Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 6 May, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : May 06, 2010
Ramesh and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Ramesh Chahal, Advocate
Ms.Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General,Haryana
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The present appeal had been filed against the judgment and order dated 17/19.3.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jind, whereby all the appellants, other than appellant Raj Kumar, were convicted under Sections 304-B/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. The appellants were also convicted under Sections 201/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences of imprisonment of appellants Ramesh, Pawan, Abhey Ram and Khazani were ordered to run concurrently.
According to the prosecution, the marriage of both the Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -2- sisters of complainant Rajpal, namely, Kamlesh and Krishna, were solemnized with Ramesh appellant and one Karan Singh on 7.3.1991, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. On the same day, another cousin sister of the complainant was also married to Virender Singh, the real brother of appellant Ramesh and sufficient dowry was given in the marriages. However, appellant Ramesh and his co-accused, i.e. his brother Pawan, father Abhey Ram and mother Khazani were not happy with the dowry articles and they started beating and maltreating Kamlesh. The appellants continued demanding television, refrigerator of bigger size, cooler, motor cycle and cash even after the birth of children to Kamlesh. On the occasion of marriage of the complainant, the appellants refused to send Kamlesh and said that till their demand of dowry was not fulfilled they would not send her. On the assurance given by the complainant to arrange money from his father, Kamlesh and her husband Ramesh accompanied the complainant to village Ballu, where a sum of Rs.5,000/- was given to appellant Ramesh. On 9.2.1997, appellant Ramesh attended the marriage of the complainant and while going back to village Farain Kalan, he again put his demand of dowry and, accordingly, he was given a bed, a cooler, fifty laides suits and a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Kamlesh was sent with him. Despite being given the aforesaid articles and a sum of Rs.5,000/-, the accused did not mend their ways and continued harassing and maltreating Kamlesh. She was also threatened that in case their demand was not fulfilled, she would be done to death. The inability showed by the complainant and his Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -3- maternal uncle Raghbir Singh to fulfill their demand was turned down by the accused. The matter was discussed between the family members and relatives. On 1.4.1997 the complainant again went to village Farain Kalan to know about the well being of Kamlesh and there he came to know that Kamlesh had been done to death by setting her ablaze after pouring kerosene by her husband Ramesh, devar Pawan, father-in-law Abhey Ram and mother-in-law Khazani and her dead body had been cremated with an intent to destroy the evidence of dowry death. The appellants could not give any satisfactory reply about the cause of death of Kamlesh. The appellants pressurized the complainant and his family members for settlement but the complainant and his family did not agree for any compromise because they had failed to state any cause for the death of Kamlesh. Complainant Rajpal submitted complaint Ex.PA/1 to the Superintendent of Police, Jind, who sent the same to SHO, Police Station Sadar, Narwana, where FIR No. 193 dated 25.4.1997 under Sections 304-B/406/201/34 IPC was registered at Police Station.
During the course of investigation, SI Ram Kumar went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PA/2. On 28.4.1997 appellants Ramesh, Pawan and Raj Kumar were arrested. Appellants Pawan, Abhey Ram, Raj Kumar and Ramesh got recovered ashes and bones in pursuance of their disclosure statements Exs.PG, PG/1, PG/2 and PG/3 respectively. Rough site plan Ex.PG/6 of the place of recovery of ashes and bones was prepared. On 29.4.1997 the articles Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -4- of dowry were recovered from the house of the appellants vide memo. Ex.PG/5. On 30.4.1997 the complainant produced Ex.PF, the photocopy of the bahi before SI Ram Kumar which was taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PF/1. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan followed by commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, all the appellants were charge sheeted for offences under Sections 201/34 IPC whereas appellants Ramesh, Pawan, Abhey Ram and Khazani were also charge sheeted for offences under Sections 304- B and 406 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Lilu Ram UGC as PW1, Jai Bhagwan MHC as PW2, Randhir Singh Constable as PW3, Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman as PW4, Suresh as PW5, Pirthi as PW6, complainant Rajpal as PW7, Ram Bhaj as PW8, Raghbir Singh as PW9 and Ram Kumar SI as PW10.
