Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hukam Chand And Others vs State Of Haryana on 20 April, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision:20.4.2011
(I) Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998
Hukam Chand and others
... Appellants
versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
(II) Crl.Revision No.404 of 1998
Shiv Kumar
... Petitioner
versus
Hukam Chand and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mrs.Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate,
for the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 &
respondent Nos.1 to 6 in Crl.Rev.No.404 of 1998
Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate, with
Mr.Deepinder Singh, Mr.S.K.Narwana
& Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocates,
for the petitioner-complainant.
Mr.Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 was preferred by Hukam Chand, Dinesh Kumar and Sudershna to impugn the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.1997 and order of sentence dated 20.12.1997 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 145 of 24.12.1994, arising out of FIR No.259 dated 26.8.1994 under Sections 304- B/498-A/120-B IPC, Police Station City, Kaithal.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Sections 498- Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 2 A and 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 2 months each under Section 498-A IPC and to undergo RI for 7 years each under Section 304-B IPC.
However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Co-accused Rajesh son of Hukam Chand, Sangita and Sobha daughters of Hukam Chand were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Against their acquittal, no appeal by the State.
Crl.Revision No.404 of 1998 was instituted by Shiv Kumar against the acquittal of Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha and awarding of less sentence to Hukam Chand, Dinesh Kumar and Sudershna.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Shiv Kumar, complainant, is the resident of Bhiwani and has 5 sisters. Suman was the youngest and was 28 years' old. She was MA, M.Phil., M.Ed and was married with Dr. Dinesh Kumar resident of Kaithal. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per their status. Before marriage, i,e., next day of holi festival, complainant along with Subhash Chand Jain had gone to Kaithal. Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, Kaithal, was requested to accompany them. Then they had gone to the house of Hukam Chand. Rs.4,10,000/- in cash was paid to Hukam Chand for purchase of dowry articles in the presence of his family members. Raj Kumar Bindlish was the mediator and at the time of engagement, Rs.10,000/- in cash and other articles were given. At the time of marriage, jewellery and clothes were given. At the time of departure of baraat, Rs.11,000/- was given in cash to Hukam Chand, Dinesh Kumar, Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha. After marriage for the first time when Suman came to Bhiwani, then she was tense and unhappy. On enquiry, she did not Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 3 disclose anything. Second time when she came to Bhiwani, then told that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law, brother-in-law and husband misbehaved with her for want of dowry. Suman further stated that Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar were pressurizing her to bring entire amount lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates and in her saving bank account. But she replied to her in-laws that amount was given to her by her late father. Even her brother did not withdraw a single penny from her FDRs, share certificates and bank account at the time of her marriage and showed her inability to bring payment. But Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar had pressurized her to bring payment for opening Nursing Home. Then complainant had paid Rs.60,000/- to avoid harassment of Suman. Despite receipt of Rs.60,000/-, behaviour of in-laws of Suman did not change. On 31.7.1994, Suman came to Bhiwani and told that Dinesh Kumar and his family members were pressurizing to bring Rs.1,00,000/- lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates and saving bank account, failing which, she was to face the consequences. On 10.8.1994, Dinesh Kumar was to visit Bhiwani to take back Suman but he did not turn up. On 11.8.1994 on telephone, Dinesh Kumar told that he was unable to visit Bhiwani and requested complainant party to leave Suman at Kaithal. As per request of Dinesh Kumar, Suman was sent to Kaithal along with Sunder Lal, brother of complainant, and his son Rajinder. Sunder Lal came back on the same day to Bhiwani and told that behaviour of in-laws of Suman was not good. Rajinder was requested to stay at Kaithal because in-laws of Suman wanted a talk between Rajinder and Dinesh Kumar. Next day, Rajinder came back to Bhiwani and informed the complainant party that Suman was threatened in his presence by Dinesh Kumar and his family members as to Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 4 why she kept jewellery in the lock and key and why she failed to bring payment lying deposited in her name. Then Suman started weeping. Rajinder also told the complainant that Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar directed him to send the payment as demanded by them, which was lying deposited in the name of Suman. Complainant had a talk with Hukam Chand that already he (complainant) had given sufficient amount and now not proper for them to harass Suman. On 26.8.1994 in the morning at 6.30 AM, complainant received telephonic message from Hukam Chand that Suman was electrocuted while ironing the clothes with electric press and requested him to visit Kaithal. Complainant enquired from Hukam Chand about the condition of Suman but he requested to come soon and telephone was disconnected. After that, complainant on telephone requested Raj Kumar Bindlish to report about the real facts after enquiry. Complainant again tried to contact Raj Kumar Bindlish but he was not at his house. His wife replied that Raj Kumar Bindlish had gone to the house of Hukam Chand from where Raj Kumar Bindlish reported to the complainant that Suman had died due to electrocution while ironing the clothes. He also informed the complainant that Suman was totally burnt and requested to visit Kaithal immediately. As per telephonic message, complainant along with his family members had gone to Kaithal. Dead body of Suman was found lying in the courtyard. Statement of Shiv Kumar was recorded by ASI Ram Pal. Shiv Kumar had signed the same in token of its correctness. In view of the statement of Shiv Kumar, formal FIR was recorded. Intimation was given to the Director, FPB, DIG (Crime), Ambala, and Kundan Lal, Inspector, who was in the field. Special report was sent to Ilaqa Magistrate. ASI Ram Pal along with party had gone to the place of Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 5 occurrence. In the meantime, Inspector Kundan Lal came at the spot. Facts were brought to his notice. File was handed over to him for further investigation. Crime team also came at the spot and place of occurrence was inspected. Photographer was arranged, who had taken photographs. Inspector Kundal Lal had prepared inquest report. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Burnt clothes were found lying scattered in the room. Double bed and mattress were found burnt partially. Burnt articles were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Three plastic cans were also noticed, two were empty and one was having two bottles of kerosene. Plastic cans were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Double bed sheet cover and towel partially burnt were noticed on the roof of the house and were smelling kerosene. Double bed sheet cover and towel were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, for postmortem examination but team of doctors referred the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem examination. On the same day, dead body was shifted to PGIMS , Rohtak, and on the next day, postmortem examination was conducted. After postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. Jewellery and clothes worn by the deceased were made into separate sealed parcels and were handed over to ASI Ram Pal. Case property was handed over to Inspector Kundan Lal and was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
Hukam Chand and Rajesh were arrested on 31.8.1994, Sudershna, Sobha and Sangita were arrested on 28.8.1994, whereas Dinesh Kumar was arrested on 2.9.1994. Hukam Chand was interrogated and in Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 6 pursuance of disclosure statement, got recovered one FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- of Union Bank of India from the specified place. FDR was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
On 2.9.1994, Dinesh Kumar was interrogated and in pursuance of disclosure statement, got recovered dowry articles. Recovered articles were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On 3.9.1994, Dinesh Kumar also got recovered 8 tablets of Diazepam 10 mg. Same were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court.
