Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Karan vs State Of Haryana on 3 February, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001
Date of decision: 03.02.2011
Raj Karan
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
****
PRESENT: Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
****
JORA SINGH, J.
Raj Karan preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 3.9.2001 and order of sentence dated 6.9.2001, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2000, arising out of FIR No. 219 dated 6.10.1999, registered under Sections 304-B/498-A, of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC and sentenced as under:
CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -2-
1. Under Section 304-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. Under Section 498-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
Co-accused namely Nand Kaur and Saroj, were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Against acquittal no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Anguri Devi-complainant, (PW-5), is the mother of Bhateri (deceased). Bhateri was married with Raj Karan and the marriage was solemnized on 15.6.1993. Sufficient dowry was given by her father as per his status. Bhateri gave birth to one son from the loins of Raj Karan. After some time of the marriage, Raj Karan, Nand Kaur and Saroj started harassing her badly for want of dowry. They were demanding television. Bhateri was also physically harassed. Whenever Bhateri came to her parents then told her parents, Dayanand and Mool Chand that her in-laws used to misbehave and maltreat her for want of dowry. They are demanding television. Matter was reported to the Sarpanch of the village but even after that accused used to demand television. Bhateri was sent to her in-laws house but CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -3- there was no change in the behaviour of Raj Karan and his family members. Later on her (complainant) husband Jeet Ram had died. Bhim Singh, Lambardar informed the complainant that on the previous night Bhateri had died. On receipt of information, complainant along with her brother-in-law Dayanand, Ranjit Singh and Narain, had gone to Civil Hosptial, Sonepat. In the hospital, statement of Anguri Devi, Ex. PD was recorded. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Inquest report Ex. PJ, was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. After post mortem examination dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. Clothes worn by the deceased were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PG, attested by the witnesses. After inspecting the spot, rough site plan Ex. PK, was prepared.
Raj Karan was arrested on 13.10.1999 and on the next day i.e. on 14.10.1999, he had suffered disclosure statement Ex. PH and in pursuance of the disclosure statement got recovered 'Parna' (piece of cloth/scarf) from the specified place and the same was made into sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PE/1, attested by the witnesses. Case property was deposited with the incharge of the malkhana. After receipt of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 304-B/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -4-
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Constable Inder Pal, had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PA.
PW-2 Constable Bijender Singh and Constable Sis Pal tendered their affidavits Ex. PB and Ex. PC, respectively.
PW-3 MHC Kuldeep Singh, on receipt of ruqa Ex. PD, had recorded formal FIR Ex. PD/1 and also tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PE.
PW-5 Anguri Devi, complainant stated on oath that her daughter Bhateri was married with Raj Karan but she cannot tell whether dowry was given at the time of marriage or not. Her husband might have given dowry. After marriage, accused did not demand anything. Anguri Devi, was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
PW-6 Mool Chand, is the uncle of the deceased but he has also not supported the prosecution story and was cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
PW-7 Ranjit Singh, had identified the dead body.
PW-8 Constable Rajbir, stated that he was with the Investigating Officer. He got conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bhateri. He further stated that Raj Karan was interrogated on 14.10.1999 and had suffered a disclosure statement. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, Ex. PH got recovered Parna (scarf) from the specified place. Scarf was made into sealed parcel with the seal bearing impression 'MS' and sealed parcel was taken into CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -5- police possession vide memo Ex. PH/1, attested by him.
PW-9 SI Mohinder Singh, stated that on 6.10.1999, while on patrol duty along with other officals, he was present near Civil Hospital, Sonepat, then statement of complainant Anguri Devi, Ex. PD, was recorded. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. After going to Civil Hospital, Sonepat, photographer was arranged. Photographs of the dead body were got clicked. Inquest report Ex. PJ, was prepared. Dead body was handed over to police official for post mortem examination. Raj Karan was arrested on 13.10.1999 and on 14.10.1999, he was interrogated. As per disclosure statement Ex. PH got recovered Parna (cloth piece), from the specified place. Parna was made into sealed parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression 'MS' and the sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PH/1 attested by him also.
PW-10 Dr. R.N. Tehlan, stated that on 6.10.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. He had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bhateri and found following injuries:
"1. There was a contusion reddish in colour 5 x 1 cm just above the left clavicle.
2. There was contusion 2.5 x 2 cm at left clavicle area middle part.
3. Contusion front of the neck of size 1.2 x 0.5 cm reddish in colour.
4. Two contusion of sizes 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm and 0.4 x 0.2 cm on the left side of bridge of the CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -6- nose.
5. There was contusion of size 6 x 5 cm on the back right side of the scapular area on cut section s/c tissue muscle contained altered blood.
6. Lips were contused and swollen (lower lip)."
Cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. As per report of Chemical Examiner, Ex. PN, poison (aluminium phosphite) was detected.
PW-11 Bharat Ram Sharma, stated that Bhateri, daughter of Anguri Devi was known to him. He has not supported the prosecution story and was declared hostile.
PW-12 Daya Nand, uncle of the deceased stated that Bhateri was married with Raj Karan. Bhateri told him that Raj Karan was demanding television and gave beatings to her. He and his brother (Jeet Ram) had sent Bhateri to her matrimonial house. After six months she was murdered. On receipt of information they had gone to Civil Hospital, Sonepat and on the next day report was lodged.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated because his in-laws wanted to grab money lying deposited in the name Bhateri.
Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence but no CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -7- defence evidence was led.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from perusal of evidence available on file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that Bhateri (deceased) was the legally wedded wife of the appellant. Marriage was performed on 15.6.1993 and from this wedlock there was one minor son. Marriage was simple. Allegation of the prosecution was that after marriage appellant used to maltreat and misbehave the deceased for want to dowry but no cogent and convincing evidence on the file that the appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Anguri Devi, is the mother of the deceased but she did not support the prosecution story. Allegation of Anguri Devi, was that in the presence of Mool Chand and Bharat Ram Sharma, Bhateri (deceased) had told that appellant used to maltreat her for want of dowry. Anguri Devi appeared as PW-5, Mool Chand appeared as PW-6 whereas Bharat Ram Sharma, appeared as PW-11, but they have not supported the prosecution story. Daya Nand PW-12, is the uncle of the deceased but in view of the statements of Anguri Devi, Mool Chand and Bharat Ram Sharma, statement of Daya Nand is without any evidentiary value and not safe to opine that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for want of dowry. Cruelty or harassment was soon before the death. At the time of occurrence, appellant was not present in the house. He was on duty. According to CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -8- the disclosure statement, parna (scarf) was got recovered. If the appellant had murdered the deceased then there was no idea to keep the scarf on the peg (Killa). Without recording disclosure statement scarf could easily be recovered on search of the house. Recovery of scarf was converted into discovery.
Learned State counsel argued that in the month of June, 1993, deceased was married with the appellant. Occurrence was on the intervening night of 5/6.10.1999. Un-natural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage. Appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry and this fact is clear from the statement of PW-12 Daya Nand, uncle of the deceased. Anguri Devi, Mool Chand and Bharat Ram Sharma, failed to support the prosecution story because they have effected compromise with the appellant. Anguri Devi is a widow. Deceased has one son. Appellant is to maintain the son. Anguri Devi, being widow was not in a position to maintain the son of the deceased. This was the reason why Anguri Devi, Mool Chand and Bharat Ram Sharma, have not supported the prosecution story. Death was at the in-laws house. Appellant was not in a position to explain how poison (aluminum phosphite) was detected. Number of injuries were noticed on the person of deceased. No case of the appellant that deceased had committed suicide. When deceased was happy at her in-laws house then there was no reason to commit suicide. If deceased had committed suicide then no question of strangulation or injuries. After consuming poison and self-suffering or self inflicting injuries deceased was not expected to commit suicide. If deceased had committed suicide then who had shifted the deceased to CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -9- the hospital.
In fact appellant gave injuries to the deceased. Poison was administered. To create defence dead body was shifted to the hospital but no defence that who had shifted the deceased to the hospital. According to defence version, appellant was on duty but no record of the factory is on the file that at the relevant time appellant was on duty. According to defence version, he (appellant) was falsely implicated because complainant party wanted to grab the payment lying deposited in the name of the deceased but no documentary evidence on the file that as to whether any amount was lying deposited in the name of the deceased. When the appellant failed to prove the defence version then under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, presumption is that death was a dowry death and appellant was rightly convicted by the trial Court.
Undisputedly, Bhateri, is the daughter of Anguri Devi- complainant. She (complainant) appeared as PW-5 and stated that in the month of June, 1993, deceased was married with the appellant and from this wedlock there is one issue. According to the prosecution story, appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before the death in connection with the demand of dowry whereas defence version of the appellant is that he was falsely implicated in this case because complainant party wanted to grab the payment lying deposited in the name of the deceased. Now, the question is whether defence version inspires confidence or prosecution story seems to be more probable than the defence version?
Anguri Devi, PW-5, in examination-in-chief, stated that her CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -10- daughter Bhateri was married with Raj Karan but she cannot tell whether dowry was given or not at the time of marriage. Her husband might have given dowry. Anguri Devi, did not state a word that at the time of marriage no dowry was given. She further stated that after marriage appellant did not demand anything. She was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned PP for the State. Ex. PD, is the statement of Anguri Devi, before the police. According to the statement, deceased had disclosed to her mother that appellant was demanding television and used to torture her for want of dowry. She was confronted with her statement. Anguri Devi, failed to support the prosecution story because she has effected compromise with the appellant. She is a widow and has no source of income. Minor son of the deceased is with the appellant and in case appellant is convicted then she was not in a position to maintain the minor son. This was the reason why Anguri Devi, had not supported the prosecution story. Mool Chand and Bharat Ram Sharma are the witnesses in whose presence deceased had disclosed to her mother that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat her for want of dowry. They also failed to support the prosecution story because they effected compromise with the appellant. Anguri Devi, Mool Chand and Bharat Ram Sharma, are not the eye- witnesses. When they came to know about the incident then they had gone to Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Statement of Anguri Devi, Ex. PD was recorded by the police party. When the complainant came to know about the un-natural death then immediately matter was brought to the notice of the police. Nothing on the file that Bhateri remained admitted in the hospital for number of days and after stay of number of days in CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -11- the hospital she had succumbed to her injuries. Her death was due to poison. In that case something could be said if Anguri Devi would have reported to the police that whenever Bhateri came then she used to inform her that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat her for want of dowry. If statement of the complainant would have been recorded after few days of the incident then the learned defence counsel was right to argue that after the death story was concocted, with the allegation that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Immediately, after the death when the complainant party came to know about the incident, the matter was brought to the notice of the police but while appearing in the Court complainant and the witnesses did not support the prosecution story because minor son of the deceased is with the appellant. Appellant is to maintain him. If the appellant goes to jail then Anguri Devi being widow was not in a position to maintain the son because she has no source of income. Prosecution story is not to be ignored if Anguri Devi, Mool Chand and Bharat Ram Sharma, did not support the prosecution story.
Dayanand is the uncle of the deceased and while appearing in the Court as PW-12, stated that Bhateri was married with the appellant. She told to him about the demand of television by the appellant. She also reported that she was given beatings by the appellant. Bhateri was made to understand and sent to her in-laws house. After six months Bhateri was murdered. When they came to know about the occurrence then they had gone to Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Dead body was lying in the hospital. Next day matter was reported to the police. So from the statement of Dayanand, one thing is CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -12- clear that the appellant was demanding television and used to beat the deceased for want of dowry. Father of Bhateri had died 5/6 years after her marriage. Six months earlier to the occurrence deceased had informed Dayanand regarding the demand of television and beating by the appellant.
Dr. R.N. Telhan, had conducted post-mortem examination on 6.10.1999. Six injuries were noticed on the person of deceased. All were contusions. Most of the injuries were around the neck. One injury was on the left side bridge of the nose and one injury was on the backside of the right scapular area. Cause of death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. No suggestion to the doctor that injuries could be self-suffered or self-inflicted. Report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PN, is on the file and as per report poison (aluminium phosphite) was detected. Marriage was in the month of June, 1993 and un-natural death at the in-laws house on the intervening night of 5/6.10.1999, that means un-natural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage.
Defence version of the appellant was that false implication because the complainant party was intending to grab the payment lying deposited in the account of the deceased but no documentary evidence on the file that any payment was lying deposited in the account of the deceased. Second allegation of the appellant was that at the time of alleged occurrence he was on duty but no record of the factory was summoned to show that at the relevant time appellant was on duty. Nothing on the file as to what was the distance of the place of occurrence from the factory where the appellant was employed. No CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -13- suggestion to any witness that deceased was not keeping good health and due to frustration she had committed suicide. No suggestion to the doctor that the death was suicidal. According to post mortem report and report of the Chemical Examiner, death was homicidal. No explanation by the appellant as to who was present in the house at the time of occurrence. When the injuries noticed by the doctor cannot be self- suffered or self-inflicted then question is who had caused injuries. Poison was also detected. No explanation from the side of the appellant as to whether the deceased had consumed poisonous substance or somebody else had administered poisonous substance. No case of the appellant that after consuming poisonous substance deceased self-suffered injuries and had committed suicide. Earlier to the present occurrence as per defence version there was no enmity that means the deceased was happily staying at her in-laws house. In case deceased was happily staying at her in-laws house and there was no altercation amongst them then there was no idea to commit suicide particularly when she had one minor son. After administering poisonous substance and strangulating the wife it is very easy for the husband to say that he was on duty and was not present in the house. When un-natural death at the in-laws house then husband was to explain how un-natural death. Appellant was expected to remain silent. He can deny all the allegations of the prosecution but once appellant had taken defence that complainant party wanted to grab the payment lying deposited in the name of the deceased, that is why false implication or he was on duty then he was to lead defence evidence in support of his defence version. When no amount was lying deposited in CRA-S-1052-SB of 2001 -14- the account of the deceased then I am of the opinion that false defence was taken. Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, presumption is that death was dowry death and under Section 304-B IPC appellant is liable for the punishment.
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed.
Appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the concerned authority to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, failing which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, is directed to issue re-arrest warrant of the appellant to undergo remaining period of imprisonment.
February 03, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE