Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Dass Son Of Puran Mal, Puran Mal Son ... vs State Of Haryana on 15 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ2203
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. Appellant No. 1 Mehar Dass is the unfortunate husband who has faced trial under Sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code because of the fact that his wife Shrimati Pataso died by consuming poison and committed suicide on March 17, 1989. The remaining two appellants Puran Mal and Shanti are parents of Mehar Dass. All the three jointly were charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 305 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the aforesaid suicide committed by Shrimati Pataso. An FIR was registered on March 17, 1989 at Police Station Pilukhera at the instance of Ramphal son of Ram Karan.
2. As per the prosecution version Mehra Dass appellant, who was serving in Army was married with Pataso in February, 1982. After the marriage, deceased Shrimati Pataso lived with her husband and her parents-in-law in her matrimonial home. Even according to the case put up by the prosecution, the husband of the deceased and his parents were satisfied with the dowry items given at the time of marriage but subsequently they started harassing her by raising more demand of dowry. Mehar Dass came on leave from Army on March 16, 1989 and went to the house of his parents-in-law i.e. the parents of Shrimati Pataso to bring Pataso to his house. He asked Ramphal brother of Pataso and Shrimati Darkan mother of Pataso to send her along with him. Accordingly, Pataso accompanied her husband to her matrimonial home. On the next day i.e. March 17, 1989 Rajbir younger brother of Mehar Dass came to the village of Pataso and informed that she had consumed some poisonous tablet and was being taken to hospital at Jind. Pataso died because of the consumption of the aforesaid poisonous substance.
3. The prosecution led evidence and produced PW7 Ramphal son of Ram Karan, who is the real brother of deceased Pataso; PW8 Shrimati Darkan mother of the deceased, PW9 Shri S.K. Shukla, Assistance Chemical Examiner and PW10 SI Mam Chand, who was Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, learned Sessions Judge, Jind found all the accused guilty of the commission of the offences under Sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted them and sentenced them to undergo RI for five years each under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further ordered to undergo RI for one year under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellants have now challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind through the present appeal.
4. I have heard Shri Baldev Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance have gone the record of the case.
Shri Baldev Singh learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant had ever mal-treated aforesaid Pataso or had ever committed any such act, which had forced the deceased to commit suicide. On that basis, it is submitted by the learned counsel that in fact there is no basis for recording the findings that the appellants had ever abetted the commission of the suicide by deceased Pataso. In this regard Shri Baldev Singh has drawn my pointed attention to the statement of PW7 Ramphal. Aforesaid Ramphal has specifically deposed that at the time of marriage the accused were satisfied with the articles of dowry given by them. It is further stated by him that later they started harassing them and started demanding more dowry. However, no details, whatsoever, were given by aforesaid witness Ramphal. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties had taken place in February, 1982. It has not been shown that for all these seven years when the parties remained together i.e. till her death on March 17, 1989, the deceased was ever maltreated or that she had made any complaint in this regard to her parents or to the police. The only statement made by aforesaid witness was that Mehar Dass had come on annual leave on March 16, 1989 and had come to their house and requested them to send his wife with him. Upon that request made by the husband, the brother and mother of the deceased merely requested the husband not to harass Pataso. Infact on March 16, 1989 Pataso was sent along with Mehar Dass by the brother and mother of the deceased. On March 17, 1989 Rajbir brother of Mehra Dass appellant came to inform brother and mother of the deceased that Pataso had consumed some poisonous tablet and that she had been taken to the hospital. To the similar effect is the statement of Darkan (PW8) mother of the deceased. Nothing has been shown by the prosecution that the appellants had created any such circumstances for the deceased that she had been forced to end her life because of the aforesaid facts.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any such evidence which would go to prove that the appellants have committed the offence for which they were charged. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the appellants re acquitted of the charges levelled against them.