Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Kanta Devi And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 January, 2011
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No. 955 SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 955 SB of 2002
Date of decision 20.1.2011.
Smt.Kanta Devi and another
...... Appellants.
versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana
K.C.PURI, J.
Appellants- Kanta Devi and Subhash have directed the present appeal against the judgment dated 4.5.2002 and order dated 8.5.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which accused/appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment as under :-
Name of accused 304-B IPC 498-A IPC Criminal Appeal No. 955 SB of 2002 2 Subhash 10 years R.I. Two years RI and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine further one month imprisonment. Kanta Devi 7 years R.I. Two years RI and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine further one month imprisonment.
However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution story in brief is that on 6.9.1999 Ramji Lala complainant reported the matter to the police that his daughter Smt.Anguri (since deceased) was married to Subhash about 2¼ years back, complainant had given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage of his daughter. About 2½ months back, his daughter was blessed with son. He had given gifts on that occasion but his son in law demanded scooter on the said occasion. Complainant could not fulfill that demand of his son-in-law and his son-in-law started maltreating his daughter to put pressure on her to bring scooter from her parents. On that very day at about 11.00 a.m./12noon, two persons came to his house and informed him that his daughter was ill. On this, complainant along with his son Rajinder and Hawa Singh had gone to Bhiwani and found that his daughter was lying in burnt condition in the room of the house of accused Subhash. As per complainant, either his daughter had committed suicide because of maltreatment of her in-laws or she was set on fire by her in-laws.
On the basis of this information formal FIR was recorded. During investigation statement of witnesses recorded. Site plan was also prepared. Post mortem examination on the dead body was got done. The accused were arrested. After completion of necessary investigation challan against the accused was presented for trial.
Criminal Appeal No. 955 SB of 2002 3
On appearance of accused, documents were supplied to the accused. A prima facie case under Sections 304-B and 498 IPC was made out against the accused. Charge was accordingly framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Suraj Bhan Inspector (PW-1), Head Constable Subhash Chand (PW-2), Constable Vir Shakti Singh (PW-3), Vijay Singh (PW-4), Mohan Lal (PW-5), Ramji Lal (PW-6), Rajender (PW-7), Dr. Ishwar Dass (PW-8), Constable Bir Singh (PW-9), Constable Rameshwar Dass (PW-10) and Yad Ram Inspector (PW-11).
After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused denied all the prosecution version and pleaded their false implication. The accused-appellants have examined Hawa Singh as (DW-1) and Ranbir (DW-2).
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant vide judgment 4.5.2002 and order dated 8.5.2002, as aforesaid.
Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana and have also carefully perused the case file.
Criminal Appeal No. 955 SB of 2002 4
There are two accused in this case, one is Kanta Devi (massi of main accused Subhash ) and other accused is Subhash, husband of the deceased.
So far as Kanta Devi appellant-accused is concerned, the allegations against her in the FIR are that she used to demand good clothes for herself. The said allegation is general in nature and no specific date and time has been given in the FIR. It has come on the record that Kanta Devi has two other children aged 15 years and 13 years. In the FIR her relation has been mentioned as mother-in-law (Sambandhan) whereas in the evidence her relations have been mentioned as aunt of Subash. It is settled law that graver is the offence striker is the proof for other offence. Rajender (PW-7) during cross-examination has admitted that Kanta Devi is residing separately from Subhash. Ramji Lal (PW-6) while appearing as prosecution witness has stated that Kanta Devi used to raise demand of good clothes. However, Rajender (PW-7) has stated that Kanta Devi used to demand good sarees. So, both of the material witnesses are discrepant regarding demand at the end of Kanta Devi. It cannot be believed that an aunt, living separately, would demand clothes for herself. The conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be upheld on the basis of general statement of Ramji Lal (PW-6) and Rajender (PW-7) as discussed above. In case such a distant relation is convicted on the basis of such type of evidence that would be unfair to that relative. So, I am of the considered view that conviction of Kanta Devi appellant cannot be uphold and consequently her appeal stands accepted and she stands acquitted of the charges levelled against her.
Criminal Appeal No. 955 SB of 2002 5
So far as the accused Subhash is concerned, there is specific demand of scooter against him. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that demand made at the time of birth of a child does not fall within the definition of dowry demand and to support this contention learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority Satvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2001(4) RCC 542. The said authority was also relied upon by the accused before the learned trial Court and the trial Court has discussed about the said authority. The demand of dowry cannot be considered at the time of marriage only. The demand of dowry can be prior to the marriage, at the time of marriage or after the marriage. In this case, no doubt Ramji Lal (PW-6) and Rajender (PW-7) have not stated about the demand of dowry articles prior to the birth of the child to the deceased. The demand of scooter cannot be said to be a customary gift but it amounts to demand of dowry. So, in these circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly observed that all the ingredients of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC are made out against accused Subhash.
The next limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that Ramji Lal (PW-6) and Rajender (PW-7) have stated that they have not gone to give the customary gifts at the time of birth of the child to the deceased. It is further submitted that the other relations of the deceased who had gone i.e. Hawa Singh as (DW-1) and Ranbir (DW-2) brothers of the deceased, who had gone at the time of birth of a child to the deceased have ruled out the demand of dowry articles Criminal Appeal No. 955 SB of 2002 6 I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in that submission.
It so seems that at later stage of the trial, Hawa Singh as DW-1 and Ranbir (DW-2). Have arrived at compromise with the accused. Learned trial Court has rightly held that in case the accused were innocent in that case they would have approached the investigating agency at the investigation stage. It has rightly been observed that since they have not approached the investigating agency, so, in these circumstances, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Ramji Lal (PW-6) and Rajender (PW-7) have categorically stated that deceased disclosed them that demand of scooter was made. The unnatural death is not disputed during the course of arguments. It is also not disputed that Smt. Anguri Devi died within seven years of her marriage with Subhash. So far as the demand of dowry against Subhash accused is concerned, the same stands proved against him from the testimony Ramji Lal (PW-6) and Rajender (PW-7). So, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant Subhash.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in case the Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of acquittal of Subhash appellant in that case the sentence be reduced. It is submitted that appellant Subhash has undergone incarceration for a period of 3½ years during trial. The occurrence relates to the year 1999. The appellant has undergone mental agony for the last more than eleven years. Prayer has been made for reduction in sentence.
I have carefully considered the said submission.
The parliament in its wisdom has prescribed the minimum Criminal Appeal No. 955 SB of 2002 7 sentence under Section 304-B IPC of seven years. However, the appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 304-B, IPC. Keeping in view whole of the circumstances, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence awarded by the trial Court to Subhash appellant under Section 304-B, IPC is reduced to seven years i.e. minimum instead of ten years awarded by the trial Court. The remaining sentence under Section 498-A, IPC and that of fine awarded by the trial Court stand maintained.
With the above said modification in sentence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI )
JUDGE
January 20, 2011
sv