Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 29 July, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision: 29.7.2010
(I) Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999
Suresh Kumar
... Appellant
versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
(II) Crl.Revision No.349 of 2000
Arjun Singh
... Petitioner
versus
Suresh Kumar and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.Bipan Ghai, Sr.Advocate, with
Mr.Deepak Garg, Advocate,
for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 &
respondents No.1 to 3 in Crl.Rev.No.349 of 2000.
Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate,
for the petitioner-complainant.
Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 was preferred by Suresh Kumar to impugn the judgment of conviction dated 4.12.1999 and order of sentence dated 6.12.1999 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, arising out of FIR No.150 dated 4.9.1998 under Sections 306/34 IPC, Police Station Bawani Khera.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 2 default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 3 months.
Co-accused Banwari Lal and Sarji were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Against their acquittal, no appeal by the State.
Crl.Revision No.349 of 2000 was instituted by Arjun Singh against the acquittal of Banwari Lal and Sarji and awarding less sentence to Suresh Kumar.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 4.9.1998, police party headed by SI Krishan Kumar while on patrol duty was present near Bus Stand Pur, where Arjun Singh, complainant, along with Balraj Singh, Sarpanch, had met them. Arjun Singh reported to the police party that he was the resident of Village Nindana and was serving as S.A. in Telephone Department at Bhiwani. They were three brothers and two sisters. He was the eldest. His younger sister Saroj was married with Suresh son of Banwari. Marriage was solemnised on 20.6.1990 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, dowry was given as per their status. Saroj was handicapped from her right buttock. For about 4 years, she failed to give birth to any child and due to this reason, Suresh, his father and mother used to taunt Saroj that being handicapped, she was unable to give birth to a child. Suresh and his parents used to harass Saroj for want of dowry. He got his sister treated with the result, she gave birth to a female child, namely, Savita, aged about 4 years and one son, namely Sonu, aged about 2-1/2 years. Birth of Sonu was in his house and at that time, Saroj told that her husband used to harass her and due to this reason, she came to Village Nindana for delivery. Saroj was persuaded and made to understand. On 3.9.1998 at about 4.00 PM, Suresh came to him and informed that Saroj had bolted the door from inside and despite repeated calls, neither she was Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 3 opening the door, nor she and the children were responding to their calls. On receipt of information from Suresh, he (Arjun Singh) along with his wife Kailash Devi had gone to the house of Suresh in Village Pur. Saroj and her children, namely, Savita and Sonu, were found lying dead inside the room. Arjun Singh came back to his house and matter was reported to other members of his family at Bhiwani and Village Nindana. On the next day, he along with his father and other members of village had gone to Village Pur and enquired about the incident, then came to know that Saroj after bolting door from inside had committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon herself and the children. After making endorsement on the statement of Arjun Singh, statement was sent to concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PB) was recorded.
Investigating Officer had gone to the spot. Photographer was arranged. There was a window on one side of the room, which was found locked from inside. Carpenter was called and the window was got opened and then door was got opened from inside with the help of Chowkidar. Dead bodies of Saroj, Savita and Sonu were found lying inside the room. Photographs of dead bodies were got clicked from the Photographer. Inquest reports were prepared. Dead bodies were sent to hospital for postmortem examination. After inspecting the spot, one plastic can containing about 4 lts. kerosene and one empty can were found lying on the spot. Both cans were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Earth was lifted from the spot and was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan (Ex.PH) with its correct marginal notes was prepared. On return to the police station, case Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 4 property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana. After postmortem examination, dead bodies were handed over to the relatives for cremation. Accused Suresh Kumar and Banwari Lal were arrested on the same day, whereas accused Sarji was arrested on 5.9.1998. After completion of investigation, accused were challaned.
Accused were charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined PW1 Constable Vir Shakti Singh, who had prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PA) with correct marginal notes.
PW2 Constable Mahavir Singh had delivered special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 12.25 (noon) on 4.9.1998.
PW3 Shayam Sunder, Photographer, stated that on 4.9.1998, he was summoned to the spot and he had taken photographs of the dead bodies. Photographs are from Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and their negatives are from Ex.P7 to Ex.P12.
PW4 Arjun Singh is the complainant and stated that his younger sister Saroj was married with Suresh. Marriage was solemnised on 20.6.1990. At the time of marriage, they had given sufficient dowry as per their status. His sister was handicapped and for about 4 years, she failed to give birth to any child. She was got treated from doctor and after that she gave birth to a girl and a boy. Accused used to taunt his sister by saying that she was handicapped and sufficient dowry was not given. On 3.9.1998, Suresh came to his house at Bhiwani and reported that Saroj along with children had locked the room from inside and despite repeated calls, she was not responding. After that, he along with his wife had gone to Village Pur. Saroj and her children were found lying dead inside the room. On the Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 5 next day, matter was reported to the police.
