW-1 Ram Kishan and PW-4 Seema, where they admitted that Rinki suffered from blockage of veins in her brain for which she was taking treatment for the last many years and continued to take medicines even after her marriage. The trial Court also noticed that PW-4 Seema, mother of the deceased, admitted that Devender used to give medicines to Rinki on time but thereafter changed her statement. A relevant extract from the impugned judgment, reads as follows: -
"13. It is the defence of the accused that deceased was suffering from ailment and her brain vein was blocked due to which she used to remain under depression and she ended her life by consuming acid. In this regard, learned defence counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the cross-examination of PW1 Ram Kishan and PW4 Seema who have admitted the ailment of deceased. They have admitted that brain veins of Rinki were blocked for which she was taking treatment for many years and that she had been taking medicines of CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [7] headache even after marriage. PW4 admitted at one place that accused Devender used to give medicines timely to Rinki and then volunteered that deceased was not given any medicine by accused Devender. In these circumstances, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to link the accused with the crime.
14. There is substance to some extent in the argument of learned defence counsel that there is possibility that if anybody is made to drink forcibly some substance, it may also fall on other parts of the body. However, PW7 Dr.Sadan Prasad and PW12 Dr.Katar Singh have admitted that there was no external injury on the body of Rinki."
Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B in the IPC provide that where a girl/woman dies within seven years of her marriage and it is proved that soon before her death she was harassed or treated with cruelty for demands of dowry, her husband and his close relatives would be held liable for dowry death and be punished accordingly. The respondents were charged for commission of an offence under Section 304B of the IPC as the statements made before the police alleged demand of dowry and harassment as the cause of death.
A perusal of these statements and depositions reveal that they are devoid of reference to any specific incident of harassment or demand of dowry that would enable us to raise an inference under CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [8] Section 113B of the Evidence Act of a dowry death as postulated by Section 304B of the IPC. The opinion recorded by the trial Court after a considered appraisal of the deposition by PW-1 Ram Kishan and PW-4 Seema, father and mother of the deceased and other witnesses do not make out an offence under Section 304B of the IPC, in our considered opinion, is the only conclusion that could have been recorded on the basis of the evidence on record.
This apart, a perusal of the medical evidence reveals the absence of any injury on the deceased. If the deceased was forced to consume acid there would necessarily have been some injury whether from force applied or from drops of acid that would have fallen on some part of her body in a scuffle which would have preceded the respondents' administering acid and most significant of all PW-1 and PW-4 father and mother of the deceased have admitted that the deceased was under treatment for the last many years, even before her marriage for blockage of certain veins in her brain for which she was taking medicine before marriage and continued to take medicines even after her marriage. PW-4 initially admitted that Devender was giving medicines regularly to the deceased but then immediately retracted her statement.
A detailed perusal of the entire evidence particularly admissions made by PW-1 and PW-4 father and mother of the deceased, clearly prove that their daughter consumed acid on account of her ailment. In the absence of any credible evidence of CRM-A-221-MA-2014 [9] harassment, cruelty demand of dowry or depriving the deceased of her medicines, these general allegation of harassment and cruelty cannot be a ground to convict the respondents for the offences charged or for an offence of abetment of suicide. The trial Court has acquitted the respondents after a considered appraisal of the entire evidence. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[ RAJIVE BHALLA ]
JUDGE
02.09.2014 [ SURINDER GUPTA ]
Shamsher S.Sabharwal JUDGE
SHAMSHER SINGH
2014.10.27 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh