Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar And Ors vs State on 5 April, 2019
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1037/2011
1. Vinod Kumar son of Shri Khyali Ram, by caste Kumhar,
resident of Chak 3 RWM, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh
(At present lodged in District Jail, Hanumangarh)
2. Khyali Ram son of Shri Gopi Ram, by caste Kumhar, resident
of Chak 3 RWM, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh
3. Smt. Manohari wife of shri Khyali Ram, by caste Kumhar,
resident of Chak 3 RWM, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Tarun Dhaka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bishnoi, P.P.
Mr. Pawan Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 05/04/2019 The appellants herein stand convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 09.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.4/2011.
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM)
(2 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011]
Name of the Offence for Sentence awarded
appellant-applicant which convicted
Vinod Kumar 498-A Two years' rigorous
imprisonment and a
Khyali Ram fine of Rs.500/- and in
default of payment of
Smt. Manohari fine, further to
undergo one month's
additional simple
imprisonment
304-B Life term
imprisonment
Vinod Kumar 406 IPC Two years' rigorous
imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.500/- and in
default of payment of
fine, further to
undergo one month's
additional simple
imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently except for those in default of fine.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences awarded, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC.
Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
The appellant Vinod Kumar was married to Smt. Kaushalya (deceased), daughter of Ramkaran (P.W.1), in the year 2007 and was living at her matrimonial home, i.e. the house of the appellants herein, located at Chak 3 RWM, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh. Smt. Kaushalya was admitted to the Government Hospital, Rawatsar in the night intervening 09.12.2010 and 10.12.2010 as it was suspected to be a case of poisoning. She expired while undergoing treatment, whereupon (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (3 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] the members of her maternal family were informed. Her father, Shri Ramkaran lodged a written report at the Police Station Rawatsar on 10.12.2010 at 11.15 am. alleging inter alia that his daughter Kaushalya had been married to Vinod Kumar S/o Khyali Ram 3 years ago as per Hindu customs. He had given wholesome dowry in the marriage. However, Kaushalya's matrimonial relatives were not satisfied with the articles given in the marriage. As a result, Smt. Kaushalya was being harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home right after her marriage. The accused were demanding a car and some cash and were harassing Smt. Kaushalya on that count. In May 2010, the first informant and his brother Dunni Ram went to the house of the accused and gave them a sum of Rs.50,000/- so that their greed would be satisfied and they would desist from their ill behaviour with Smt. Kaushalya. However, the accused did not mend their vile ways and continued to harass the girl. Panchayats were held on a couple of occasions, but to no avail and the accused did not relent from the misbehaviour meted to Smt. Kaushalya. On 09.12.2010, Shri Dunni Ram received a call of someone from the accused party from the hospital informing him that Kaushalya was suffering from abdominal cramps. He was made to talk to her. Dunni Ram felt that Kaushalya was talking in a subdued and frightened tone and that she was afraid of something. Kaushalya passed way at CHC Rawatsar on the same night. Vinod Kumar's grandfather informed the first informant of this unfortunate turn of events; upon which, the informant accompanying his other relatives reached Rawatsar Hospital and talked to the doctors, who informed him that Kaushalya had expired by Sulphos poisoning. Thus, alleging that the deceased was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (4 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] home on account of demand of dowry and that she had been forced to consume poison, the first informant prayed for registration of a case and to take appropriate action against the accused.
On the basis of this report, an FIR No.511/2010 was registered at the Police Station Rawatsar for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and investigation was commenced. All the three accused, i.e. Vinod Kumar, Khyali Ram and Smt. Manohari, were apprehended. The articles given by the complainant to the deceased at the time of marriage were recovered. The doctors conducted postmortem upon the body of the deceased and preserved the viscera and handed the same over to the Investigating Officer for examination thereof from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon conclusion of the investigation as warranted by law, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellants for the offences mentioned above. Since the offence under Section 304-B was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar for trial, where the charges were framed against the accused for these offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents in support of its case. When confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and took a defence that after the marriage of Smt. Kaushalya, it came to light that she was suffering from Tuberculosis, upon which, the accused got her treated for the same. Despite repeated attempts, she could not conceive, on account whereof, she became perturbed. The accused Vinod Kumar got her treated for this problem so that (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (5 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] Kaushalya could conceive, but all the efforts proved unfruitful. Smt. Kaushalya became mentally perturbed. She complained of abdominal cramps in the night time, on which, the accused took her to the hospital and got her admitted here. However, despite treatment, she could not survive. The maternal relatives of the deceased were informed. On these grounds, the accused submitted that the prosecution case was based on false allegations. Two witnesses, namely Dr. Renu Gupta and the accused Vinod Kumar himself were examined in defence.
After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal.
Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tarun Dhaka, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The accused never demanded any dowry from the deceased.
At the time of the marriage, the accused party were kept in dark of the fact that Smt. Kaushalya was suffering from Tuberculosis. Immediately on coming to know of this fact, the accused provided appropriate treatment to Smt. Kaushalya. Not only this, despite lapse of about 3 years from marriage, Smt. Kaushalya could not conceive, on which, the accused took her to consult numerous doctors. However, the treatment did not ameliorate the situation and thus, the deceased became frustrated and started taking treatment from quacks etc. in a desperate attempt to bear a child. However, all her efforts went in vain and ultimately being depressed by Tuberculosis as well as the failure to conceive, she took the extreme step of ending her own life by (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (6 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] consuming poison. Mr. Choudhary urged that there exist serious and grave contradictions inter se in the statements of the witnesses regarding the allegations of demand of dowry attributed to the accused. He urged that the accused Vinod Kumar himself is running a shop and was totally satisfied with his wife. As per Mr. Choudhary, almost all the material prosecution witnesses have admitted that the accused persons were so dependent on Smt. Kaushalya for day to day household affairs that they would not leave her at the maternal home for any substantial period. Referring to the statement of D.W.1 Dr. Renu Gupta, Mr. Choudhary urged that the doctor categorically affirmed in her testimony that Smt. Kaushalya was provided treatment in the years 2008-2009 for anxiety, neurosis etc. as well as Tuberculosis. Mr. Choudhary further urged that Vinod Kumar the accused himself stepped into the witness box and gave unflinching evidence regarding various medical, mental and other health issues of Smt. Kaushalya and of the efforts made by him to get her treated. He submitted that Vinod Kumar categorically denied in his examination-in-chief that he ever demanded dowry from Kaushalya or her maternal relatives and that they had given him a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He contended that hardly any cross- examination was made from Vinod Kumar in this regard. In light of this pertinent testimony given by Vinod Kumar as a defence witness without any substantial cross-examination by the prosecution that either he or his parents, harassed or humiliated the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon before her death, the prosecution case has to fail. He, thus, contended that the prosecution failed to lead appropriate and satisfactory evidence so as to bring home the charges against the accused (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (7 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] appellants; the defence has given positive evidence falsifying the charges and thus, the accused deserve to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Pawan Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel and urged that Smt. Kaushalya was married to Vinod Kumar just 3 years before her unnatural death by poisoning in the matrimonial home. As per them, the material prosecution witnesses including the father, mother and uncles of the deceased have given convincing and harmonious evidence for proving the case that the accused appellants harassed and humiliated Smt. Kaushalya in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry right from her marriage and till her unnatural death by poisoning. They contended that despite the lengthy cross-examination conducted by the defence from the material prosecution witnesses, nothing significant could be elicited, which could diminish the evidentiary worth of their statements. They, thus, implored the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar; perused the impugned judgment and have carefully sifted and re-appreciated the evidence available on record. The following facts can be considered as well- established from the evidence available on record :
1. That the deceased Smt. Kaushalya was married to the accused Vinod Kumar about 3 years before her unnatural death by poisoning in the matrimonial home on 10.12.2010. (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM)
(8 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011]
2. That the deceased was suffering from Tuberculosis and was not able to conceive even though the accused were providing her treatment for these issues.
3. That the deceased had also been provided treatment for anxiety and neurosis, which she developed during the course of these three years.
Now we proceed to evaluate the evidence available on record in light of the submissions advanced by the defence as well as by the prosecution counsel.
P.W.1 Ramkaran, being the father of the deceased Smt. Kaushalya, is the most significant witness, who stepped into the witness box for proving the charges against the accused. In his examination-in-chief, Ramkaran repeated the allegations made in the FIR and in addition thereto, he made some improvements/contradictions more particularly regarding the instances of demand of dowry and the harassment meted out to the deceased on that account. These significant improvements/contradictions, which have surfaced in the statement of Ramkaran are enumerated hereinbelow :-
1. That after a month of her marriage, Smt. Kaushalya started complaining that the accused were harassing her on account of demand of dowry and were asking for car and cash.
2. That Smt. Kaushalya came to her maternal house just a few days before her death and on that occasion also, she complained that the accused used to harass and humiliate her and she was not being given enough to eat.
3. That he gave a motorcycle, fridge, colour T.V., double-bed, gold ornaments etc. in the marriage.
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM)
(9 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011]
The witness was confronted with these
improvements/contradictions with reference to the written report (Ex.P/1) and the 161 CrPC statement (Ex.D/1), to which he replied that he could not say as to why these allegations were not set out in his previous versions. The salient features, which can be culled out upon a threadbare evaluation of the cross-
examination of this witness, are enumerated hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :
1. That it is not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/1) that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was specifically given to "Vinod Kumar, Khyali Ram and Manohari".
2. That Vinod Kumar participated in the marriage of the son of the witness, namely, Amar Singh, as well as his brothers-in-law Rajesh and Rajendra.
3. The witness was also confronted with the defence theory regarding Kaushalya suffering from Tuberculosis and the accused providing her treatment thereof. However, the witness denied the same.
4. He was also asked a pertinent question as to wherefrom he procured the sum of Rs.50,000/-, on which, he replied that he brought the same from Aadhatiya.
Witness Shankar Lal (P.W.2) was the facilitator of the marriage of Vinod Kumar with Kaushalya. He alleged that the accused were dissatisfied with the items given in the dowry at the time of marriage of Kaushalya with Vinod Kumar. He approached the accused and asked them not to maltreat Kaushalya, but they did not take his advice in the right spirit. In cross-examination, (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (10 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] the witness was confronted with numerous contradictions and improvements appearing inter se in his sworn testimony vis-a-vis his previous statement to the police Ex.D/2, particularly regarding the assertion that Ramkaran told him that the accused were demanding a car and cash by way of dowry. The witness feigned ignorance and claimed that he had stated so to the police.
Smt. Keshar Devi (P.W.3) is the mother of Smt. Kaushalya. In her examination-in-chief, she also alleged that after a month of the marriage with Vinod Kumar, Kaushalya complained to her that she was being harassed and humiliated by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law owing to demand of a car and cash. On this, her husband and her Jeth Hethram went to the house of the accused and requested them to refrain from their ill behaviour with Kaushalya. On the previous Deepawali, Kaushalya called her and complained of the maltreatment, upon which she went to the matrimonial home of Kaushalya with her son Amar Singh. The witness talked to the accused and requested them to mend their ways and not to maltreat the girl. Five days before the incident, she and her son went to drop off Kaushalya at the matrimonial home. At that time, she laid down her Odhani at the feet of Kaushalya's mother-in-law and requested that her daughter should be kept happily in matrimonial home. In cross- examination, the witness stated that Shankar Lal, who facilitated the marriage told them that the boy was B.A. and B.Ed. qualified. Her daughter was 10th passed and was desirous of studying further. The accused were a well to do family of agriculturists. They were having bovine animals with them and employed numerous Kashtkars to do the farming jobs. Her daughter used to (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (11 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] prepare food for all the family members. She had fixed betrothal of her youngest daughter Meera. When the boy's family came to see Meera, Kaushalya had been called to the parental home. At that time, they did not call Vinod Kumar. Twelve days after Meera's marriage had been fixed, Kaushalya passed away. Kaushalya had suggested that she would stay back and help in the work required for Meera's marriage, but two-three days later, Vinod Kumar called and requested that Kaushalya should be sent back because they could not manage the household affairs without her. On this, Kaushalya was sent back to matrimonial home. Upon a pointed query in the cross-examination, the witness stated that it is a custom in their families that a girl is not kept with mother-in-law during the month of Shrawan. Kaushalya had been called to parental home a few days before onset of Shrawan month and she stayed at their house for whole of the month. However, before Rakshabandhan, Vinod Kumar called and requested that his sister and brother-in-law had come and thus, Kaushalya should be sent to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, Vinod Kumar came in the morning and took Kaushalya with him. On that day, they gave some clothes and a sum of Rs.200/- to Vinod Kumar and likewise, clothes etc. were given to Kaushalya as well. During Shrawan month, Vinod did not come to their house, but used to call. After Shrawan month, Kaushalya went back to matrimonial home and stayed there for two months. The witness agreed to the defence suggestion that the matrimonial relatives did not permit long stays by Kaushalya at the paternal home and always used to say that they could not manage without her. Questions were put to the witness regarding (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (12 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] various wedding and other social celebrations, which took place in her family after marriage of Kaushalya with Vinod and she agreed that in most of these functions, Vinod and Kaushalya used to participate and that Vinod Kumar would take Kaushalya back to the matrimonial home after the functions were over. A pertinent question was put to the witness that Vinod's sister passed away while delivering a child a year before the death of Kaushalya. She agreed to this suggestion and stated that she alongwith her relatives went to offer their condolences at the house of Vinod on this occasion. When Vinod's sister expired, Kaushalya was at the paternal home. However, she was sent back to the matrimonial home on hearing of her Nanad's death. Kaushalya was not sent to the paternal home on Holi because Vinod insisted that it was not possible to manage the family affairs in her absence. Five months before Kaushalya's death, the mother of the witness (Kaushalya's Nani) passed away, on which, Kaushalya came to her house. She stayed for a period of 15 days, during which, Vinod Kumar regularly called and requested that she should be sent back as the family affairs could not be managed in her absence. The witness admitted that on numerous occasions, when Kaushalya came to the maternal home, Vinod would call her back very soon insisting that the family affairs could not be managed in her absence. The witness was confronted with numerous improvements appearing in her sworn testimony in her examination-in-chief vis-a-vis her police statement (Ex.D/3), but she could not explain the same. Pertinent questions were put to the witness whether Kaushalya was treated for infertility. She stated that Kaushalya suffered couple of abortions. Vinod Kumar got her treated on few of these (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (13 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] occasions, whereas on other occasions, she was taken to the doctors by the witness. The witness denied about the illness of Tuberculosis, with which Kaushalya was suffering. She denied the suggestion that Kaushalya was under mental stress because of these ailments. She feigned ignorance about the fact whether the deceased was also treated by Dr. Renu Gupta (D.W.1).
Dunni Ram (P.W.4) is the uncle of the deceased. He also gave evidence on similar lines to that of Ramkaran, the first informant (P.W.1). He too was confronted with numerous contradictions and omissions appearing in his police statement (Ex.D/4). However, the witness could not explain the same.
Hasan Ali (P.W.5), was the driver of the jeep No.RJ-09- C-603. He stated that Vinod Kumar engaged him to take a woman to the Rawatsar hospital. The learned Public Prosecutor confronted the witness with his previous statement.
Hansraj (P.W.6) was posted as Malkhana Incharge at the Police Station Rawatsar. He gave evidence regarding deposition of various samples collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and forwarding thereof to the FSL with Constable Begraj.
Pawan Kumar (P.W.7), posted as Circle Officer, Rawatsar at the relevant point of time. He was assigned the investigation of the case. He conducted the necessary investigation as per law, arrested the accused and recovered the dowry articles. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that while preparing the Surat Haal Lash, he noticed that numerous ornaments were present on the dead body of Smt. Kaushalya. (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM)
(14 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011]
Balram (P.W.8) and Gurteg Singh (P.W.9) were
examined to prove the factum of Panchayat proceedings held inter se between the parties. The witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.
Ranveer Singh (P.W.10) was posted as SHO at the Police Station Rawatsar at the relevant point of time. He registered the FIR and thereafter handed the file to the Circle Officer Shri Hansraj for further investigation. He filed charge- sheet after the investigation had been carried out by the Circle Officer.
Dr. Hanuman (P.W.11) was a member of the medical board, which conducted postmortem upon the body of Smt. Kaushalya. He issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/19), wherein the cause of death is opined to be Asphyxia. However, final opinion was reserved for receipt of FSL Report. In cross- examination, the witness admitted that he did not notice any kind of injury marks on the dead body. The witness was recalled and proved the FSL Report (Ex.P/25), wherein the presence of aluminum phosphide is noted.
Begraj (P.W.12) was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Rawatsar. He carried the Malkhana articles to the FSL and he gave evidence regarding transit of the Malkhana articles from the Police Station Rawatsar to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur.
Gopi Ram (P.W.13), is the father of Khyali Ram. He did not support the prosecution case in his evidence and was declared hostile.
Hetram (P.W.14) is the uncle of the deceased. He gave evidence on the same lines as that of Ramkaran (P.W.1) and Dunni (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (15 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] Ram (P.W.4). He too was confronted with his previous police statement (Ex.D/11) and the material omissions and contradictions appearing in his examination-in-chief.
Dr. Renu Gupta (D.W.1) was posted as the Medical Officer, Government Hospital Rawatsar alongwith her husband Dr. Ganesh Agrawal. She proved various medical reports, OPD slips etc. pertaining to the treatment provided to Smt. Kaushalya. She categorically stated that the deceased was suffering from stress, anxiety, neurosis etc. on account of Tuberculosis also because she was not able to conceive.
Vinod Kumar, the accused himself, appeared as defence witness D.W.2. In his statement, he gave categoric testimony to the effect that after his marriage with Kaushalya, he came to know that his wife was suffering from Tuberculosis, upon which, he got her treated at the Government Hospital, Rawatsar. Kaushalya was of weak physical constitution and she was also unable to conceive, on which, he consulted Dr. Renu Gupta. Because of her ailment of Tuberculosis and being unable to conceive, Kaushalya was always perturbed. She was also provided treatment by Dr. Prerana Rathore at Mahaveer Hospital. He proved various prescriptions etc., under which Smt. Kaushalya was provided treatment. The witness categorically stated that Kaushalya suffered abdominal cramps, on which he and his parents immediately rushed her to the Rawatsar hospital. Her maternal relatives were informed. She was made to talk to her uncle Dunni Ram. Vinod Kumar affirmatively stated that neither he nor his parents ever made any kind of demand from his matrimonial relatives and that they never took the amount of Rs.50,000/-. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that in (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (16 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] addition to getting Kaushalya treated at the Mahaveer Hospital, Hanumangarh for her infertility, he also got himself medically examined. He stated that Dr. Prerana Rathore gave an opinion that there was some problem in the uterus of Kaushalya. General questions were put to the witness regarding the treatment provided to Kaushalya for Tuberculosis. The prosecutor gave a suggestion to Vinod Kumar that he and his parents started demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Maruti car from Kaushalya and that she was being harassed and humiliated on this count. The witness denied the said suggestion. The witness also denied the suggestion that Kaushalya's father and uncle came to his house in May 2010 and gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- and that the harassment being meted to Kaushalya continued even thereafter. The accused also denied the suggestion that Kaushalya consumed poison because she was fed up by the harassment meted out to her at the matrimonial home.
The learned trial court after hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence available on record, proceeded to hold that the evidence of material prosecution witnesses Ramkaran (P.W.1), Keshar Devi (P.W.3), Dunni Ram (P.W.4) and Het Ram (P.W.14) was sufficient to prove the fact that the accused harassed and humiliated Smt. Kaushalya in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry soon before her unnatural death. It was further held that Smt. Kaushalya ended her life by consuming poison within three years of her marriage with Vinod Kumar and accordingly, raising the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above.
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM)
(17 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] We now proceed to evaluate the evidence in light of the rival contentions advanced at bar. Upon an over all appreciation of the evidence available on record, it cannot be denied that Kaushalya was suffering from Tuberculosis even before her marriage with the accused Vinod Kumar and in all likelihood, the matrimonial relatives might have concealed this fact. However, the accused did not raise any issue in this regard and instead, got Smt. Kaushalya treated for Tuberculosis. It is also an admitted position as emerging from the evidence of witnesses Ramkaran (P.W.1) and Keshar Devi (P.W.3) (father and mother of the deceased) that despite a period of three years having gone by since the marriage of Kaushalya with the accused appellant Vinod Kumar, she was not able to conceive. The mother even admitted that Smt. Kaushalya suffered abortions on a couple of occasions. Ramkaran as well as Smt. Keshar Devi admitted in their cross- examination that the accused would not allow Kaushalya to remain in the paternal home for long periods saying that it was difficult for them to manage the family affairs and household chores suffered in her absence. The family of the accused is an agriculturist family. As per the prosecution witnesses Ramkaran (P.W.1) and Shankar Lal (P.W.2), the accused owned significant agricultural properties and also owned cattle etc. It was also admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the accused have engaged seeris on share basis to do the agricultural jobs. However, the duty of preparing food and the other household chores was that of Smt. Kaushalya. Evidently looking to the fact that Kaushalya was suffering from Tuberculosis, it cannot be denied that for her to keep up with all these energy sapping jobs would be a difficult call. Smt. Keshar Devi (P.W.3), mother of the (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (18 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] deceased, stated in her examination-in-chief that she laid down her Odhani at the feet of the accused Smt. Manohari and requested that Kaushalya should be kept in matrimonial home. Apparently looking to the clear admissions appearing in the cross- examination of this witness that the accused would not allow Kaushalya to be kept at the paternal home and always called her back after a few days citing her presence to be indispensable for the family affairs, the theory put forth by the prosecution that there was a chance that Smt. Kaushalya would be turned out of the matrimonial home, falls flat on its face. In the FIR (Ex.P/1), omnibus allegations have been set out that the accused were not happy with the articles given by way of dowry. However, description of the articles given in marriage is not set out in the FIR. The pertinent allegation of the prosecution in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the material witnesses is that the accused were demanding a car and cash by way of dowry and failure to meet this demand resulted into harassment being meted out to the deceased. However, in the FIR, there is a pertinent lack of allegation regarding the deceased having been harassed or humiliated for demand of dowry soon before her death. It is an admitted position emerging from the statement of Ramkaran (P.W.1) and Keshar Devi (P.W.3) that 10 days before the death of Smt. Kaushalya, her brother Amar Singh had left her back at the matrimonial home. What transpired at that point of time would be in the exclusive knowledge of Amar Singh, who was not examined by the prosecution. The accused have set up a specific case in cross-examination as well as in the defence evidence that the marriage of Amar Singh was facilitated by Vinod Kumar. In this background, evidence of Amar Singh was indispensable, if the (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (19 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] prosecution was to prove the allegation that the accused had demanded any dowry or meted out any harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that in cross-examination conducted from Smt. Keshar Devi, it is clearly elicited that Vinod Kumar participated in all the family functions held at the house of the complainant party with Smt. Kaushalya. There is hardly any allegation whatsoever of the prosecution witnesses that Vinod Kumar showed reluctance or hesitation in participation on the ground that his demands were not being satisfied. Had there been an iota of truth in the allegation of the prosecution witnesses that Vinod Kumar and his parents were indulging in demand of dowry from the deceased, apparently, Vinod Kumar would not have so freely and readily participated in the functions organized in the complainant's family. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the allegations set up by the prosecution witnesses in their testimony regarding the deceased having been harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry are totally exaggerated and were made by way of the natural reaction of the family members on account of losing a near one. Various admissions and answers elicited in the cross- examination of Ramkaran (P.W.1), Keshari Devi (P.W.3), Dunni Ram (P.W.4) and Het Ram (P.W.14) referred to supra are sufficient to satisfy the court that the prosecution theory regarding the deceased having been harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry is sheer exaggeration unworthy of acceptance. Apparently, the deceased, who was suffering from Tuberculosis and was also unsuccessful in conceiving, was frustrated and had developed symptoms of (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (20 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] anxiety and neurosis. From the prescription slips (Ex.D/5 to Ex.D/10) and the evidence of Dr. Renu Gupta (D.W.1), it is abundantly clear that the accused Vinod Kumar left no stone unturned to get his wife Smt. Kaushalya treated for her infertility as well as for illness of Tuberculosis. Furthermore, the pressure of household chores seems to have afflicted the deceased, who was of a weak physical constitution and as a consequence, she was probably unable to cope therewith. It clearly appears that a melt down of all these circumstances resulted into the deceased becoming utterly despondent and took the unfortunate extreme step of ending of her own life by consuming poison. The fact that the accused immediately took the deceased to the hospital soon after she complained of abdominal cramps is also sufficient to satisfy the court that the allegations of her being maltreated in the matrimonial home are not reliable.
As a result of the above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence available on record in a just and apropos manner for reaching to a conclusion of guilt against the accused. The findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment are not supported by cogent clinching evidence and as such, the accused deserve to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
As an upshot of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 09.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.4/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The accused Khyali Ram and Manohari are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. The accused Vinod Kumar (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM) (21 of 21) [CRLA-1037/2011] is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437- A CrPC, each of the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:31:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)