Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Dharmender And Others on 23 January, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 212-MA OF 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: January 23, 2009
Parties Name
State of Haryana
...-APPLICANT.
VERSUS
Dharmender and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. K.S.Godara, D.A.G., Haryana
for the applicant.
Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the
petitioner in Cr. Revisions No. 110 of 2008
and 1214 of 2008.
JASBIR SINGH, J.
JUDGMENT
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 212-MA of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 1214 of 2008 arising out of FIR No. 188 dated September 13, 2006. Facts are being mentioned from Cr. Misc. No. 212-MA of 2008.
The State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. Praying for grant of leave to file an appeal against judgment dated January 2, 2008, acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them. Respondents were put to face trial for commission of offences CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 212-MA OF 2008 -2- under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they, in furtherance of their common intention, had committed dowry death of Smt. Santosh wife of respondent No. 1 on September 13, 2006.
It was case of the prosecution that marriage of the deceased was solemnised with respondent No. 1, namely, Dharmender on April 30, 2006. After marriage, she was constantly being maltreated by the respondents along with one Ankit son of Kirpal for demand of dowry. In particular, it was case of the prosecution that on September 13, 2006, at about 7.30 AM, complainant Pawan Kumar learnt through a telephonic conversation with Smt. Santosh that the respondents along with Ankit had been demanding Rs. 10,000/-. He along with his brother Sajjan proceeded to the matrimonial home of his sister. On reaching there, they had noticed from some distance that the respondent and Ankit were dragging their sister towards the well and in their sight, she was pushed into the same. Out of fear, they did not intervene, came back to their village, narrated the incident to the other family members and they all, in the evening, went to the matrimonial house of the deceased. A complaint was made to the police at about 9 PM on the date, mentioned above. Allegation regarding demand of dowry was also levelled against Sheela wife of Anil. However, during investigation, she was found innocent and her name was put in column No. 2 of the final report. Accused Ankit, being minor, his trial was shifted to Juvenile Justice Board, Bhiwani for trial.
Respondents were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced nine witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. It is necessary to CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 212-MA OF 2008 -3- mention here that during pendency of trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved to summon Sheela wife of Anil but the same was dismissed vide order dated December 4, 2007. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them , which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. Dharmender
-respondent took a specific stand that his wife had accidentally fallen into the well when she had gone there to fetch water. Anil, respondent-accused, claimed that he was living separately from his brother Dharmender and there was no question of his demanding any dowry. Respondent No. 3 Sheela claimed that on the fateful day, she was lying admitted in the hospital. The respondents also led evidence in defence. The trial Court on analysis of evidence on record came to a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of the respondents and accordingly acquitted them of the charges framed against them. Hence this application.
By filing Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 2008, complainant has laid challenge to the judgment impugned in this application. In Criminal Revision No. 1214 of 2008, complainant has made a request that order dated December 4, 2007, declining to summon Sheela wife of Anil to face trial be set aside.
The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that story of dragging and pushing the deceased into the well, in the presence of Pawan Kumar (PW1) and Sachin (PW8) was not proved on record. To say so, it was observed by the trial Court that both Pawan Kumar and Sachin were aged about 23 years and 27 years respectively. Despite noticing that their sister was being dragged to the well, they did not make any attempt to CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 212-MA OF 2008 -4- rescue her from the alleged assailants. As per allegations of the prosecution, occurrence had taken place at about 10 AM. By noticing that well is situated at a distance of about 1 Killa from the metalled road, the trial Court has rightly held that in such a situation, it was not expected from the respondents to openly drag and throw the deceased into the well. It was further noticed by the trial Court that as per prosecution version, complainant and his brother had gone to their sister's village in a jeep. After murder of their sister, under fear they came back to their village. During that process, they passed nearby the Police Station. Despite that they did not make any attempt to intimate the police. They did not come forward to save their sister nor raised any hue and cry to attract help from others. By observing as above, at the time of occurrence, their presence was found to be most unnatural. It has also come on record that the tubewell, in which the deceased was allegedly pushed in, had pipe and angle fittings inside it. An electric motor was also fitted in that well. Dr. Ishwar Singh (PW7) has admitted that injuries of the nature, suffered by the deceased, could have been caused on account of accidental fall in a well having a depth of about 200 ft. and fitted with iron pipes.
The trial Court has further rightly held that demand of dowry was not proved on record. It has come on record that Mahabir Singh father of the deceased was alive but he was not brought in the witness box to prove allegation of demand of dowry. It has also come on record that after death of his daughter, Shri Mahabir Singh went to meet Dharminder accused in jail. Above said fact clearly proves that allegation with regard to demand of dowry was not correct. It was proved on record that Ankit, co- accused, was minor. If it was so, it is not expected that he will raise any CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 212-MA OF 2008 -5- demand for dowry. Mother-in-law Smt. Sheela Devi was lying admitted in the hospital on the fateful day, from where she was discharged only on September 19, 2006. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that some prosecution witnesses were inimical to the respondents on account of previous litigation inter se the parties.
In view of facts, mentioned above, no case is made out to interfere at the instance of the applicant in Cr. Misc. No. 212-MA of 2008 and the complainant in Criminal Revision No. 1100 of 2008 and Cr. Revision No. 1214 of 2008. Dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) JUDGE January 23, 2009.
DKC