Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ajai Kumar And Ors. on 13 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ3926
Author: M.C. Jain
Bench: M.C. Jain, Onkareshwar Bhatt
JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. State of U.P. has lodged this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21-1-1998 passed by Sri M. A. Khan, the then Sessions Judge Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1989. The four accused-respondents-Ajai Kumar, Shiv Swaroop, Anil Kumar Gupta and Smt. Sangeeta have been acquitted of the charges of Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused-respondent No. 3-Anil Kumar Gupta is the husband of the deceased-Poonam, whereas accused-respondent No. 1 -Ajai Kumar is the younger brother of the former. Accused-respondent No. 2 Shiv Swaroop is the father-in-law of the deceased-Poonam and the accused-respondent No. 4 Sangeeta is the sister of the husband of the deceased.
2. The facts necessary to be stated for the decision of the appeal may be related. The incident took place in between the night of 6/7th June, 1988 in Mohalla Kambalwala Bagh within Police Station New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar and the report was lodged on 7-6-1988 at 8.50 a.m. by Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1, father of the unfortunate victim of this felony. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about 1/2 Km. The parents of the victim resided at Khatauli, a town nearby Muzaffarnagar. The complainant's-daughter Poonam was married to Anil Kumar on 20-4-1987. Just after the marriage, the four accused-respondents allegedly started torturing her to bring more dowry. She was subjected to repeated beatings. She gave birth to a male child about four months before the occurrence and then the accused-respondents started demanding VCR as also Rs. 20,000/- in cash. The complainant was not in a position to fulfil this demand. It caused annoyance to the accused-respondents who threatened the victim of dire consequences and subjected her to increased cruelty. On 6th June, 1988 at about 11 a.m. the victim telephoned to her relation Ram Kumar Vaish P.W. 2 at Muzaffarnagar complaining about her torture and requested him to see her. Ram Kumar Vaish P.W. 2 reached her house in the evening. He heard shrieks of Poonam issuing from the house. Her husband Anil Kumar, Anil Kumar's brother Ajay Kumar and sister were shouting inside the house loudly. Ram Kumar Vaish P.W. 2 rang the bell evoking Anil Kumar to come out, but he did not allow him to meet Poonam. Ram Kumar Vaish told the complainant about all this at Khatauli at about 10 p.m. Then in the early morning on 7-6-1988 at about 7 a.m. the complainant along with his sons Alok and Atul and Ram Kumar Vaish P.W. 2 reached the house of accused-respondents but no one was present there. The neighbours told them that in the night accused-Anil, his brother and sister had taken Poonam to the hospital when her condition was serious and she was crying "MUJHE JAHAR DEKAR MARR DIYA." On reaching the District Hospital, they came to know that Poonam had breathed her last and her dead body was lying there. No one of her in-laws was to be found in the hospital.
3. Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 (father of the victim) then lodged the F.I.R. whereupon a case was registered and investigation started at the hands of S.H.O. Shyam Singh Tomar P.W. 8.
4. It is not disputed that the victim was admitted in the District Hospital on 7-6-1988 at 1 a.m. as a case of suspected poisoning by her husband Anil Gupta (deceased). Dr. N. C. Tyagi P.W. 7 had examined her. Her general condition was very low. Pulse was not palpable and B.P. not recordable. She was gasping and pupils were dilated. Pungent smell from mouth was present, heart sound was very feeble and she was unconscious. She had breathed her last at 1.40 a.m. The dead body, after completion of formalities was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Suresh Chandra P.W. 5 on 7-6-1988 at 4 p.m. She was aged about 24 years. The body was of average built. Rigor mortis had passed through neck and was present in the rest of the body. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person :
1. Multiple pin-pointed abrasions with pin-pointed spots in an area of 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the dorsum of right big toe just behind the base of nail.
2. Multiple pin-point abrasions with pinpoint bleeding (clotted) spots on the dorsum of 4th toe just behind the base of nail.
3. Multiple pin-point abrasions with clotted blood on the dorsum of left great toe just-behind the nail.
4. Multiple pin-point abrasions in an area of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the front of left greater toe nail.
5. Multiple pin-pointed abrasions with clotted blood in front of nail of left 4th toe.
6. Multiple pin-pointed abrasions with clotted blood in front of left 4th toe.
7. Multiple pin-pointed abrasions with clotted blood in front of left 3rd toe.
5. The cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. As per the report of the Serologist, viscera contained insecticide poison.
6. The accused-respondents having been booked after conclusion of investigation were put to trial. The defence was of denial and of suicide having been committed by the lady.
7. Besides relying on documentary evidence, 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution whereas the accused-respondents also produced two witnesses in their defence. Vijendra Pal Singh D.W. 1 was handwriting and fingerprint expert while K. K. Upadhyay D.W. 2 was an employee of Central Bank of India, Khurja. Certain documents/letters were also relied upon by both the sides.
8. We have heard Sri M. C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. and Sri V. P. Shrivastava appearing for the complainant. From the side of the accused-respondents arguments have been advanced by Sri R. N. Sharma.
9. The submission from the side of the State and the complainant is that the trial Court recorded acquittal on the basis of conjectures and surmises, ignoring the trustworthy evidence adduced by the prosecution as to the demand of dowry and causing the death of the victim by administering insecticide poison to her. Failing to properly weigh and assess the evidence adduced on record and related circumstances, he acquitted the accused-respondents on irrelevant considerations. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for accused-respondents is that there was no demand of dowry at all; interested testimony of the father of the deceased in this behalf was infirm and oscillating; the lady was extraordinary emotional and sentimental who herself committed suicide by consuming poison. As per the accused-respondents, no other finding than acquittal could possibly be recorded on the consideration of the evidence adduced on record together with attending circumstances.
10. Apart from hearing the arguments of both the sides, we have carefully waded through the record which has been summoned before us. Needless to say, each case has to be decided on its own merits and evidence. To begin with, we should take stock of the admitted facts which are that the de-ceased-Poonam who was the daughter of Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 was married to the accused-respondent-Anil Gupta on 20-4-1987 and that their wedlock gave birth to a male child on 9-2-1988 at Khatauli, the place of parents of the deceased; the accused-respondents were residing at Muzaffarnagar; Ajay Kumar is the real younger brother of Anil Kumar while Sangeeta is her real sister and Shiv Swaroop Gupta is his father being father-in-law of the deceased. It is also not disputed that Poonam died in Muzaffarnagar District Hospital on 7-6-1988 at 1.40 a.m., i.e. within a little over one year of her marriage. The death was by poisoning and as such it was an unnatural death. She was medically examined in District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar by Dr. N. C. Tyagi, P.W. 7 on 7-6-1988 at 1 a.m., having been taken there by her Husband Anil Gupta. It is also in evidence that she died within 40 minutes at 1.40 a.m. the same night in the hospital.
11. It should also be taken note of that the amended definition of 'dowry' as contained in Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, coming into force in 1986, does not leave anything to doubt that the demand made after solemnization of marriage would be dowry. The definition as amended reads as below :
'Dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
12. This definition makes it clear that the property or the valuable security need not be as a consideration for marriage, as was required to be in the unamended definition. This apart, the addition of words "any time" before the expression "after the marriage" would clearly show that even if the demand is long after the marriage the same could constitute dowry, if other requirements of the section are satisfied.
13. In the instant case, the relevant testimony regarding the demand of dowry is to be found in the testimony of Dharmendra Kumar Jain, P.W. 1 father of the unfortunate lady. Indeed, he could be the best witness in this behalf. As per his statement, he had performed the marriage of his daughter according to his status but after the marriage, the accused-respondents started demanding more dowry. Once he gave Rs. 2000/- for camera and also paid Rs. 5000/-for the purchase of scooter. According to him, after his daughter gave birth to a son on 9-2-1988, the accused-respondents started demanding Rs. 20,000/- in cash and a VCR. When he expressed his inability to meet their demand, they started beating, ill-treating and threatening his daughter.
14. Learned counsel for accused-respondents argued that there was no such mention in the F.I.R. of demand of dowry immediately after the marriage which was the earliest version of the prosecution. It only stated that after the birth of a son to Poonam, the accused-respondents started demanding Rs. 20,000/- and a VCR. Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 admitted that the articles to be given from the parents' side of the married lady to her in-laws after the birth of a child are called Chhuchhak. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents was that even if it was taken for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that such demand was made by the accused-respondents, the same could not constitute dowry. It is not possible to accept this line of approach because of the amended definition of 'dowry' as cited by us above. Moreover, the statement of the father of the lady has to be read and considered as a whole and no undue stress can be laid on truncated portion devoid of the other facts spoken by him.
15. There was a reason as to why the factum of the demand of more dowry after the marriage was not mentioned by the father of the lady in the F.I.R. The reason was that he had met the demand by paying Rs. 2000/- for camera and Rs. 5000/- had also been paid by him for the purchase of scooter. The birth of a son to the lady provided an additional pretension to the accused to demand Rs. 20,000/- and a VCR. It was immaterial that it was to be called 'Chhuchhak.' In reality, the demand was founded on the factum of marriage only. The demand of more dowry was renewed in the form of VCR and Rs. 20,000/- after the birth of son to the lady. It would be recalled that the marriage was performed on 20-4-1987 and in letter Ex. Ka-2, dated 15-10-1987 which Poonam wrote to her mother from her Sasural, she stated that her husband had ordered an imported camera through someone and that the price of the same be sent in her Sasural on Deepawali. This letter was written only about six months after the performance of the marriage. The testimony of Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 is there that he had sent Rs. 2000/- for this camera through his son Alok at Deepawali.
16. There is yet another letter dated 12-11-1987 (Ex. Ka-3) written by Poonam to her mother from her Sasural in which she alluded to the demand of scooter also in a sophisticated way. To quote her ".....IN LOGON KA SCOOTER KE LIYE AANE KA HAL AAP IN LOGON SE PROGRAMME VAGARAH KE LIYE KUCHH MAT KAHNA. MAI KHUD KAR LUNGI. AAP PARESHAN NA HONA. ..... "It meant that her in-laws wanted to fork money from the parents of the lady for scooter also. The learned trial Judge failed to draw proper inference from these letters. The lady was living in her Sasural and could only use sophisticated, cautious and guarded language for fear of incurring displeasure of her in-laws in case her letters were detected or censored and read by her husband or in-laws. The father of the lady having met the demand of camera and scooter, no adverse inference could be drawn for non-mentioning of these facts in the F.I.R. The entire facts came to be narrated by him in his testimony before the Court. As we said, the father of the lady has to be believed that after the birth of a son to Poonam, demand of dowry was renewed on the additional pretension and in the form of Chhuchhak but actually and virtually, it was a demand of dowry. The emphatic testimony of Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 was there that whenever her daughter used to come to his house from Sasural, she used to complain about her maltreatment and beatings by the accused over the non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.
17. The statement of Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 found support to a great extent from the testimony of Ram Kumar Vaish P.W. 2 in respect of what happened the preceding day of the incident. No doubt, this witness is the brother-in-law of the brother of Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 and is thus related to him but this can be no ground to reject his testimony. He was residing at Khatauli and was employed at Muzaffarnagar. His testimony is that on 6-6-1988 at about 11 a.m. Poonam had telephoned in his office that her in-laws were harassing her. She had desired him to meet her in the evening. He promised to reach her in the evening after office time. He reached at her Sasural at about 7 p.m. and rang the call bell. According to him, he heard the weeping of Poonam from inside the house. Her husband Anil answered the bell and came out. When he asked him to let him meet Poonam, he did not permit him to do so on the pretext that she was unwell. He shut the door on him. As usual, he came to his residence at Khatauli and after taking his dinner went to Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 and informed him of all this. Naturally, Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 became worried and in the early morning next day proceeded for Muzaffarnagar with his sons and this witness. They all reached the Sasural of Poonam where none was found. Some neighbours told them that at about midnight, Poonam was crying and she had been taken to the hospital by her in-laws. They reached District Hospital. None of the members of the family of in-laws of Poonam was to be found. She was reported to have died at 1.40 a.m. in the night. True, the hearsay about what was allegedly told by the neighbours of Poonam has no evidentiary value in law and has to be ignored. But the factum that D. K. Jain accompanied by his two sons and this witness reached the Sasural of his daughter at Muzaffarnagar at about 7 a.m. on 7-6-1988 is a clear indicator that he had been informed of the happening of the preceding day by Ram Kumar Vaish P.W. 2. The report itself had been lodged by him at Muzaffarnagar on 7-6-1988 at 8.50 a.m. The F.I.R. records the factum of this happening of the preceding day. No time gap intervened for any concoction or deliberation. It was quite natural that on being harassed by her in-laws, Poonam telephoned Ram Kumar Vaish P.W. 2 whom she knew to be a daily commuter to Muzaffarnagar from Khatauli. The purpose obviously was to inform her plight and misery so as to get informed her parents in the evening for some remedial measure. At the spur of moment, a helpless lady could only think of contacting her nearest relative available at Khatauli in the hope of some succour or help by him and her parents against the cruelty and ill-treatment being meted out to her in her Sasural.
18. On in depth analysis of circumstantial evidence contained in the testimony of Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W, 1 and Ram Kumar Vaish P.W, 2 taken together in the light of letters Exs. Ka-2 and Ka-3 written by Poonam to her mother, we are firmly of the opinion that it was amply proved that there was demand of dowry from the side of her husband after the performance of the marriage which was renewed in the garb of Chhuchhak on the additional pretension of a male child born to her four months before the incident and that she was being subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment over this count.
19. This having been proved that soon before her death, Poonam had been subjected by her husband to cruelty and harassment for and in connection with demand of dowry, Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act would come into play, i.e., that such person had caused the dowry death. Obviously, therefore, the burden would be on the husband to prove otherwise.
20. Let us now examine the theory of suicide putforth from the side of accused. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents is that the lady was keeping ill-health, was extremely sentimental and emotional and she committed suicide at her own by consuming poison. He also urged that the lady wanted her husband to separate from her father and mother and out of frustration she committed suicide. So far as alleged pressure from the side of the deceased is concerned, we find that it was not even suggested to Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 in his cross-examination, even though the statement of Anil Gupta (husband) under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was that his father-in-law D. K. Jain was pressurizing him to separate himself from his other family members. It was suggested also in his cross-examination that he and his mother were pressing him to have his separate business. He denied it. This theory of pressure for separation being wholly unfounded, the argument in this behalf is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
The learned counsel for the accused-respondents then referred to letters Exh. Kha 13 written by her to her husband in which she complained for being left at the place of her parents at Khatauli. It has been urged that she addressed her husband as "Dearest moon-Sweet memory." According to him, it suggested that there was nothing like strained relations between the two. In the said letter, she wanted to join him instead of living with her parents. The learned counsel urged that this and other letters also indicated her emotional temperament. It is to be pointed out that this letter was written sometime after 9-2-1988 when she had given birth to a male child at the place of her parents. It was natural that she wanted to join her husband after the birth of the child and expressed her love and attachment for him. It was after the birth of the child that she came to her Sasural in Muzaffarnagar where her ill-treatment heightened over the demand of VCR and Rs. 20,000/- in the name of Chhuchhak. It was simply a changed nomenclature of dowry on the pretext of male child born to the lady. Her plight increased too much that a day before meeting her end, in the hope of some respite she had to telephone her relative Ram Kumar Vaish P.W. 2 to meet her in the evening. It would be far-fetched to draw this conclusion on the basis of this letter written by the lady to her husband that she was emotional or sentimental. Nor does her expression of love for her husband militate against the demand of dowry. She could not be expected to be a party to create an atmosphere of showdown with her husband. She was all out for reconcilement in the hope that the things would improve by and by with the passage of time. She was a post-graduate. Like any other ideal Indian lady, she knew that her ultimate hearth and home after marriage was her Sasural and she had to adjust with the ground reality. Naturally, therefore, she left nothing wanting on her part to assure her husband that she was all for him and wanted to live peaceful marital life with him, but it was all a one sided affair.
21. Learned trial Judge was also not justified in drawing an inference that she was keeping indifferent health and had some problem of mental tension. He referred to the letters dated 6-7-1987 (Ex. Kha-3) and 13-7-1987 (Kha-4), written by the deceased's-mother to her.
22. In letter (Ex. Kha 3), she was advised by her mother to take sweet and hot milk in case of feeling unwell owing to mental tension.
In letter (Ex. Kha-4) her mother, inter alia, advised thus :
"......... .Kabhi Bhi Dil Ghabraye To Koi Tej Meethe Ka Sharbat Piya. Karo. .....
23. We are of the opinion that without considering the tone, tenor and spirit of these letters, learned trial Judge unnecessarily strained them to draw the inference that she was keeping indifferent health and had some problem of mental tension. It is to be pointed out that that was the period of her pregnancy and her mother tendered advice to her to take extra care of her health during this delicate period so as to cheer up her spirits. Nothing adverse to her health could be inferred on the basis of motherly advice given by her mother during her gestation period so that the off-spring could also be healthy and of jovial disposition. We accordingly reject the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that either the lady was emotional or was suffering from health problem and committed suicide of her own accord.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents also tried to support the judgment of acquittal on the premise that as per the postmortem report, multiple pin-point abrasions on her right and left toes had been found, We do not think that they are at all material or have any effect on the merits of the case. Dr. Suresh Chandra P.W. 5 who conducted autopsy along with Dr. Qureshi stated that these injuries could not be possible by prick of pin. According to him, pin-point abrasion means that the size of the abrasion is small like pin-point. He did not write the dimensions of the abrasions because they were very small. There is distinction between pin prick and friction. According to him, these injuries could be sustained by friction against some uneven surface or rough object. The case is that the lady was administered insecticide poison. Admittedly, the husband Anil does not dispute that he had taken her on scooter to the hospital in the night. As per the initial medical examination report she was gasping, general condition was very low, pulse was not palpable, pupils were dilated and she was unconscious. Insecticide is not palatable to the tongue. These injuries only indicated that either force or violence was applied to her while administering insecticide or while fluttering in excruciating pain after being administered insecticide poison by her husband, she rubbed her toes on floor, wall etc. and suffered such abrasions. It could equally be possible that while being taken on scooter in semi-conscious state she having no control over her body, came in contact with rough or blunt object during the course of journey and received these injuries. It is not necessary for the Court to make any guess work in this behalf because these injuries are not at all material for the decision of the case. They only indicate either application of violence to her or her involuntarily coming in contract with blunt or rough object after the poison was administered to her.
25. So far as the alleged suicide note (Ex. Kha-76) of the lady is concerned, we have not the slightest doubt that it is a pure fabrication coined from the side of accused to create false defence. The said suicide note professes to read as under :
"Meri Maut Ke Liye Koi Jimmedar Nahin. Mere Bad Mere Bachche Ko Mere Pati Ko, Yadi Woh Na Lena Chahe To, Meri Maa Ko De Diya Jaye. Mere Sare Gahane Mere Bachche Ke Naam Kar Diye Jaye."
Mere Bachche Ko Apar Sneh. Mere Bachche Mujhe Maaf Kar Dena."
26. Solid circumstances are lined up to back our belief that the so-called suicide note is fabricated and forged. We relate the same here. The lady had given birth to a male child only 4 months back, having been married nearly 14 months before the incident. It hardly needs any emphasis that the mother has extreme affection for her children particularly of tender age. She would not have thought of rendering her own son aged about 4 months to be an orphan. No mother would ordinarily do so. As per the testimony of the Investigating Officer (Narendra Swarup Bhatnagar P.W. 10) this original suicidal note was given to him by the accused-respondent-Shiv Swarup on 1-9-1988. However, it was on 8-7-1988 that one Dinesh Kumar Agarwal son of Kisan Swarup had given photostat copy of this suicidal note with her alleged writing on a newspaper "I hate, I hate, I hate. ........... .I hate" to the Investigating Officer which had reached him through S.P., Muzaffarnagar. The record shows that the said Dinesh Kumar had made an application in this behalf to C.O. Budhana on 21-6-1988. This Dinesh Kumar is the cousin brother of Anil (husband of the lady). There is no evidence as to who discovered the alleged suicide note, from where and on what date and time. Since it was a fictitious document, the accused felt shy in tendering evidence before the Court in this behalf for being scrutinized and simply contented by alleging that suicidal note was found in her room. It is difficult to place reliance on the testimony of D.W. 1 Vijendra Pal Singh, Handwriting Expert who professed to compare the alleged suicidal note with the admitted writing and signatures of the deceased and produced a report pronouncing the same to be in the handwriting of the lady. He was engaged by the accused for the purpose and as miracles of handwriting expertise produced a report as desired by them. We, therefore, reject the theory of suicidal note advanced by the accused-respondents.
27. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove on the relevant aspects of the matter dealing with the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, we come to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge failed to make proper analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and other surrounding circumstances. Instead, he recorded acquittal on superficial and irrelevant considerations.
28. The important question now arises as to whether all or only some of the accused-respondents committed this serious crime. Ajay Kumar being the younger brother of husband Anil Kumar and Sangeeta being the younger unmarried sister at the relevant time were junior members of the family and could and were not in a position to control the husband Anil Kumar. Shiv Swarup, father-in-law of the lady, was employed in Central Bank at Khurja, occasionally coming to his permanent residence at Muzaffarnagar where the couple was residing. Through the correspondence also which is there on record, it cannot be inferred that any of these three-father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were involved in demand of dowry or meting out cruel treatment to the lady on the non-fulfilment of the demand. Rather there is a letter Ex. Kha 12 dated 5-4-1988 written by Dharmendra Kumar Jain P.W. 1 to Shiv Swarup Gupta inviting him in some religious function at Khatauli scheduled between 14-4-1988 and 22-4-1988. It is an indicator that he did not have any complaint or grievance against his Samdhi Shiv Swarup, lest he would not have extended such invitation to him. Taking all the evidence, circumstances and factors cumulatively, we are in judgment that these three -- Shiv Swarup, Ajay Kumar and Sangeeta cannot be deemed to have committed any offence within the ambit of law and they cannot be convicted on the premise of suspicion or simply because they were closely related to the husband. Therefore, we shall dismiss the appeal so far as they are concerned.
29. However, it is amply proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the husband-Anil Kumar is the prime culprit who committed this heinous crime. He was nearest to the lady. Letters Ex. Ka-1 and Ka-2 referred to in the earlier discussion related to the demand of camera price and scooter earlier to the birth of male child. The articles were for his use as indicated in these letters. He was not satisfied despite these demands having been met by his father-in-law by paying Rs. 2000/- as the price of the camera and Rs. 5000/- towards the price of scooter. He turned increasingly greedy after the birth of the child and got an additional pretension to press further demand for VCR and Rs. 20,000/- in cash, which was the part of the dowry with changed name of Chhuchhak though founded on the factum of marriage. As we discussed earlier, because of non-fulfilment of the same, he heaped cruelty over his wife and ultimately did her to death in the fateful night by administering insecticide to her. At the mid of the night, he must have necessarily been there with her. It is not acceptable that at that late hour of the night, he was working in his office and reached her room on being informed by his mother that she (Poonam victim) had become unwell suddenly and then finding her unconscious he took her to the hospital on the scooter. Proceeding with a guilty mind after administering insecticide to her, he dragged her to the hospital on scooter to make a show of his innocence so as to be able to later on take the plea that he did nothing or rather attempted to save her by rushing her to the hospital. It would be recalled that she was examined in the hospital at 1 O'clock in the night and collapsed within 40 minutes at 1.40 a.m. He was engaged in manufacturing medicines and very well knew the property, composition, potentiality and effectiveness of the deadly poison used by him to kill her. The defence putforth by him that she committed suicide was actually a cock and bull story incapable of inspiring judicial confidence. Another important circumstance against the accused-husband is that when the father of the deceased along with others reached the district hospital Muzaffarnagar, in the morning, he was not to be found there near the dead body. The abrasions sustained by the lady proved either the application of violence or force by him during administering insecticide to her or that she sustained the same in helpless fluttering state by rubbing her feet against some hard or rough object on being so administered insecticide or being crudely dragged by him to the hospital on scooter. He committed breach of solemn vow taken at nuptial fire to protect her as her life partner giving all love and affection to her. Instead, he turned out to be a wolf in human shape and did his wife to death within 14 months of the marriage who had even given birth to a male child four months prior to the incident. He was quite oblivious to the human values and greed for money was the only motivating force guiding and driving him to criminal act. Transporting to the other world a human being who was his own wife and nearest to him, he committed grave offence punishable at law.
30. To recapitulate and consolidate, the following speaking circumstances established against the husband-Anil Kumar from the evidence adduced by the prosecution in conjunction with the application of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, unerringly and conclusively prove his guilt.
1. The deceased died an unnatural death by poisoning without (sic) about 14 months of her marriage with him.
2. There was demand of dowry by him after the marriage of the deceased with him.
3. He harassed the deceased and treated her with cruelty over the demand of dowry.
4. He was not satisfied even on being given Rs. 2,000/- as price of camera and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of scooter by his father-in-law.
5. After the birth of the child, he further demanded VCR and Rs. 20,000/- in cash and it being founded on marriage, was demand of dowry. On non-fulfilment of such demand, he continued to subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment.
6. It was he who answered the call bell and did not permit Ram Kumar Vaish PW-2 to meet the deceased in the preceding evening when he reached at his house at the telephone of the deceased.
7. He was nearest to the lady and was undoubtedly with her at the mid of fateful night. The inference is inescapable that he administered poison to her.
8. He was engaged in manufacturing medicines and very well knew the property, composition, potentiality and effectiveness of the deadly poison responsible for the death of the lady.
9. To make a show of his innocence, he fetched her to the hospital on scooter where she collapsed within 40 minutes.
10. He neither passed on any information at the Police Station nor to the parents of the deceased. Instead, he was not to be found in the hospital near the dead body of the deceased in the next morning when deceased's father and others reached there.
31. This is a dowry death committed by him. His acquittal is wholly unjustified. Needless to say, wrongful acquittals are most undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in judicial system. In appeal against acquittal the powers of the High Court in dealing with the cases are as extensive as of the trial Court. Proceeding on a wrong premise and irrelevant considerations in the instant case, the trial Court has acquitted the husband improperly. Within the ambit of law, he committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry-Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, he is liable to be convicted with appropriate sentences.
32. In the net result, we partly allow this appeal. We set aside the acquittal recorded by the trial Court in respect of Anil Kumar (husband of the deceased-Poonam). We convict him for the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Under Section 304B, I.P.C. he is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. We also convict him for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. He is also convicted under Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. However, in default of payment of Rs. 5,000/-under Section 498A, I.P.C., he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months; in default of payment of fine of Rs. 15,000/- imposed under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and further rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
33. The accused-respondent Anil Kumar Gupta is on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentences passed against him.
34. The acquittal of accused-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, namely, Ajai Kumar, Shiv Kumar and Sangeeta respectively is maintained.
35. The judgment be certified to the lower Court and compliance be reported within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the record which shall be sent to the Court below forthwith.