PW5 Dr.K.K.Girdhar stated that on 4.9.1998, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Saroj and observed as under:-
"Eyes and mouth were semi open. Smell of kerosene oil was coming from clothes and body. Singing of scalp hair, eye brows, axillary and pubic hair was present. Rigor mortis was present all over the limb. Pugilistic appearance of body was present. There were multiple burns present all over the body except lateral surface of right thigh and buttock. Black sooty carbon particles were present in tracheae."
On the same day, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Savita and observed as under:-
"Eyes were semi open. Tongue was protruding out from the mouth. Smell of kerosene was coming from the body and clothes. Singeing of hair and eye brows were present. There were multiple burns and a right line was present between the burnt area and healthy area. There was blackening of skin. Blackish sooty carbons were present."
On the same day, he had also conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sonu and observed as under:-
"Left eye was protruding out. Right eye was semi closed. Tongue was protruding out from the mouth. Smell of kerosene was coming from the dead body and clothes. Singeing of hair and eye brows was present. There were multiple burn injuries of variable size present. A red line of demarcation was present between burnt area and healthy area. Blackening of skin was Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 6 present. Blackish sooty carbon particles were present."
Cause of death was due to shock and suffocation as a result of multiple burns which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in natural course of time.
PW6 Kailash Devi is the wife of Arjun Singh, complainant. She has supported the version of Arjun Singh.
PW7 SI Krishan Singh is the Investigating Officer.
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 Sarji was that she was not present in Village Pur. She had gone to the house of her son Subhash in Village Bhurtana, where his wife was serving. On the next day, she came back to her house after knowing about the death of Saroj and her children. She was arrested in this case. She was residing separately from her son Suresh.
Defence version of Banwari Lal was that on 3.9.1998, he was on duty in Village Kungar and after duty, he came back to Village Pur. After sun set, his son along with Arjun Singh came to his house. Police was also present and without doing anything, police had left the house after leaving watchman to guard the room. Next day in the morning, Arjun Singh came with police party. False case was registered against him, his wife and son. His son Subhash was residing in Village Bhurtana. He along with his wife was residing separately from Suresh.
Defence version of Suresh Kumar was that Arjun Singh being greedy person wanted to blackmail them on account of accidental death. He was on duty in Village Sangwan as JBT Teacher. He came back to his Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 7 house and found the main gate and internal gate of his house locked. After opening main gate, he was present near the verandah, then found the room bolted from inside and there was no response from inside. After that, he had gone to Bhiwani and reported the matter to Arjun Singh that no response was coming from inside the room on the part of Saroj. Then Arjun Singh along with his wife had accompanied him to Village Pur. Police was also summoned but due to darkness and on the request of complainant, matter was postponed till morning. Raju was deputed to guard that room till morning. On the next day, complainant along with police party came. False case was registered against him. His father and mother were residing separately with his younger brother Ramesh Chander, who is serving in Police Department.
In defence, DW1 Baje Singh, Sarpanch, appeared and stated that Banwari and Suresh used to reside separately with their respective families. Chulha tax was being paid separately.
DW2 Head Teacher Dharambir stated that Suresh was serving as JBT Teacher in the school of Village Sangwan, and as per record brought by him, Suresh was on duty in the school on 3.9.1998 upto school hours.
DW3 Head Teacher Gaje Singh stated that he has brought record of Government Girls Primary School, Kungar, where Banwari was posted as a Head Teacher. On 3.9.1998, Banwari was on duty in the school till 2.10 PM.
DW4 Raju, Chowkidar, stated that accused were known to him. They were residing separately in Village Pur. Police came to the house of accused to enquire about the incident. Occurrence was inside the room and there was one window and one door of the room. At about 8.00 PM, Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 8 complainant along with police party came. Police party directed him to guard the room during night time. On the next day, police came along with complainant. With the help of carpenter, gauze of the window was cut and opened the window. By removing iron rod, he had gone inside the room and opened the door from inside.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on file, Suresh Kumar was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid, whereas other co-accused, namely, Banwari Lal and Sarji, were acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner and have gone through the evidence on file.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that occurrence is dated 3.9.1998, whereas FIR is dated 4.9.1998. There is a delay in lodging the FIR because on 3.9.1998 after the occurrence, appellant had informed the complainant. Complainant came to the house of appellant on 3.9.1998 but matter was not reported to the police. On 4.9.1998, complainant with other family members again came to the house of appellant and then reported the matter to the police. In fact, complainant party was intending to extract payment from the appellant. When the appellant did not agree, then false case was got registered. Deceased Saroj was married with the appellant on 20.6.1990 and out of this wedlock, she had two issues, namely, Savita and Sonu. After 8-1 /2 years, there was no idea to demand dowry. No cogent and convincing evidence on the file that the appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. On the basis of same evidence led by the Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 9 complainant party, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Saroj were acquitted by the trial Court. At the time of occurrence, appellant was on duty. Saroj along with children caught fire accidentally with the fall of kerosene lamp lying on the shelf. In case, Saroj was harassed for want of dowry or was abetted to commit suicide, then she was expected to commit suicide. No fault of the minor children. Unnatural death due to accidental fire seems to be probable.
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant- petitioner argued that marriage of Saroj was solemnised in the year 1990 but for about 4 years, Saroj being handicapped failed to give birth to any child. Then she was got treated from the doctor by the complainant. After that, Saroj gave birth to Savita, aged about 4 years, and one son namely Sonu, aged about 2-1 /2 years, at the time of alleged occurrence. Saroj being handicapped when failed to give birth to any child, then she was being harassed for want of dowry. Unnatural death in the house of appellant. Story of accidental fire is not correct one because dead body of Saroj was found lying at point `A' in one corner of the room, whereas dead bodies of children were noticed at points `B' and `C'. Theory of accidental fire was correct in case all the bodies would have been noticed at one place, where burnt cot was shown. Second cot was also in the room, but said cot was found intact. Second wooden cot did not catch fire. Two cans were found in the room. Both cans were without any sign of accidental fire. Occurrence was on 3.9.1998. As per intimation by the appellant, complainant came to the house of appellant on 3.9.1998. When door of the room was found locked from inside and there was no response by any body from inside the room, then the complainant had gone to his village to inform other Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 10 members. On the next day, i.e., 4.9.1998, complainant with other family members came and then matter was reported to the police. Investigating Officer did not state a word that on 3.9.1998, complainant had met him or anybody had reported about the incident and after visiting the spot, chowkidar was deputed to guard the room. Chowkidar while appearing as DW4, then stated that on 3.9.1998, police came and he was deputed to guard the room because due to darkness, room was not got opened. On the next day, room was got opened from him. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court.
Saroj deceased was married with Suresh Kumar on 20.6.1990. Saroj was handicapped and according to the complainant, she was got treated from the doctor. Then after 4 years, she gave birth to Savita and Sonu. At the time of occurrence, Savita was about 4 years' old and Sonu was 2-1/ 2 years' old. Unnatural death of Saroj, Savita and Sonu in the house of Suresh Kumar appellant.
Arjan Singh, complainant, was serving in Telephone Department at Bhiwani. As per complainant, Saroj being handicapped failed to give birth to any child for about 4 years. After that, she was got treated from the doctor, then she gave birth to Savita and Sonu. Birth of Sonu was at his Village Nindana. On 3.9.1998 at 4.00 PM, Suresh Kumar informed him that Saroj has bolted the room from inside and despite repeated calls, no response from anybody. After that, he along with his wife had gone to the house of Suresh Kumar. Room was found bolted from inside and there was no response from anybody. Then he came back to his village. On the next day, he along with other family members had gone to the house of appellant. Matter was reported to the police. Police came and Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 11 with the help of carpenter, room was got opened. Dead bodies of Saroj, Savita and Sonu were found lying at different places in the room.
Suresh Kumar when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then did not state a word that Saroj was not handicapped and she was not got treated from any doctor when she failed to give birth to any child for about 4 years. At the time of occurrence, Suresh Kumar was on duty and this fact is clear from the statement of DW2 Dharambir, Head Teacher. Father of Suresh Kumar was also Head Teacher.
Defence version of the appellant was that while lying on cot, Saroj along with minor children caught fire accidentally with the fall of kerosene lamp lying on the shelf, but story regarding accidental fire is not correct one. In case, there was an accidental fire, then all the bodies should have been at one place. One iron cot with plastic niwar was found burnt. Second wooden cot was also in the same room but wooden cot had no sign of accidental fire. Two cans were also recovered from the room. Both the cans were found intact. After inspecting the spot, rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Dead body of Saroj was found lying at point `A'. Point `A' is on the western-southern corner of the room. Dead bodies of minor children were found lying at points `B' and `C'. Points `B' and `C' are on the northern-southern side of the room. Dead bodies of minor children noticed at points `B' and `C' were at some distance from point `A' where dead body of Saroj was found lying. Point `H' is the place, where burnt cot was found lying. If there was an accidental fire with the fall of kerosene lamp from the shelf, then all the dead bodies should have been at point `H', where burnt cot was found lying. According to the prosecution, Saroj was harassed for want of dowry because she being handicapped failed Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 12 to deliver any child, whereas submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that there was no harassment for want of dowry. But one thing is clear that Saroj gave birth to the first child after about 4 years of the marriage. So, submission of the complainant that Saroj was got treated from the doctor seems to be reasonable one. Suppose Saroj was not got treated from the doctor and she was able to produce a child and was not handicapped and was enjoying the married life because her husband (Suresh Kumar) and father-in-law were in service, then question arises why a married lady having two children was to commit suicide. Lady staying in the in-laws' house was to commit suicide if abetted to commit suicide. According to the evidence on file, appellant was residing separately from his parents. Banwari Lal and Sarji, parents of appellant, were acquitted by the trial Court on the ground that they were residing separately and had not abetted the deceased for want of dowry or due to some other reason. When Saroj with minor children was residing separately with Suresh Kumar and there was no accidental fire, then Suresh Kumar is to explain what was the reason for Saroj to commit suicide with two minor children.
Arjun Singh while appearing in Court stated that Saroj was handicapped and was being harassed for want of dowry. So, when theory of accidental fire inspires no confidence, then trial Court rightly opined that Saroj was abetted to commit suicide.
Occurrence was on 3.9.1998. At the time of occurrence, Suresh Kumar was on duty and when came back, then found the house bolted from inside and despite repeated calls, there was no response from inside the room. After that, Suresh Kumar had gone to his in-laws' house and reported the matter to Arjun Singh. On receipt of information, Arjun Singh along Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 13 with his wife had gone to the house of Suresh Kumar. After the room was found bolted from inside and there was no response from anyone, then Arjun Singh came back to his residence. Suggestion was given to Arjun Singh that on 3.9.1998, room was got opened by the police. Second suggestion to Arjun Singh was that the appellant was found innocent by the Vigilance Department.
Investigating Officer appeared in Court and stated that on 4.9.1998 on receipt of information, he had gone to the spot. Statement of Arjun Singh was recorded and after that, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Investigating Officer did not state a word that on 3.9.1998, he had gone to the spot and met the complainant and the Chowkidar was deputed to guard the room. Investigating Officer further stated that at the time of preparation of inquest report, accused was not present.
Raju, Chowkidar, appeared as DW4 and stated that he was summoned by the police and on the request of police, he had brought Mangtu, Carpenter to open the door. In chief, Raju did not state a word that his statement was recorded by the police. No suggestion to the Investigating Officer that statement of Raju was recorded. Mangtu was not examined in defence to state that on 3.9.1998, he was summoned through Raju, Chowkidar, and on the request of police, he had opened the door. No suggestion to the Investigating Officer or the complainant as to who had informed the police on 3.9.1998. No case of the appellant that he had informed the police on 3.9.1998 or complainant party had informed the police. When no one had informed the police on 3.9.1998, then no question to depute Raju to guard the room or summon Mangtu to open the door. In Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 14 fact, after the occurrence when intimation was given by the appellant to the complainant, then complainant along with his wife had gone to the spot and after inspecting spot came back to his village, when there was no response from the room. On the next day, i.e., 4.9.1998, intimation was given to the police. Then police came and room was got opened. No dispute regarding the occurrence dated 3.9.1998, but dispute is whether deceased caught fire accidentally or they were abetted to commit suicide. As discussed earlier, there was no accidental fire when bodies were found lying in the room at different places. Statement of Raju was not recorded by the police, so very easy for the appellant to produce Raju in defence to state that on 3.9.1998, police came and he was deputed to guard the room. Suppose police came on 3.9.1998 and Raju was deputed to guard the room, even then delay is not fatal because on 3.9.1998, matter was not reported to the police by any party.
DW1 Baje Singh stated that Suresh Kumar was residing separately from his parents. Banwari Lal was Head Teacher and this fact is clear from the statement of DW3. No suggestion to DW3 that Banwari Lal was not Head Teacher and at the time of occurrence, he was not on duty. No oral or documentary proof from the side of prosecution that Banwari Lal and his wife Sarji were residing jointly with Suresh Kumar. Investigating Officer admitted that Suresh Kumar was residing separately from his parents. Marriage was in the year 1990. When Suresh Kumar was residing separately, then no question of torture on account of demand of dowry or abetment to commit suicide because by getting more dowry, Banwari Lal and his wife Sarji, residing separately, were not to be benefited. After scrutinizing the evidence on file, trial Court has rightly acquitted Banwari Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 15 Lal and his wife Sarji.
No other submission was put forward.
For the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No reason to interfere. Impugned judgment is to be set aside if the same is perverse and against law and facts.
Resultantly, Crl.Appeal No.1199-SB of 1999 and Crl.Revision No.349 of 2000 without merit are dismissed.
29.7.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE