Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Krishan vs State Of Haryana on 11 September, 2012
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002
Date of decision 11.9.2012.
Kewal Krishan
...... Appellant.
versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present :- Mr. Aakashdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana
K.C.PURI, J.
Appellant- Kewal Krishan has directed the present appeal against the judgment dated 29.4.2002 and order dated 30.4.2002 passed by Shri Surinder Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide which accused/appellant has been convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `.500/- under Section 498-A, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of `.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 304-B, IPC. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 2
2. The facts of the present case, as culled out from the police report, is that on 26.9.1999 on receipt of a V.T. message to the effect that Smt. Seema wife of accused Kewal Krishan was admitted in General Hospital Sonepat, police reached the hospital and found dead bodies of Smt Seema and her son Sahil. Inquest reports were prepared. Thereafter Rajesh brother of deceased Smt. Seema got recorded his statement that his sister Smt.Seema was married with accused Kewal Krishan on 15.6.1997. After the marriage her husband, her brother-in-law and sister-in-law subjected her to cruelty and harassment for bringing insufficient dowry. They also raised unlawful demand for bringing money. Accordingly the complainant paid `.5000/- but they were dissatisfied as their lust for money was not quenched. Complainant left no stone unturned through Panchayat to bring round the accused but of no use. However, they again raised a demand of `,1,00,000/- on 26.9.1999 and ill-fated deceased Smt.Seema informed her elder sister Smt.Asha on telephone that the accused had demanded money for dowry and the accused also gave a slap to her (deceased). On the basis of aforesaid statement the instant FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation of the case and obtaining requisite sanction from the Competent Authority, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.
3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused. The trial Court framed charge under Section 498- Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 3 A and 304-B, IPC against the accused. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Constable Rajinder Singh (PW-1), Constable Jagdish Chander (PW-2), Constable Suresh Kumar (PW-3), Dr.S.S.Bhogal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sonepat (PW-4), Vijay Kujmar, Area Patwari (PW-5), Smt.Asha Rani (PW-6), Rajesh (complainant) (PW-7), Sub Inspector Laxmi Devi (PW-8) and closed its evidence.
5. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating material and all the allegations and claimed innocence. He stated that he is a poor vegetable-vendor and Smt. Seema deceased belonged to a rich family and therefore, she could not adjust herself with him. She was hot tempered, arrogant and spent-thrift lady. He could not provide her high-standard living. He denied that he ever raised a demand of bringing dowry or money. He lives separately from his brother. Deceased had already deserted her previous husband Uttam Chand. She was suffering from depression. The accused examined Uttam Chand DW- 1, Subhash Chand DW-2, MHC Raj Pal DW-3 and Datta Ram DW-4 and also produced certain documents in his defence.
6. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 498-A and 304-B, IPC vide judgment dated 29.4.2002 and order dated 30.4.2002, as aforesaid.
7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, appellant -accused has preferred the present appeal. Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 4
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the prosecution marriage between the deceased and appellant had taken place on 15.6.1997. The occurrence had taken place on 26.9.1999. It is admitted case of the prosecution that deceased was earlier married on 31.10.1989 and a female was child born to her from her previous husband on 21.11.1990. The decree of divorce between the deceased and previous husband was granted on 13.8.1997. It is submitted that there could not be a valid marriage between the deceased and appellant on 15.6.1997. So, the offence under Section 304-B, IPC is not attracted.
9. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Reema Aggarwal versus Anupam and others 2004 (3) SCC 199 held that husband within the meaning of Section 498-A, IPC and 304-B, IPC covers a person who entered into marital relations and under colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerces her in any manner or for any purposes enumerated in Section 304- B/498-A, IPC.
11. Again Bombay High Court in authority Vasant Bhagwat Patil versusn The State of Maharashtra 2011(6) AIR Bom. R 57 equivalent to 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal ) 427 held that in Section 498-A, IPC the word referred is woman and not the wife and as such the provisions of Section 304-B, IPC and 498-A, IPC would be attracted if the woman commits suicide in the house of the husband. Similar view was taken in Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 5 Mohitram versus State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2004 (3) MPHT (C.G.) page 22.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that deceased was a lady with high hopes. She deserted her previous husband along with female child. She wanted to be a rich lady. She had not only committed suicide but had also given poison to her son. So, in these circumstances, there cannot be any demand of dowry articles at the hands of the appellant.
13. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
14. There is nothing on the file to show that deceased was a lady with high hopes. No lady would end the life of a male child unless there are circumstances made by the husband forcing her to commit suicide along with her son. Mere fact that earlier marriage of the deceased could not continue, does not prove the said fact. The deceased was a young lady and she has committed suicide in the house of appellant and the appellant has to explain under what circumstances she had taken the extreme step of committing suicide and taking the life of her male child.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in order to prove the ingredient of offence under Section 304-B, IPC the prosecution is required to prove that :-
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstances.Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 6
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
16. In connection with demand of dowry, it is submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove the 3rd ingredient that deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry articles soon before her death. Even if, whole ingredients are taken as it is, in that case at the most offence under Section 306 IPC is made out and not offence under Section 304-B, IPC is made out.
17. It is further contended that appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of about three years in custody. So, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone
18. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
19. PW-6 Asha Rani and PW-7 Rajesh have supported the case of the prosecution regarding the demand of dowry articles. Both of them in one voice stated that Rs.5000/- were demanded by accused and thereafter another demand of Rs.100,000/- was made by the appellant. So, in these circumstances, prosecution has been able to prove beyond doubt that soon Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 7 before her death deceased Seema was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry articles at the hands of appellant.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Rajesh complainant himself has murdered his wife and as such his statement should not be accepted.
21. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
22. Mere fact that Rajesh is accused in a case under Section 302 IPC regarding the death of his wife is not sufficient to discard his sworn testimony. Moreover, Asha Rani (PW-6) has also supported the case of the prosecution. The defence version has been rightly discarded by the learned trial Court.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is delay of four hours in lodging the FIR and as such the prosecution story is doubtful.
24. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
25. The complainant party was living away and as such the delay of four hours cannot be said to be fatal.
26. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there was no injury mark on the person of deceased Seema and as such poisonous substance could not be said to be administered to Seema by the appellant.
Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 8
27. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
28. The appellant has not been convicted under Section 302 IPC if there would have been allegation of forcible administration of poisonous substance, the appellant would have been charged under Section 302 IPC and not under Section 304-B, IPC.
29. The trend of dowry deaths is increasing day by day and there could not be any witness in the in-laws family of the woman. The parliament in its wisdom enacted Section 304-B, IPC to curb the menace of dowry death at her in-laws house. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 has been enacted to overcome the said difficulty. It has been envisaged in the said provisions of law that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry, The court shall presume that the said person has caused the dowry death. So, it cannot be said that only offence under Section 306 IPC is made out.
30. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that sentence imposed by the trial Court is harsh. The appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of two years and eleven months and twenty five days as per conviction slip. The accused was stated to be suffered trial in FIR 7 of 1993 under Section 325 IPC PS Partap Nagar Delhi but has been shown to be acquitted as per conviction slip. There is no other case pending against him. He is facing trial since 1998 and has Criminal Appeal No.967 SB of 2002 9 suffered the agony of protected trial.
31. So, keeping in view the age of the appellant and the above circumstances the sentence of the appellant stands reduced to the rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years instead of ten years awarded by the trial Court.
32. The sentence of fine and imprisonment under Section 498-A, IPC stands affirmed.
33. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
September 11 , 2012 (K. C. PURI) sv JUDGE