Accused were charged under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW1 R.C.Narang, Bank Manager, stated that certificate (Ex.PA) was issued by the bank.
PW2 R.L.Tanwar, Branch Manager, stated that certificate (Ex.PB) dated 28.9.1994 was issued on the request of police. Certificate is regarding FDR account of Suman. Ex.PC is the photocopy of ledger.
PW3 P.K.Jain, Branch Manager stated that FDR (Ex.PD) was issued on 2.6.1994 in the name of Hukam Chand Gupta.
PW4 Rakesh Kumar, Draftsman, prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PE).
PW5 Jagdish Chand, Photographer, had taken photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P8). Ex.P9 to Ex.P16 are the negatives.
PW6 Constable Krishan Lal, PW9 Constable Ram Partap, Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 7 PW10 HC Rajinder Parshad and PW11 MHC Balwan Singh tendered their affidavits, Ex.PF, Ex.PS, Ex.PT and Ex.PU respectively.
PW7 Shiv Kumar is the complainant and has reiterated his stand before the police.
PW8 Sunder Lal is the brother of Shiv Kumar. He has also supported the version of Shiv Kumar, complainant.
PW 12 Dr. Kulwinder Singh stated that on receipt of message from S.P., Kaithal, on 26.8.1994, he along with his team had visited the place of occurrence and after inspection, observed as under:-
"Found a burnt dead body of the female, named, Smt. Suman wife of Dinesh, aged about 28 years lying in the house situated in Gali No.9, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal. The dead body was lying in the verandah. The dead body was lying in the verandah at point `A' shown in my site plan, with her head towards North and feet towards South. Inside the room, there were two partially burnt pillows lying on the floor in the room marked by me as R-1 in the site plan. Partial burning of the back rest of the double bed was also observed by me. This bed was lying in the room marked R-1 in the site plan. Partial burning of the mattress near one corner was also observed which was found lying at point `C', outside the room marked R-1. Smoke was found deposited on ceiling, walls, doors, windows and other articles kept in the room, marked R-1. Smoke could not be observed on one wooden central table and one electric iron which were found in wet condition. Inside and outside bolts of the doors (wooden) marked D-1 and D-2 Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 8 of the room marked R-1 were not found tampered. Smoke was found deposited on the roof of the verandah where body of the deceased was found lying. Few burnt match sticks were found lying in the verandah. One empty metallic kerosene can with cap and two half filled, one filled kerosene plastic can with cap were detected at the spot marked-B in the verandah. Smell of kerosene was detected at the spot. One wet double bed sheet and one wet towel were found in partially burnt condition on the roof of the house."
PW14 Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, Kaithal, has also supported the version of complainant.
PW15 ASI Ram Pal stated that in view of the statement of Shiv Kumar, FIR was recorded at 12.30 noon on 26.8.1994. After that, he had gone to the spot and in his presence, Inspector Kundan Lal had taken into possession different articles vide different memos. After preparing inquest report, dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination.
PW16 Inspector Kuldeep Singh had partly investigated the case.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of Dinesh Kumar was that his wife Suman caught fire accidentally from burning stove in the kitchen. On 26.8.1994 at 6.30 AM, he was to go to Indri, where he was posted. Suman got up in the morning and after answering call of nature started preparing break fast for him on the stove because gas cylinder was out of stock. At that time, his Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 9 father and mother were sleeping on the roof top of the house. His mother was not keeping good health. She lost eye sight during operation. His sisters Sobha and Sangita were away to the house of his maternal uncle at Mandi Dabwali. His younger brother Rajesh was at Kurukshetra where he was posted as Taxation Inspector. He had gone to bathroom and returned after 30-35 minutes after taking bath. Then he heard cries of his wife `bachao bachao'. He had gone to kitchen. Suman was on fire. Stove was on the floor of the kitchen. He shouted for help and brought bed sheet etc. from the bed room to extinguish the fire. In the meantime, Suman came running to the bed room. Bed sheet was put on the person of Suman. Some of the articles lying in the bed room came in contact with the body of Suman and they were also partially burnt. Suman was very much restless and came in verandah. He had thrown water. Inspector Kundan Lal came. He along with his father and mother was taken away to PS City, Kaithal, at 9.30 AM. Condition of his mother became critical. Then she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. He had also gone to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, with his mother. His mother was got admitted in the hospital. He was in the custody of police and at 1.30 PM, he was brought back to the police station. At 3.00 PM, his brother Rajesh was also brought to PS City, Kaithal. His sisters were brought to police station on the next day, who came back from Mandi Dabwali after knowing about this incident. He was detained illegally by the police for about 8-9 days. Other family members were also kept under illegal detention. He along with his father and brother was paraded in the street after shaving their heads and blackening of their faces on 28.8.1994. There was a news in the news paper. There was no demand of dowry articles. Marriage was simple. They were financially sound than the Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 10 complainant party. He was in service and never thought of opening a Nursing Home. He got appointment letter from the Government of Haryana. Suman visited Bhiwani 4 times. First time, she was taken by her brother Sunder Lal, second time, by Shiv Kumar and his wife, third time, by Rajinder and fourth time, she had gone with him and his father on 31.7.1994 because her mother was admitted in the hospital. Suman wrote letter on 30.7.1994. Suman was very happy at her matrimonial home. She was having cordial relations with all the members.
Defence version of Hukam Chand was that Suman caught fire accidentally while working in kitchen on stove. He and his wife were sleeping on the roof of their house. His wife was not keeping good health because she lost vision of her left eye during operation. Sobha and Sangita were away to the house of their maternal uncle. Rajesh was at Kurukshetra, where he was serving as Taxation Inspector. At about 5.15-5.30 AM on 26.8.1994, they heard cries of Dinesh Kumar `bachao bachao'. After that, he along with his wife rushed to down stairs. Sudershna fell down and became unconscious. He and his son Dinesh Kumar made an effort to extinguish the fire and in that process, he got burn injuries. Neighbours also came at the spot and helped in extinguishing the fire. There was a heavy smoke and fire in the kitchen. Stove was lying on the floor. On telephone, he gave message to Shiv Kumar and Raj Kumar Bindlish that Suman caught fire accidentally and they were requested to come soon. After some time, Raj Kumar Bindlish came and told not to take Suman anywhere. By the time, Suman had already died at 9.30 AM. Inspector Kundan Lal along with police officials came. Incident was brought to his notice. But he along with his wife and Dinesh Kumar was brought to police station at 9.30-9.45 AM. Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 11 Condition of his wife Sudershna was deteriorating. Then she and Dinesh Kumar were shifted to the hospital. Sudershna was admitted in the hospital. Dinesh Kumar was brought back to police station at about 1.30-2.00 PM, whereas Sudershna remained admitted in the hospital. Rajesh was also brought to police station at 3.00 PM. Sobha and Sangita were brought to police station on the next day. He was kept confined for about 7 days. Other members were also kept under illegal detention. He along with his sons was paraded in the street after shaving their heads and blackening their faces on 28.8.1994 by Inspector Kuldeep Singh. There was a news in the news paper. There was no demand of dowry at any stage. Marriage of Dinesh Kumar with the deceased was simple one. They were financially sound than the complainant party. Dinesh Kumar was in Government service and they never thought of opening any Nursing Home. Suman was happy at her in-laws house. During stay, Suman used to write letters to her parents. She wrote letter dated 30.7.1994 but it could not be posted because Suman had gone to Bhiwani on 31.7.1994 along with him and Dinesh Kumar as mother of Suman was lying admitted in the hospital. On 18.8.1994, there was a telephonic message from Sunder Lal, brother of Suman, to visit Kaithal along with Anita on 20.8.1994 because Anita was to appear in NET test at Kurukshetra. Sunder Lal came to Kaithal and Rajinder stayed there. Suman was to appear in interview on 31.8.1994 for the post of Lecturer in Psychology Department in Kurukshetra University.
Similar is the defence version of Sudershna wife of Hukam Chand.
Defence version of Rajesh, Sobha and Sangita was that they were not present in the house at the time of occurrence. They were falsely Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 12 implicated.
In defence DW1 Dr.Prithi Mehta stated that Sudershna was admitted in the hospital on 26.8.1994 at 11.00 AM and was discharged at 7.05 PM on the same day.
DW2 Gurmit Kaur brought record of Civil Hospital, Kaithal, and stated that Sudershna was admitted in the hospital at 11.00 AM on 26.8.1994.
DW3 Zile Singh, Branch Manager, brought record and stated that FDRs (Ex.PJ and Ex.PJ/1) were issued by the bank and the same were renewed on 18.7.1994. Account No. 4870 in the name of Suman was opened on 10.3.1983.
DW4 Dinesh Rastogi, Deputy Manager, stated that Account No.29305 was opened on 22.7.1988 in the name of Suman.
DW5 Suresh Vashisth, Assistant, Office of Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Health Department, brought record regarding recruitment of Dr. Dinesh Kumar as Dental Surgeon. Ex.DX/A is the order.
DW6 Subhash Sharma stated that Ex.DV/6 to Ex.DV/10 were scribed by him.
DW7 Jaldhir Singh stated that Ex.DV/11 is the copy of sale deed dated 1.6.1994.
DW8 Ajmer Singh, Steno to SP, Kaithal, stated that telephone No.24254 was at the residence of SP, Kaithal.
DW9 Balbir Singh stated that on 11.6.1993, Rs.65,000/- was borrowed by him from Hukam Chand as per pronote (Ex.DV/9) and receipt (Ex.DV/10). Payment was returned on 30.5.1994.
Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 13
DW10 S.K.Bansal, SDO, Telephones, Kaithal, stated that Telephone Connection No. KHO/DK/69319 was released in the name of Dr. Dinesh Kumar.
After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellants and from the perusal of evidence on file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid, whereas other co-accused, namely, Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha were acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner and have gone through the evidence on file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that Suman (deceased), sister of Shiv Kumar, complainant, resident of Bhiwani, was married with Dinesh Kumar. Marriage was solemnized on 21.4.1994. Marriage was simple. Suman was MA/M.Phil./M.Ed and was happily enjoying married life. Appellant party was financially sound than the complainant party. Unnatural death at the in-laws house on 26.8.1994. Dinesh Kumar was Dental Surgeon and to attend his duty, woke up in the morning at 6.30 AM. Suman also woke up at 6.30 AM and after answering call of nature, started preparing breakfast for Dinesh Kumar on the stove. While preparing breakfast on the stove, then she caught fire accidentally. Dinesh Kumar came out of bathroom after taking bath, then raised an alarm. Hukam Chand, father, and Sudershna, mother of Dinesh Kumar were sleeping on the roof of the house and on hearing raula, they came to the ground floor. Sudershna while coming down from the roof, then fell down and became unconscious. Dinesh Kumar and Hukam Chand made an effort Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 14 to extinguish the fire. Hukam Chand also received burn injuries. Immediately after the occurrence, intimation was sent to Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, and Shiv Kumar, complainant. Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, who was the mediator, came and directed the appellants not to shift Suman anywhere. At 9.30 AM, Inspector Kundal Lal came. Appellants were arrested at 9.30 AM. Rajesh, brother of Dinesh Kumar, was arrested at 3.00 PM. Appellants were kept confined illegally for about 7-8 days and were paraded in the streets by shaving their heads and blackening their faces. According to the story, if Suman was set on fire, then Raj Kumar Bindlish should have reported the matter to the police. There was no idea to wait. House of Raj Kumar Bindlish was at a distance of 2.00 km from the house of the appellants. Police was in the house of the appellants at 8.30 AM, whereas statement of the complainant was recorded at 12.30 noon. Complainant was politically sound. Before recording FIR, DDR No.8 was recorded but at that time, no detail to the police. PW 12 Dr. Kulwinder Singh stated that at about 11.00 AM, message was received regarding the present occurrence, whereas statement of the complainant was recorded at 12.30 noon. Before recording the FIR, question is how Dr. Kulwinder Singh came to know about the incident at 11.00 AM. Dr. Kulwinder Singh stated that dead body was lying in the verandah. Two partially burnt pillows were found in the bed room. Double bed was also found partially burnt. Evidence shows that one washed towel and bed sheet were recovered from the roof. Immediately after the occurrence, Raj Kumar Bindlish came to the house of the appellants. So, there was no time to wash the towel and bed sheet and keep the same on the roof. According to the story, can of kerosene was recovered from the spot but Dr. S.K.Jain Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 15 did not state a word regarding smell of kerosene. Dr. S.K.Jain stated that dead body was brought to General Hospital, Kaithal, on 26.8.1994. Board was constituted but the Board was not in a position to opine as to what was the cause of death. Then dead body was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. In fact, doctors were under the pressure of Shiv Kumar, complainant, who was politically sound. When dead body was brought to the hospital with burn injuries, then it is very easy to conduct postmortem examination. There was no idea to send dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak. Dr. D.R.Yadav had conducted the postmortem examination. Then for the first time stated that smell of kerosene was noticed. 80% burn injuries were noticed. Kerosene was noticed only in case of scalp hair. In fact, on the day of occurrence, gas cylinder was out of order. Gas cylinder was brought by the employee of agency but taken back after seeing the occurrence. In the absence of gas cylinder, deceased was preparing breakfast on the stove. Suman caught fire accidentally in the kitchen and when Dinesh Kumar came to know about the incident, then he had gone to bed room to bring clothes etc. to extinguish the fire. In the meantime, Suman had gone to the bed room. Some of the articles lying in the bed room came into contact of the deceased and were partially burnt. From the bed room, Suman came in the verandah. In the verandah, she had a fall. Smoke was in the bed room, kitchen and verandah, but no photograph of the kitchen or bed room. Hukam Chand was a practicing lawyer at Kaithal. Dinesh Kumar was serving as a doctor. When they were financially sound and marriage was simple, then there was no idea to demand cash to open clinic. If cash is demanded to open clinic, then demand does not fall within the definition of dowry. Rs.1,00,000/- is not sufficient to open Nursing Home. Appellants are liable for punishment Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 16 under Section 304-B IPC if unnatural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage. Secondly, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry soon before death, but in the present case, unnatural death at the in-laws house due to accidental fire. Before present occurrence, no complaint to any authority regarding demand of dowry. If there was a demand of dowry, then entire story should have been brought to the notice of the police when DDR No.8 was recorded. All the family members were got implicated. On the same set of evidence, three were acquitted by the trial Court. That means, allegation of the complainant party is not correct one. When accidental death at the house of in-laws, then tendency of the parents is to implicate all the members. On 11.8.1994, as per story, Suman was sent to her in-laws house with Sunder Lal and Rajinder. Sunder Lal went back. Rajinder had stayed with the deceased. In the presence of Rajinder, appellants threatened the deceased as to why jewellery was kept in the locker and was not brought with cash. Rajinder was not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. While staying in the in-laws house, deceased wrote number of letters. In the letters on file, not a word that appellants had ever misbehaved or maltreated the deceased for want of dowry. Deceased was well educated and was to get job in near future. After joining service, deceased was expected to get salary. Salary was to be used by the appellants. When deceased was well educated and was to get employment, then there was no idea to set the deceased on fire with this allegation that she failed to bring cash and jewellery. Argued that as per story, Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar were pressurizing the deceased to bring cash lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates etc. to open Nursing Home but regarding Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 17 payment of Rs.60,000/-, no proof on the file. No allegation that Sudershna ever demanded cash and jewellery or misbehaved or maltreated the deceased for want of dowry. Sudershna was also named without any reason. She was not keeping good health. Her eye sight was also weak. But general allegation against all the family members that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for want of dowry.
Learned State counsel argued that marriage of the deceased with Dinesh Kumar was solemnized on 21.4.1994. Unnatural death at the in-laws house on 26.8.1994. Deceased was issueless. If the deceased had no problem and was residing peacefully at the in-laws house, then there was no idea to commit suicide by pouring kerosene as per report of the laboratory. According to defence version, at 6.30 AM, deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast but on telephone, intimation was given to the complainant that unnatural death due to electrocution while ironing the clothes. Distance of Bhiwani from Kaithal was about 130 kms. Shiv Kumar on receipt of information had telephoned Raj Kumar Bindlesh to visit the house of the appellants and report whether news was correct one or not. Again, Shiv Kumar had telephoned at the residence of Raj Kumar Bindlish but he was not present. Wife of Raj Kumar Bindlesh reported that he had gone to the house of the appellants. Then complainant had telephoned at the house of the appellants, then Raj Kumar Bindlesh on telephone reported to the complainant to come soon. On receipt of message at about 6.30 AM, complainant party had gone to Kaithal. Intimation was given to the police about the incident. DDR was recorded and only after reaching the house of the appellants and seeing the dead body, statement of Shiv Kumar was recorded. Hukam Chand was a practicing lawyer at Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 18 Kaithal. Dinesh Kumar was Dentist. Rajesh was serving as Taxation Inspector. That means, appellants were financially sound. Then nothing to presume that there was only one gas cylinder in the house of the appellants and in the absence of gas cylinder, appellants were preparing breakfast etc. on stove. When gas connection is released, then minimum two gas cylinders are supplied. No explanation where was the second gas cylinder. If the deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast on stove, then appellants were expected to report to the complainant and Raj Kumar Bindlesh that deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast. In fact, message was sent to the complainant party that deceased caught fire accidentally while ironing the clothes. Raj Kumar Bindlesh, Advocate, is from Kaithal. He was not inimical towards the appellants. Immediately after receipt of telephone from the complainant, Raj Kumar Bindlesh had gone to the house of the appellants. After that, on receipt of telephone from the complainant, then Raj Kumar Bindlesh reported about the incident. Unnatural death within 4 months. Smell of kerosene was noticed by the doctor. In fact, Hukam Chand was influential person. He had a say in the police department. That is why, copies of case diary were found to be in possession of Hukam Chand and this fact is clear from the statement of Inspector Kuldeep Singh when a note was given by the Court that copies of case diary are with Hukam Chand. According to the defence version of Dinesh Kumar, occurrence was at about 6.30 AM. He along with his father made an effort to extinguish the fire but no burn injury was noticed on the person of Dinesh Kumar. Defence version of Hukam Chand was that at about 5.15/5.30 AM, he had heard cries, then came from the roof to the ground floor. Then he along with Dinesh Kumar made an effort to Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 19 extinguish the fire. Death was at 9.30 AM. If the deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast, then immediately after the occurrence, appellants should have shifted the deceased to the nearest hospital for medical aid. There was no idea to keep the burnt lady in the same condition in the house till her death. Deceased had an account in the bank. Payment was lying deposited in the shape of FDRs. Deceased was not in Government job. To open Nursing Home, appellants were harassing the deceased to bring jewellery and cash. After marriage, when for the first time, deceased had gone to her parental house, then on enquiry by the parents, deceased did not disclose anything but she was not happy. Second time, deceased had disclosed about the demand of dowry by her father-in- law and husband. Rs.10,000/- was paid at the time of engagement and Rs.4,10,000/- before marriage to purchase dowry articles to the appellants. Allegation of the appellants was that marriage was simple but dowry articles were recovered in pursuance of disclosure statements suffered by the appellants. That means, prosecution story is correct one. Rs.60,000/- was paid by the complainant when there was demand of cash to open Nursing Home. When there is a demand by the in-laws, then to settle the girl at her in-laws house, no receipt is obtained. Report is also not lodged with the police immediately after the marriage when there is a demand of dowry. Panchayat is convened and report is lodged with the police or panchayat when situation goes out of control of the complainant party. No doubt, Shiv Kumar had contested election twice but he lost the election. If complainant had a telephonic talk with the SP, then nothing to presume that he had a say in the police department. Before lodging the FIR, complainant did not contact the SP or the higher authorities. Complainant can have a say in his Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 20 own area but not in the area of the appellants. After the occurrence, dead body was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, but dead body was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem examination. If the doctors had referred the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem examination, then doctors cannot be expected to be under the control of the complainant. If the doctors were to oblige the complainant, then they could easily give report in favour of the complainant party after postmortem examination. There was no reason to refer the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak. Dr. D.R.Yadav was Head of the Department. He is well qualified. Without enmity with the appellants, when Shiv Kumar had no say in the police department or health department, then Head of the Department had no reason to annoy the appellants. When unnatural death at the in-laws house, then presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is that death was dowry death. As per bail order dated 15.4.1995, bail application was personally argued by Hukam Chand, appellant, and at that time, allegation of the appellants was that Suman committed suicide but during trial, defence version of the appellants was that Suman caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast. If Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar had made an effort to extinguish the fire, then burn injuries should have been on their person but no medical evidence on the file that burn injuries were noticed on the person of Hukam Chand or Dinesh Kumar. As per defence version, appellants were kept confined illegally for about 7-8 days but no complaint to any authority. Relations of the appellants could easily approach the Hon'ble High Court for appointment of Warrant Officer. When unnatural death at the in-laws house within few months after the marriage, then it is very easy to plead that deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing food etc. Failure to shift Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 21 the deceased to the nearest hospital for medical aid till her death shows that, in fact, deceased was set on fire. Appellants were present in the house at the time of occurrence. Trial Court has rightly opined that appellants had set the deceased on fire.
Suman (deceased) was married with Dinesh Kumar on 21.4.1994. Unnatural death at the house of the appellants on 26.8.1994. According to prosecution story, deceased was set on fire for want of dowry. Defence version of the appellants was that deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast on the stove. Now the question is whether deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast or she was set on fire.
To convict the appellants under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution was required to prove that death of the deceased was caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage; deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, and cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
Admittedly, Suman (deceased) MA/M.Phil/M.Ed., aged about 28 years, was married with Dinesh Kumar. Marriage was solemnised on 21.4.1994. No suggestion to any witness that marriage was not solemnised on 21.4.1994. In view of the statements of Shiv Kumar, Sunder Lal and Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, death was within 7 years from the date of marriage.
According to the prosecution, on 26.8.1994 in the morning, Suman was set on fire. Defence version of the appellants was that Suman Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 22 caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast on the stove in the kitchen. After the occurrence, dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. Dr. S.K.Jain, Medical Officer, stated that on 26.8.1994, dead body was brought to the hospital. Application (Ex.PX) was moved. Board was constituted but dead body was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem examination.
Dr.D.R.Yadav (PW17) stated that on 27.8.1994, he was Head of Department. Postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Suman. 80% burn injuries were noticed. Burn injuries were ante mortem in nature. No external injury was noticed on the person of Suman. No case of the prosecution or the appellants that deceased had committed suicide. No suggestion to the doctors or the prosecution witnesses that death was natural. That means, death was unnatural at the in-laws house. Only dispute is whether deceased was set on fire or she caught fire accidentally. So, second ingredient to convict the appellants under Section 304-B IPC is also clear.
Third ingredient to convict the appellants under Section 304-B IPC was that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for want of dowry and such cruelty or harassment was soon before the death.
Shiv Kumar, brother of the deceased, is the complainant and lodged report with the police that before marriage, i,e., next day of holi festival, he along with Subhash Chand Jain and Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, Kaithal, had gone to the house of Hukam Chand. Rs.4,10,000/- in cash was paid to Hukam Chand for purchase of dowry articles in the presence of his family members. Rs.10,000/- in cash was paid at the time of engagement. At the time of marriage, gold, clothes etc. were given. At Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 23 the time of departure of barat, Rs.11,000/- in cash was paid to Hukam Chand, Dinesh Kumar, Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha. After marriage for the first time when Suman came to Bhiwani, then she was tense and unhappy. On enquiry, she did not disclose anything. Second time when she came to Bhiwani, then told that her father-in-law Hukam Chand and husband Dinesh Kumar were pressurizing her to bring the amount lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates and in her saving bank account. Rs.60,000/- was paid to them to avoid harassment of Suman. On 31.7.1994, Suman came to Bhiwani and told that Dinesh Kumar and his family members were pressurizing to bring Rs.1,00,000/- lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates and saving bank account. On 10.8.1994, Dinesh Kumar was to visit his in-laws house to take back Suman but he did not turn up. On 11.8.1994 on telephone, Dinesh Kumar told that he was unable to visit Bhiwani and requested complainant party to leave Suman at Kaithal. Then, Suman was sent to Kaithal along with Sunder Lal, brother of complainant, and his son Rajinder. Sunder Lal came back on the same day to Bhiwani In the presence of Rajinder, in-laws of Suman had threatened her as to why she kept jewellery in the lock and key and why she failed to bring payment lying deposited in her name. Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar directed to send the payment. He further stated that in the morning on 26.8.1994, telephonic message was received at about 6.30 AM from Hukam Chand that Suman was electrocuted while ironing clothes. He was requested to visit Kaithal immediately. Then he had requested Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, on telephone to enquire about the incident. Again, he had telephoned to Raj Kumar Bindlish but he was not present at his house. Telephone was attended by his wife. After that, he had telephoned at the Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 24 house of Hukam Chand. Telephone was attended by Raj Kumar Bindlish and told that Suman had died while ironing clothes. He was requested to visit Kaithal immediately. Statement of Shiv Kumar, complainant, was recorded on 26.8.1994. In view of statement of Shiv Kumar, formal FIR was recorded. Special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.50 PM on the same day.
Shiv Kumar appeared as PW7 and stated that appellants used to misbehave and maltreat Suman for want of dowry. Similar is the statement of Sunder Lal, brother of Shiv Kumar.
PW14 Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, was the mediator. He has also supported the version of Shiv Kumar by saying that before marriage, he along with Shiv Kumar and Subhash Chand Jain had gone to the house of Hukam Chand. Rs.4,10,000/- in cash was paid to Hukam Chand for purchase of dowry articles. Rs.10,000/- in cash was paid at the time of engagement. Sufficient dowry was given. Rs.11,000/- in cash was paid at the time of marriage. On the day of occurrence, telephone was received from the complainant to enquire about the incident from the house of Hukam Chand. After that, he had gone to the house of Hukam Chand. Again telephone was received from the complainant. Dead body of Suman was found lying in the house of Hukam Chand.
Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that occurrence was in the morning on 26.8.1994. On telephone, intimation was not given to the complainant party that Suman was electrocuted while ironing clothes. In fact, information was given to the complainant that Suman caught fire accidentally. If Suman was set on fire by the appellants, then there was no idea to inform the complainant party that Suman was Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 25 electrocuted while ironing clothes. House of Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, was at a distance of about 2 kms. At about 8.30 AM, police was in the house but at 12.30 noon, story was concocted that Suman was set on fire. Initially, DDR was recorded, but while recording DDR, detail was not given. After going through the evidence on the file, submission of learned defence counsel seems to be not correct one. According to defence version of Dinesh Kumar, Suman got up at about 6.30 AM. After answering the call of nature, she was preparing breakfast for him on the stove. At that time, his father and mother were sleeping on the roof of the house. He had gone to bathroom and came out after about 30-35 minutes after taking bath. Then noticed Suman while on fire in the kitchen. He had made an effort to extinguish the fire. Raula was raised and on hearing raula, Hukam Chand came to the ground floor. From the kitchen, Suman came inside the bed room and came in contact with some articles lying in the bed room. From bed room, Suman came to the verandah. Intimation was given to Raj Kumar Bindlish and the complainant. Raj Kumar Bindlish came and directed them not to shift Suman anywhere. Defence version of Hukam Chand was that at about 5.15-5.30 AM, he heard raula, then came to the ground floor. He along with Dinesh Kumar tried to extinguish the fire. Death was at 9.30 AM. In case, Suman caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast at about 6.30 AM or 5.15-5.30 AM, then Dinesh Kumar or Hukam Chand should have made an effort to shift Suman to the nearest hospital for medical aid. Till death at aboout 9.30 AM, no effort was made to shift Suman to the nearest hospital. If Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar had made an effort to extinguish the fire, then some burn injuries should have been on their person, but no medical evidence on the file that burn Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 26 injuries were noticed on the person of Hukam Chand or Dinesh Kumar.No suggestion to complainant that Dinesh Kumar tried to extinguish fire.
As per defence version, Suman was preparing breakfast on the stove because there was no gas cylinder in the house. Employee of gas agency came to the house of the appellants with cylinder but he went back. So, this was the reason why Suman was preparing breakfast on the stove but explanation of the appellants seems to be not correct one. Hukam Chand was a practicing lawyer, Dinesh Kumar was Dentist and brother of Dinesh Kumar, namely, Rajesh was serving as Inspector in Income Tax Department. When gas connection is issued, then two cylinders are issued by the gas agency. Appellant party was financially sound. Then nothing to presume that there was no other gas cylinder in the house. After inspection, half burnt towel and bed sheet were recovered from the roof. Bed sheet of double bed was also found burnt partially. Two partially burnt pillows were also found in the bed room. If Suman caught fire accidentally, then no question of smell of kerosene on the scalp hair. If story regarding accidental fire was correct, then no question of recovery of partially burnt towel and bed sheet from the roof. Photographs on the file also show that story of accidental fire is not correct one.
Bail application was moved by the appellants. Hukam Chand, one of the appellants, had argued the bail application and at that time, allegation of the appellants was that it was a case of suicide by Suman but after challan was presented and evidence was being recorded, then defence version of the appellants was that Suman caught fire accidentally.
Sangita and Shobha, who were acquitted by the trial Court are the sisters of Dinesh Kumar but except the deceased, no one caught fire Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 27 accidentally while cooking on the stove or gas cylinder.
In 2009(3) RCR (Crl.) 439, State of Haryana vs. Ram Phal and others, defence version of the accused was that deceased received burn injuries in accidental fire due to burst of stove but story of bursting of stove not believed. Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court opined that why mother-in-law and sister-in-law do not sustain burn injuries from accidental stove burns and why only the daughter-in-law caught fire accidentally due to burst of stove.
First of all, defence version seems to be not correct one that there was no gas cylinder on the day of occurrence. No explanation regarding second gas cylinder. IO admitted that on the day of occurrence, one employee of gas agency with cylinder came but he went back after seeing the incident, but regarding second gas cylinder, no explanation. When one of the appellants was practicing lawyer and second was a doctor, then there was a possibility of more than two cylinders in the house when family was not small. Two young unmarried girls were also in the same house, who were acquitted by the trial Court.
Next submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants was that appellant party was financially sound than the complainant party. Shiv Kumar, complainant, was politically sound. Dead body was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, but doctors were not agreeing to give favourable report to the complainant. Then doctors were pressurized to shift the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak. Being politically sound, favourable report was obtained from Dr. D.R.Yadav but submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants is without any force. No doubt, Shiv Kumar had contested election but he had no say in the area of Kaithal. Shiv Kumar is from Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 28 District Bhiwani and Bhiwani is at a distance of about 150 kms. from Kaithal. Defeated candidate cannot be expected to have a say in all the districts, particularly when Hukam Chand was a practicing lawyer at Kaithal and one of his son was a doctor and second was Inspector in Income Tax Department. In fact, Hukam Chand seems to be influential person because at the time of recording of evidence, photocopies of case diary were found with him. Photocopies of case diary are not supplied to the accused. Copies are not attached with the challan. Only the court has the power to see the case diary. At the time of evidence or arguments, defence counsel has no power to inspect the case diary. If Hukam Chand can have photocopies of case diary, then it means that he had a say in the police department. If Shiv Kumar had a say in the police department, then police officials were not expected to supply copies of case diary to the appellants. After the occurrence, dead body was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. Board was constituted but Dr. S.K.Jain stated that they were not in a position to opine as to what was the cause of death. Suggestion was given to Dr. S.K.Jain that they were under the pressure of complainant not to give opinion. Dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. Doctors were not under the control of Shiv Kumar. If the doctors were of the opinion that they were not in a position to opine as to what was the cause of death, then they had power to refer the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem examination.
Dr. D.R.Yadav was Head of Department. He is a well known doctor. Nothing on the file that he was under the influence of complainant party. 80% burn injuries were noticed. Injuries were ante mortem in nature. Smell of kerosene was noticed in case of scalp hair. So, if the postmortem was by the Head of Department of PGIMS, Rohtak, then not correct to Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 29 opine that postmortem report was procured by the complainant party.
Learned defence counsel for the appellants further argued that according to the story, payment was demanded to open Nursing Home but allegation is not correct one because Dinesh Kumar was serving as Doctor in a hospital. With Rs.1,00,000/- not possible to open Nursing Home. So, story regarding demand of cash to open Nursing Home was coined. Demand of cash to open Nursing Home cannot be said to be dowry demand. In 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 625, Virender Singh vs. State of Haryana, Some presents demanded by husband at the time of marriage of sister of his wife- General demands and demand of Rs.20,000/- for business- Then demand cannot said to be dowry demand. But after going through the evidence on the file, I am not in a position to agree with the submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants, because before marriage, Rs.4,10,000/- was paid to Hukam Chand to purchase dowry articles. Some of the dowry articles were recovered by the IO. Rs.10,000/- was paid at the time of engagement. Rs.11,000/- was paid at the time of marriage. After marriage, deceased was pressurized to bring cash lying deposited in the shape of FDRs/share certificates etc. DW3 Zile Singh brought record and stated that FDRs were issued in the name of the deceased on different dates.
DW4 Dinesh Rastogi brought record and stated that as per record, Account No. 29305 was opened in the name of Suman (deceased) on 22.7.1988.
DW6 Subhash Sharma stated that one agreement to sell was in favour of the appellants. Pronotes and receipts (Ex.DV7 to Ex.DV10) were also in favour of one of the appellants. No doubt, agreement to sell and Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 30 different pronotes are in favour of the appellants but documentary evidence also shows that amount was lying deposited in the name of the deceased. Before marriage, deceased had account in the bank. Allegation of the prosecution is that appellants were demanding payment to open Nursing Home. If demand had nexus with the marriage directly or indirectly, then demand constitutes demand for dowry as held in 2011 STPL (Web) 113 SC, Bachni Devi and another vs. State of Haryana. In this case, learned counsel for the appellants had argued that a demand of money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. Then Court observed that if demand for property or valuable security, directly or indirectly, has a nexus with marriage, then such demand would constitute demand for dowry. Cause or reason for such demand is immaterial.
As per defence version of the appellants, marriage was simple. Deceased was happily staying at her in-laws house. In case, marriage was simple, then no question of recovery of dowry articles. Recovery of dowry articles during investigation shows that submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants is not correct one. If the appellants were financially sound than the complainant party, even then no bar to demand dowry. All depends upon the character/greed of the husband or his parents. Number of cases where financially sound persons were noticed while demanding dowry and harassing daughters-in-law for want of dowry. Payment of more than Rs.4,00,000/- before marriage, Rs.10,000/- at the time of engagement, Rs.11,000/- at the time of marriage and payment to open Nursing Home after the marriage shows that deceased was harassed Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 31 for want of dowry soon before death. Death was within 4-5 months.
In 2009 (3) RCR (Crl.) 418, Nepal Singh vs. State of Haryana, death was within 4 years of marriage by taking poison- Evidence of intervener who had got the marriage settled- Stated that at the time of settlement of marriage and even thereafter, no demand of dowry was made- Demand of dowry not proved- Accused was acquitted but judgment of Sessions Court was upset by the High Court on the allegation that something must have happened and otherwise deceased would not have committed suicide- Then Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this ground is indefensible and could not have been a reason to set aside the judgment of acquittal.
In 2010 (4) RCR (Crl.) 53, Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, Allegation of harassment and torture by making demand of dowry- No evidence as to what was the exact act or conduct of accused by which the deceased felt tortured- Conviction was set aside.
In 2007(2) RCR (Crl.) 395, Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder vs. State of West Bengal, Bride committing suicide by taking poison at matrimonial home- Allegations that accused were putting pressure on deceased to bring more items of dowry- Practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry- Conviction was set aside. But in the present case, before marriage, cash payment to Hukam Chand to purchase dowry articles. Dowry articles were recovered from the house of the appellants. At the time of marriage, besides payment of gold ornaments and clothes, there was cash payment of Rs.11,000/-. After marriage, again payment of Rs.60,000/. Deceased had bank account and payment in the shape of FDRs and share certificates. Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 32 Deceased was pressurized to bring cash payment. If deceased had no problem and was residing happily in her in-laws house, then no reason to complain that she was harassed for want of dowry.
Next submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants was that occurrence was at about 5.30-6.30 AM on 26.8.1994. After Suman received injuries by accidental fire, then immediately intimation was sent to the complainant. Complainant party came to Kaithal. DDR was got registered. Police party also came to the place of occurrence at about 9.30 AM. Dr. Kulwinder Singh came to know about the occurrence at 11.00 AM. At the time of DDR, detail was not given by the complainant but later on, story was concocted. Then FIR was got registered in view of statement (Ex.PG). No explanation why after DDR, again matter was reported to the police. Delay in lodging the FIR shows that, in fact, deceased caught fire accidentally. When death was within 4-5 months from the date of marriage, then complainant party thought proper to take revenge by implicating all family members of the husband. Two unmarried daughters and two sons, including husband of the deceased, were residing in the same house with Hukam Chand and his wife. Allegations are the same against all family members but three were acquitted by the trial Court. No explanation regarding delay. When story as per statement (Ex.PG) is different than the story as per DDR, then possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
No doubt, as per defence version, occurrence was at about 5.30- 6.30 AM in the house of the appellants. On telephone, message was sent to the complainant party but residence of complainant was at a distance of about 150 kms. from the place of occurrence. Minimum 2-3 hours are required to cover the distance. On receipt of information, firstly complainant Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 33 requested Raj Kumar Bindlish to visit the house of the appellants and report about the incident. After information to the remaining family members, then complainant along with other family members had gone to Kaithal. DDR was got recorded, then complainant along with other family members had gone to the house of the appellants. After that, they came to know that deceased was set on fire for want of dowry, then report was lodged. Special report was delivered to Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.50 PM. At the time of DDR at about 12.30 PM, complainant party was not sure as to what was the real story because on telephone, intimation was given to the complainant party that Suman received burn injuries while ironing the clothes.
In 2007(4) RCR (Crl.) 1042, Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh vs. State of Punjab through Secretary (Home), Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.13 observed as under:-
"13. Chapter XII of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. Investigation into allegations relating to commission of a cognizable offence starts on information given to an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station and recorded under Section 154 of the Code. If from information so received or otherwise, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct the investigation to any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by the Code. The procedure as regards the registration of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and the procedure for investigation is Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 34 structured and regulated by Chapter XII of the Code. The procedure prescribed is required to be followed scrupulously by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. The Punjab Police Rules do not in any manner override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said rules are meant for the guidance of the Police Officers in the State and supplement the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but not supplant them. In our considered opinion the truth and veracity of contents of the FIR cannot in all cases be tested with a reference to the entries made in the Police Station daily diary which is maintained under the Punjab Police Rules. This avoidable controversy need not detain us any further since it is well settled that even a defect, if any, found in investigation, however, serious has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to the cognizance or the trial. A defect or procedural irregularity, if any, in investigation itself cannot vitiate and nullify the trial based on such erroneous investigation."
After the occurrence, any one can inform the police about the occurrence. FIR is not the encyclopedia of the occurrence. After the occurrence when complainant party was sure as to what was the cause of death, then matter was reported to the police and FIR was got registered, then story is not to be ignored on the ground that while getting the DDR recorded, complete story was not brought to the notice of the police. When there is a delay and delay is not explained, then delay itself is not sufficient for acquittal of the accused. Delay is one of the suspicious circumstance to Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 35 scrutinize evidence with great care and caution. As discussed earlier, two unmarried daughters of Hukam Chand were also staying in the same house. If defence version is correct one that there was no gas cylinder on the relevant date, then question is why only the deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast and why unmarried daughters or their mother did not receive injuries accidentally.
Learned defence counsel for the appellants further argued that general allegation against the entire family members that they used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry and deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry soon before death, but on the same evidence, three were acquitted by the trial Court. No role of Sudershna, mother-in-law of the deceased. She was very old. Her eye sight was also damaged during operation. She was on the roof and had a fall while coming to the ground floor. Immediately after the occurrence, she was admitted in the hospital and this fact is clear from the statements of DW1 Dr.Prithi Mehta and DW2 Gurmail Kaur, Nurse. As per statement (Ex.PG), only Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry but Sudershna was convicted and sentenced on the allegation that she is the mother-in-law. After going through the evidence on the file, I am of the opinion that submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants seems to be reasonable.
Admittedly, unnatural death at the in-laws house within 4-5 months from the date of marriage. Ex.PG is the statement of Shiv Kumar, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded, but no allegation that Sudershna at any stage harassed the deceased for want of dowry. Allegation Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 36 of Shiv Kumar was that before marriage, Rs.4,10,000/- was paid to Hukam Chand to purchase dowry articles. Second allegation was that Rs.10,000/- was paid at the time of engagement, but no allegation that payment was made to Sudershna. Next allegation of the complainant was that Rs.11,000/- in cash was given to Hukam Chand, Dinesh Kumar, Rajesh and Sobha at the time of departure of barat. Not a word by the complainant that cash payment was also made to Sudershna. First time after marriage when Suman came to her parental house, then she did not disclose about the demand of dowry or harassment. Second time when she came to her parental house, then had disclosed that her father-in-law and husband were harassing her for want of dowry and she was directed to bring cash lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates etc. Payment was demanded for opening of Nursing Home. Again not a word by the complainant that cash was demanded by Sudershna to open Nursing Home. After demand of cash, Rs.60,000/- was paid by the complainant but no allegation that payment was made to Sudershna. Third time when Suman came, then again told to complainant that her in-laws were demanding Rs.1,00,000/- lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates etc. Again, no allegation by the deceased that cash was demanded by Sudershna. On 10.8.1994, Dinesh Kumar was to visit his in-laws house to bring back Suman but he did not turn up. On the request of Dinesh Kumar, Suman was sent to her in-laws house with Sunder Lal and Rajinder. Rajinder is the son of complainant but he was not examined to state as to whether Sudershna had misbehaved or maltreated the deceased for want of dowry. Sunder Lal appeared as PW8 but did not state a word that in his presence, Suman was harassed for want of dowry by Sudershna or before Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 37 that, at any stage, Suman told him that Sudershna also misbehaved and maltreated her for want of dowry. Rajinder rather told to the complainant that Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar directed him to send payment. Then Hukam Chand was requested not to harass Suman.
Raj Kumar Bindlish was the mediator. He has supported the prosecution story but did not state a word that at any stage, Suman had contacted him and disclosed that Sudershna used to misbehave and maltreat her for want of dowry. Before the occurrence, no complaint to any authority that Sudershna used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. No panchayat was convened.
In 2006(3) RCR (Crl.) 783, Kanwal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Involvement of family members of accused-Where the bride either commits suicide or is murdered by her in-laws family, the tempers run high- So much so that attempt is made to rope in the entire family of the husband of the victim- Almost all the family members of the husband are attributed one role or the other so as to implicate them, although they may not have done anything in the entire occurrence-Then duty of the Court is to separate grain from the chaff and find out if some of the accused have been falsely roped.
In Amar Singh's case (supra), all the accused were acquitted except the husband- Allegation against entire family that they demanded scooter and harassed and teased the bride- Death of bride by burning- Conviction of mother and brother set aside- No evidence as to what was the exact act and conduct of mother and brother by which the deceased felt tortured- So far as husband is concerned, he used to taunt that deceased had come from hungry house- This is evidence of exact conduct which caused Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 38 harassment to deceased.
In the present case, no evidence on the file as to what was the exact act and conduct of mother-in-law, which caused harassment to the deceased. Before death, whenever deceased came to her parental house, then did not level any allegation against her mother-in-law.
In Court, Shiv Kumar or his brother Sunder Lal while appearing as PW7 and PW8, respectively, then did not state that Sudershna also used to misbehave or maltreat the deceased for want of dowry or at any stage, pressurized the deceased to bring cash or jewellery etc. Evidence on the file rather shows that Sudershna was implicated being the mother-in- law. When no role of Sudershna, then I am of the opinion that benefit of doubt should be given to her. Sudershna is acquitted of the charge levelled against her.
As per evidence on the file, vague allegation against Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha that they used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Rajesh is the brother-in-law of the deceased, whereas Sangita and Sobha are unmarried daughters of Hukam Chand. They were not present at the time of occurrence. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court while giving them benefit of doubt. No reason to differ.
Crl.Revision No.404 of 1998 is rejected.
In the light of above discussion, appeal qua Sudershna is accepted, whereas appeal qua Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar is rejected.
Appellants Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar are on bail. They are directed to surrender before the concerned authority to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, failing which, concerned Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 39 authority/CJM, Kaithal, to issue re-arrest warrants to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
20.4.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE