Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheela Devi And Another vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 1947-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 29th April, 2010
Sheela Devi and another
... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Sheela Devi and Rakesh Kumar have preferred present appeal against the judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on 24th September, 2002, which had held the appellants guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five months.
Both the appellants, along with Sunita and Ballu, were named as accused in case FIR No.229 dated 01.12.1999 registered at Police Station Ambala under Section 304-B IPC. It is submitted that during the investigation, Sunita and Ballu were found innocent. They were placed in column No.2 and were not subsequently summoned to put on trial.
Appellant Rakesh Kumar was husband of Deepika and appellant Sheela Devi was her mother-in-law. Sunita was sister of the appellant Rakesh Kumar and Ballu was her husband. Criminal Appeal No.1947-SB of 2002 2
Criminal proceedings were set into motion against the appellants on the basis of statement Ex.PE made by Gurdeep Singh son of Sohan Lal, who stated that he was a resident of Amritsar and was electricity mechanic. His parents had expired. He had two sisters, elder Rajni was aged about 34 years and the younger one Deepika alias Baby was aged about 24 years. One and a half years before the occurrence, she was married with Rakesh Kumar appellant according to customary Hindu rites. She was having a daughter aged three months. Six months after the marriage, Rakesh and Deepika came to Amritsar and Deepika told the complainant that her husband Rakesh and mother-in-law Sheela Devi harass her and used to give her beatings and they were demanding a fridge and a television. They were also complaining that at the time of marriage, Milni was not done according to their status. The complainant narrated this to his elder sister Rajni, who had borne all the expenses of the marriage. He had also disclosed this fact to his maternal uncle Jugal Kishore. Thereafter, he made Rakesh and Deepika see reason and had sent them back. A few days thereafter, Deepika was given beatings. An information to this effect was relayed by Deepika to Jugal Kishore, maternal uncle on telephone. Jugal Kishore was Masar (husband of sister of the mother) of the complainant. One month before the occurrence, on the repeated asking of Rakesh Kumar and his mother Sheela Devi, the complainant had purchased a BPL fridge 165 litres and had delivered the same at the house of Rakesh Kumar. On 1st December, 1999 in the morning a telephonic call was received that Deepika alias Baby had died due to burn injuries. The complainant informed his sister Rajni and maternal uncle Jugal Kishore and along with them, arrived at the matrimonial home of his sister Deepika where her dead body was lying in burnt condition. A grievance was made that due to the cruelty, beatings Criminal Appeal No.1947-SB of 2002 3 and harassment perpetuated by the accused appellants, the deceased had committed suicide.
The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted only against the appellants. They were charged for offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The complainant Gurdeep Singh appeared as PW-12. In his examination in chief, he stated that after the birth of child, his sister came to his house and disclosed that she was living happily and had no problem. He further stated that the deceased died due to burns, when she was boiling the milk and got fire accidentally. This witness was declared hostile as he resiled from his previous statement. It is to be noted that this witness withstood the cross examination made by Public Prosecutor and affirmed what was stated in examination in chief and absolved the accused.
However, Rajni, sister of the deceased, appeared as PW-4 and stated that after six months of the marriage, when Deepika returned to Amritsar she disclosed that she was being harassed and ill-treated by her husband on account of inadequate dowry. She further stated that the accused were demanding fridge and television etc. in the marriage. On receipt of information that Deepika had died, she along with her relatives arrived at Ambala on 1st December, 1999 and found the dead body of her sister Deepika in burnt condition. In cross examination, this witness stated that father of Deepika had died 14 years ago and she had brought up her sister Deepika and got her marriage solemnized. Before the marriage, the deceased used to live with this witness. She further stated that a simple marriage was performed. She denied the suggestion that Deepika had died due to accidental fire.
Kewal Krishan PW-8 stated that Deepika was his cousin. On receipt of information, he had reached Ambala and in his presence, Criminal Appeal No.1947-SB of 2002 4 recovery of burnt pieces of clothes and two containers containing kerosene oil was effected.
Jugal Kishore, maternal uncle of the deceased, appeared as PW-9 and reiterated that Deepika had complained to him about the conduct of her husband and mother-in-law.
Hukam Singh SI PW-1 got the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased Deepika alias Baby.
Constable Sohan Lal PW-2 had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PB to prove link evidence.
Constable Manohar Lal PW-3 was the Draftsman, who proved scaled site plan Ex.PC of the spot.
ASI Janak Singh PW-5 stated that on receipt of ruqa Ex.PE, he had recorded the formal FIR Ex.PF.
Dr.Vinod Gupta, Medical Officer PW-6 had conducted autopsy on the dead body and had opined that the death had occurred due to 100 per cent burn injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
HC Ved Parkash PW-7 had delivered the special report. Ved Parkash PW-10 proved photographs of the spot. Dr.Satish Kumar, Medical Officer PW-11 on 31st December, 1999 had examined Sheela Devi and Rakesh Kumar, and had found superficial burn injuries on their hands.
SI Gurbachan Singh PW-13 proved various facets of the investigation.
Thereafter, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication.
No witness was examined in defence.
Criminal Appeal No.1947-SB of 2002 5Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate appearing for the appellants, has stated that Gurdeep Singh complainant, who had lodged the FIR, had stated in categoric terms that the deceased was leading her matrimonial life happily and she had died due to accidental burn.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before me. Even though, testimony of complainant Gurdeep Singh is ignored, Rajni PW-4 and Jugal Kishore PW-9 had specifically stated that the deceased was harassed by both the appellants on account of demand of dowry. When complainant Gurdeep Singh was confronted, it had been specifically stated that the deceased had disclosed this fact to her other relations also. Rajni PW-4 is the one, who had borne the entire expenditure of the marriage of the deceased, therefore, this Court cannot ignore her testimony and the testimony of Jugal Kishore PW-9, especially when the deceased had died within one and a half years of her marriage. The three essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, i.e. (1) death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage, (2) she had died an unnatural death and (3) there was a demand of dowry on the part of the accused appellants, stand proved in the present case. In these circumstances, this Court is hesitant to set aside the impugned judgment of the Court below and hereby affirms the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.
At this stage, counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence in the present case, had taken place on 1st December, 1999. It is submitted that normally for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, minimum prescribed sentence of seven years is awarded and there was no aggravating circumstance to award rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Criminal Appeal No.1947-SB of 2002 6
I find merit in this contention of the counsel for the appellants. Furthermore, the minor daughter of the deceased is in the custody of the appellants. Taking into consideration protracted trial and the fact that there was no aggravating circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that sentence of seven years will serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, sentence awarded to both the appellants is reduced from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause are maintained.
With the modification in sentence noticed above, present appeal is disposed of.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 29, 2010 rps