Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Naresh Son Of Sh. Mangal Ram on 19 September, 2012
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-508-MA of 2011
Date of Decision:19.09.2012
State of Haryana
..... Applicant
Versus
1. Naresh son of Sh. Mangal Ram, age 31 years.
2. Suman Devi wife of late Sh. Mangal Ram, age 50 years.
residents of Ward No. 6, Haily Mandi, P.S. Pataudi,
Gurgaon.
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH
Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, AAG, Haryana
for the applicant-State.
Mr. Tapan Yadav, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
S.P. BANGARH, J The Criminal Miscellaneous application, in terms of Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short - Cr.P.C.) for grant of special leave to appeal, has been filed by State of Haryana against the judgment dated 22.03.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, in Sessions case No. 99 of 22.11.2007, emanating from FIR No. 135 dated 01.08.2007 under Sections 302, 304-B, 406, 201 and 34 IPC, whereby, respondents CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -2 -
Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted of the charge framed against them.
Brief facts of the case are that Shabnam (deceased) daughter of Ram Kishan (complainant) was married on 14.12.2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies with Naresh (respondent No.1). The complainant (Ram Kishan) had spent enough money on this marriage as per his status and had given an Alto Car, LG Automatic washing machine and other articles including jewellery, clothes, furniture etc. but the respondents and others were not satisfied, therewith, who started harassing Shabnam (deceased) for bringing inadequate dowry and asked her to bring `1.00 lac from the complainant (Ram Kishan) who showed his inability to pay this amount. The harassment of the deceased (Shabnam) continued and the respondents used to beat her.
One month after the marriage, Shabnam (deceased) told the complainant (Ram Kishan) about her harassment by the respondents on telephone, thereupon, complainant (Ram Kishan) alongwith his wife Sumitra and son Ajay went to the matrimonial home of his daughter-Shabnam (deceased) and requested the respondents and brother-in-law of the deceased (Shabnam) not to harass her for non-fulfillment of demand of `1.00 lac but they did not relent and continued the harassment of the deceased (Shabnam) and the respondents told that they need `1.00 lac for starting computer business and if, this amount was not paid then Shabnam (deceased) daughter of the complainant (Ram Kishan) would not be allowed to live in matrimonial house and she should seek divorce.
CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -3 -
These facts were disclosed by the deceased (Shabnam) on telephone to the complainant (Ram Kishan) who, thereupon, alongwith his relative Jagmal Singh and brother-in-law Parmod again went to the matrimonial house of his daughter (Shabnam/deceased) and requested the respondents not to maltreat her and, thereafter, he went back. However, the respondents as also the maternal uncle of the husband (Naresh-respondent No.1) of the deceased (Shabnam) again started harassing her and beating her. Shabnam (deceased) continued to stay with the respondents in order to avoid any stigma but the latter did not mend themselves.
Thereafter, complainant (Ram Kishan) alongwith his son brought his daughter (Shabnam-deceased) back and she stayed with them for 6-7 months. Naresh (respondent No.1) started making telephone calls that his family members are not going to suffer in any way and that they should reside together for their welfare and that he will take a separate house for their residence. Thereafter, complainant (Ram Kishan) sent his daughter Shabnam (deceased) alongwith her husband (Naresh-respondent No.1), who treated her nicely for 2-3, months but again started harassing her and demanding `2.00 lac from her parents for starting computer business.
Shabnam (deceased) daughter of the complainant (Ram Kishan) kept on bearing the torture in order to save her marriage. Even on one occasion respondent No.1 (Naresh) had beaten her and got executed one divorce deed on a paper and Shabnam (deceased) CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -4 -
informed the complainant (Ram Kishan) in this regard on telephone. Since, the complainant (Ram Kishan) was suffering from typhoid, he did not go to meet her. About 4-5 days ago, Shabnam (deceased) daughter of the complainant (Ram Kishan) told him, as also, his wife that her husband (Naresh-respondent No.1), mother-in-law (respondent No.2) and brother-in-law had beaten her mercilessly and she was confined in a room and they wanted to obtain some writing from her and was not given food. The complainant (Ram Kishan) could not go to meet his daughter (Shabnam) as he was suffering from typhoid and advised bed rest.
On 01.08.2007 at about 12.00 p.m., Naresh (respondent No.1) informed the complainant (Ram Kishan) telephonically that Shabnam (deceased) had locked herself in a room and was lying dead in the room. The same information was received from the Police Station Pataudi and, thereafter, the complainant (Ram Kishan) alongwith with his wife Sumitra and son Ajay reached the matrimonial house of his daughter (Shabnam-deceased), where, police party was present and the police opened the bolt of the door from inside and all entered in the said room and found Shabnam lying dead. So, the complainant (Ram Kishan) alleged that his daughter (Shabnam) had either committed suicide on account of harassment caused by the respondents regarding demand of dowry or they had forcibly administered some poisonous substance to her and action be taken against them.
The aforementioned statement Ex.PH of the complainant CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -5 -
(Ram Kishan) was recorded by Jagdish Chander ASI on 01.08.2007, who made endorsement, thereon, Ex.PH/1 and sent the same to the Police Station, where, formal FIR Ex.PH/2 was registered by Babu Lal SI, who also made endorsement Ex.PH/3 on the ruqa regarding registration of FIR. Jagdish Chander ASI prepared inquest report Ex.PB/2 of the corpse of Shabnam. He also prepared rough site place Ex.PR of the place of occurrence. Jagdish Chander ASI recovered one piece of paper from the left hand of the deceased (Shabnam), which was suicide note and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL. There was a powder in piece of cloth and that was sealed by Jagdish Chander ASI into a seal with seal bearing impression 'MS' and that parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ.
On 02.08.2007, Jagdish Chander ASI moved an application Ex.PB/1 before the Medical Officer for getting conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased (Shabnam) and the same was sent to mortuary for autopsy. The doctor, after the autopsy, handed over report Ex.PB to Jagdish Chander ASI, who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased (Shabnam). The doctor also handed over three parcels sealed with the seal of mortuary containing viscera, sample seal and envelop to Jagdish Chander ASI, who on the same day deposited these in the Malkhana. On 03.08.2007, Naresh (respondent No.1) was arrested and the latter, handed over dowry articles to police, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PK. The suicide note Ex.PL was seized vide CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -6 -
memo Ex.PJ.
The diary of the deceased (Shabnam) and suicide note Ex.PL were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal and the latter vide report Ex.PD opined that the disputed handwriting on suicide note Ex.PL tallies with the standard writing of Shabnam (deceased) on the diary. Vide another report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PN, the cause of death in this case was due to poisoning and the poison was found to be aluminum phosphide.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer, Pataudi instituted police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. - for short) before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appeared that respondent No.1 (Naresh) had committed offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 IPC. On presentation of police report, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to respondent No.1 (Naresh) and the case was later committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and the case was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who framed charge under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 IPC against respondent No.1 (Naresh), whereto, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
After the examination of three witnesses, learned Additional Public Prosecutor before the learned trial Court moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning of respondent No.2 CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -7 -
(Suman Devi) and the same was accepted vide order dated 26.03.2010 and respondent No.2 (Suman Devi) was summoned as an accused to face trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 IPC and on her appearance, charge under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 IPC was also framed against her, whereto, she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial, prosecution examined Dr. Neelam Thapar as PW1, Manoj Kumar Draftsman as PW-2, Mahender Singh Stamp Vendor as PW-3, Jai Bhagwan HC as PW-4, Staya Narain HC as PW-5, Azad Singh Photographer as PW-6, Ram Kishan Yadav as PW-7, Sumitra as PW-8, Ram Sahai s/o Dil Sukh as PW-9, Vijay Kumar Constable as PW-10, Babu Lal SI as PW-11, Hemant Kumar Inspector/SHO as PW-12, Rajesh Kumar ASI as PW-13 and Jagdish Chander ASI as PW-14 and closed evidence later.
After the close of prosecution evidence, respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, they denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. They, gave their own version that Shabnam (deceased) was suffering from epilapsy and seizures, since the age of 7 years and was got treated by them from various doctors. This fact was concealed from them by her family members prior to her marriage. She committed suicide, as she was fed up with the ailment. Later, a false case was foisted upon them in order to blackmail them. They further stated that they never demanded dowry CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -8 -
from her and she was always kept nicely by them.
Respondents were called upon to enter in defence and they examined R.S. Khera, Medical Record Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi as DW-1 and Dr. Siri Ram Yadav as DW-2 and closed defence evidence, later.
After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment, acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 IPC, wherefor, charge was framed against them. Aggrieved, thereagainst, State of Haryana has filed the present application for grant of special leave to appeal seeking reversal of the impugned judgment and for convicting and sentencing respondents for the offences for which they were charged by the learned trial Court.
We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the applicant-State and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record with their assistance.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the applicant-State and learned counsel for the complainant contended that from the evidence on the record of the learned trial Court, it stands established that the deceased (Shabnam) died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage and immediately, before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by respondents for demand of dowry. They also contended that PW-7 Ram Kishan and PW-8 Sumitra, who are the parents of the deceased (Shabnam) in candid words testified that the dowry was demanded and due to non-
CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -9 -
fulfillment of demand, thereof, she was harassed and killed by administering poison forcibly. They also contended that the door of the room was bolted through ventilator, after commission of murder of Shabnam and the ventilator was closed to show that the deceased (Shabnam) had committed suicide after locking herself in the room.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the applicant-State and learned counsel for the complainant, but find no merit, therein, as Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) have made improvements in their statements got recorded by them before the police. However, Ram Kishan (PW-7), father of the deceased (Shabnam), who got registered the FIR on the basis of statement Ex.PH, admitted that his statement Ex.PH was written by the police on his dictation, as narrated by him, but he had not read it carefully before signing the same, as he was under shock. This testimony is not believable, as he is an engineer by profession and it was required of him to sign statement Ex.PH after reading the same.
After all, what was the motive with the police not to write his true version vide statement Ex.PH. Ram Kishan (PW-7) also deposed that one thread was hanging from the catcher of the ventilator and it appeared that the door was bolted from outside through ventilator after committing the crime, but the police had not recorded this fact deliberately in his statement Ex.PH.
CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -10 -
Sumitra (PW-8) also made improvements during her deposition and she was confronted with her statement Ex.DA, wherein, it was not recorded that there were signs of powder on the outer portion of the door and another door in the same room was bolted from upper as well as lower bolt. So, the learned trial Court concluded that Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) had been confronted with their past statements made by them during investigation and they made improvements at the time of their deposition in the Court and tried to introduce new facts repugnant to the prosecution case. Ram Kishan (PW-7) no where alleged in his statement Ex.PH which formed the basis of formal FIR that some thread was hanging from the catcher and that door was bolted from the upper bolt through ventilator.
Learned trial Court observed that no complaint was ever filed by Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) against the police for ignoring important facts or for not conducting proper investigation. Even, if the investigation was not being carried properly, Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) could institute a private complaint against the respondents. So, when Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) remained complacent with the investigation of the case conducted by the police, no credence could be given to the improvements made by Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) in their earlier statements made before the police during investigation, at the time of their deposition in the Court.
Even, Jagdish Chander ASI (PW-14) who conducted the CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -11 -
investigation of this case testified that room was bolted from inside and the same was opened after breaking the glass of the adjacent window. The evidence, of Jagdish Chander ASI (PW-14) during cross-examination could not be shattered and no motive can be ascribed to him to testify falsely in this case. Jagdish Chander ASI (PW-14) during investigation recovered one suicide note Ex.PL from the hand of the deceased (Shabnam) and that was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ, which was attested by Ram Kishan (PW-7) and his son Ajay. So, this memo Ex.PJ, suggests that the suicide note Ex.PL was recovered from the hand of the deceased (Shabnam) in the presence of Ram Kishan (PW-7) and his son Ajay. Even, Sumitra (PW-8) who is the wife of Ram Kishan (PW-7) and mother of the deceased (Shabnam) admitted that her husband had told her that the suicide note Ex.PL was recovered by the police from the hand of the deceased (Shabnam).
So, the suicide note Ex.PL cannot be said to be forged and fabricated document. Now, it is to be seen, as to whether the suicide note Ex.PL was written by the deceased (Shabnam) or not. One diary Ex.PQ which is also Ex.P13 was handed over to Hemant Kumar Inspector/SHO (PW-12) by Niranjan Yadav which contained writing of deceased and that was converted into a parcel, which was sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PN. Both suicide note Ex.PL and diary Ex.PQ/P-13 were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison. Jain Bhagwan HC (PW-4), Staya Narain HC (PW-5) and Rajesh Kumar ASI (PW-13), who handled the case property of CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -12 -
this case, testified that the case property was deposited with the FSL in an intact condition and no one tampered, therewith. FSL vide report Ex.PX, opined that the handwriting in the suicide note Ex.PL and in diary Ex.PQ/P13 tally with each other.
In this view, of the matter, learned trial Court rightly concluded that suicide note Ex.PL was written by the deceased (Shabnam), wherein, she has written that she is committing suicide on her own sweet will after being fed up with her ailment and that neither her parents nor her in-laws are responsible. She also mentioned in the suicide note Ex.PL that her disease appears to be incurable and that her in-laws look after her, whenever, she fell ill. After her death, her in-laws and parents should not hold each other responsible for her death.
So, from the suicide note Ex.PL, it stands established that Shabnam (deceased) had committed suicide on her own will after being fed up with her ailment of epilepsy. Even during investigation, police collected the treatment record of the deceased (Shabnam) from Neurology Department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, which was brought on the record as mark-A to mark-D. The same was also proved by the respondents as Ex.DE through the testimony of R.S. Khera, Medical Record Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi (DW-1), who deposed that police had moved an application Ex.PM for handing over the record of treatment of patient Shabnam on 10.08.2007, on which Medical Superintendent made endorsement Ex.DB and after taking permission from the Head of the Department CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -13 -
vide endorsement Ex.DC, he handed over the treatment record Ex.DE (four pages) to the police.
A perusal of the record Ex.DE (four pages) would reveal that deceased (Shabnam Yadav) was being treated for epilepsy from 04.05.2006 onwards and as per history of the patient recorded in the treatment record, she was suffering from seizures since the age of 7 years and was on medication from 21 years and she was brought to the hospital by her sister-in-law. It was also recorded that some conflict between her parents and in-laws is going on and her in-laws were not informed of the disease prior to marriage.
Learned trial Court rightly placed reliance upon medical treatment record Ex.DE for coming to the conclusion that she was suffering from epilepsy and she made mention of epilepsy disease in her suicide note Ex.PL. So, in the circumstances, it follows that Shabnam (deceased) had committed suicide, as she was fed up with her ailment and she was not subjected to cruelty by the respondents in connection with the demand of dowry.
Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) in their testimonies levelled allegations against the respondents regarding demand of ` 1.00 lac and ` 2.00 lac, but they did not level such allegation of demand of dowry by respondents in their statements recorded by the police. They knew fully well that their daughter (Shabnam-deceased) is suffering from epilepsy and they concealed this fact from the respondents. If, they had been harassing the deceased (Shabnam), in that event, the deceased (Shabnam) would have levelled CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -14 -
allegations of cruelty against them in her suicide note Ex.PL. Documents of medical treatment have been placed on record by the prosecution. Those documents reveal that the deceased (Shabnam) was suffering from epilepsy since the age of 7 years and was on medication for 21 years. This disease of epilepsy would have made her life miserable and it would have become difficult for her to face life as it is and this marriage was also foisted upon her without telling this fact to the respondents.
Ram Kishan (PW-7) testified that marriage was settled through one Jagmal Singh and the latter never told him that the respondents had demanded any dowry in the marriage. So, if the respondents had not demanded dowry at the time of marriage, they would not have demanded it later on. Ram Kishan (PW-7) voluntarily stated that Naresh (respondent No.1) and his maternal uncle came to his house 10 days prior to the marriage and demanded an Alto Car, but when he was confronted with his statement, he admitted that it was not so, recorded, therein. So, this testimony which is given in the Court for the first time and does not find mention in statement Ex.PH could not be believed, as it is after thought.
Even, Ram Kishan (PW-7) admitted that he never complained regarding gifts given to the relatives. He also admitted that no Panchayat of brotherhood of his village was ever convened to tell them that harassment is being caused to his daughter (Shabnam- deceased) and the dowry is being demanded. Even the deceased (Shabnam) was never got medico legally examined to establish CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 -15 -
injuries on her person. Police or Panchayat were never informed about the maltreatment being given to the deceased (Shabnam) by the respondents. No relative of Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) has been examined to prove that respondents had ever demanded dowry or treated her with cruelty for not bringing dowry after the marriage or soon before her death.
Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Sumitra (PW-8) being parents of the deceased (Shabnam) were interested witnesses, whose evidence for want of corroboration by any other evidence was rightly repelled by the learned trial Court who rightly concluded that vide suicide note Ex.PL, Shabnam (deceased) levelled no allegation of harassment by the respondents for not bringing dowry.
So, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondents and reversal, thereof, is not justified especially when it is well settled that when even two views are possible, appellate court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view is possible.
Accordingly, special leave to appeal is declined to the applicant and CRM-A-508-MA of 2011 is dismissed.
(S.P. BANGARH) (S.S. SARON)
JUDGE JUDGE
September 19, 2012
Sham