When the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied each and every allegation of the prosecution appearing against them. They claimed to be innocent and falsely involved in the case. According to them, Kamlesh was preparing tea on the stove on 27.3.1997 at about 5.00 p.m. The stove burst and Kamlesh got fire to her clothes and died at the spot. Information was sent to her parents in village Balu on the same day. As the death occurred during the late hours in the evening and the cremation was not Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -5- possible in the night hours and unless the dead body was cremated, the meals were not to be prepared in the whole village, therefore, the villagers pressurized the accused to cremate the dead body of Kamlesh without waiting for the arrival of her parents. Therefore, they cremated the dead body. On the next day, PW7 Rajpal, PW8 Ram Bhaj and other respectables of village Balu came to village Farain Kalan. They were satisfied with the cause of death of Kamlesh and then went back after condolence. On 8.4.1997 'teharvin' was fixed. PW8 Ram Bhaj, his brothers and 2/3 other respectables/ladies came to attend the same. They asked from accused persons, namely, Abhey Ram, Ramesh, Pawan and Khazani if the second marriage of Ramesh could be performed in their relation. However, they failed to search the match. Thereafter, the parents of Kamlesh allowed the accused persons to marry Ramesh anywhere but pressurized them to transfer the land of Ramesh in the name of children of Kamlesh. On 11.4.1997 accused Abhey Ram, Ramesh, Pawan, Virender, Ram Bhaj and 2/3 other respectables went to the Court campus at Narwana and a suit was filed by Virender, Pawan Kumar and Manjit, the minor son of Ramesh, against Abhey Ram for the transfer of land. On the same day, PW8 Ram Bhaj executed affidavit, photocopy of which was mark A, as he was satisfied with the filing of the above referred suit. On 17.4.1997, Abhey Ram filed written statement admitting the claim of Virender, Pawan Kumar and Manjit. Statement of accused Abhey Ram was also recorded before the Court. That suit was adjourned for another date but the complainant party Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -6- started pressurizing the accused party to hand over the custody of Manjit and his property to the complainant party and when the accused party did not accept this unreasonable demand of the complainant party, the complainant party got registered this false case against them after due deliberations and consultations. In defence, the appellants examined Om Parkash Nain, Advocate as DW1 and Sat Narain Sharma as DW2.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and, accordingly, the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence available on the record with their able assistance.
In his testimony before the Court, complainant Rajpal, while appearing as PW7, deposed that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with Ramesh on 7.3.1991. At the time of the marriage, his family had given handsome dowry in the form of ornaments, clothes, furniture and other domestic articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-. His sister had given birth to one male child and one female child. The accused were not happy with the dowry received by them. Rather they used to harass her by asking her to bring more dowry. They had been demanding colour television, bigger sized refrigerator, cooler, motor cycle and cash. When Kamlesh failed to get the above referred articles for them, the Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -7- accused persons used to beat her. In connection with his marriage, which was fixed for 9.2.1997, the complainant went to fetch Kamlesh from the house of the accused persons but they refused to send her with him besides threatening him that she would not be sent till their demand for dowry was not fulfilled. The complainant assured them that after arranging money from his father, he would hand over the same to anyone of them, who may accompany him to his house. The assurance given by the complainant was found satisfactory by the accused, who sent Kamlesh with him. Her husband Ramesh also accompanied them. On reaching his village, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to Ramesh and requested him not to harass Kamlesh. After attending the marriage of the complainant and while going back to his house, Ramesh reiterated his demand of dowry. The complainant thought it proper to give more dowry to ensure that the married life of his sister was settled. Accordingly, he gave a bed, cooler, 50 ladies suit and Rs.5,000/- in cash to Ramesh and sent Kamlesh with him. On 23.3.1997, the complainant, while accompanied by his maternal uncle Raghbir, went to the house of the accused where he learnt that the accused were still misbehaving with his sister and harassing her for bringing colour television and motor cycle. When the complainant and his maternal uncle took up the matter with them, they started quarrelling besides repeating their demand for more dowry articles or else to face its consequences. The accused were requested to send Kamlesh to the house of the complainant but they did not agree. The complainant and his maternal uncle went back. On Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -8- 1.4.1997, the complainant again went to the matrimonial home of his sister to enquire about her well being. On reaching there, he learnt that his sister had been killed by the appellants and her dead body cremated immediately to destroy the proof of murder.
It is true that in his cross-examination, PW7 complainant Rajpal admitted that neither any Panchayat of respectables and relatives was ever convened by his family members to take up the matter with the accused persons nor any application submitted to the police or in the Court against the accused persons for harassing Kamlesh. However, in any family dispute like the present one, there is anxiety of the family of the bride to keep the dispute within itself. At their level, they try their best to convince the in-laws of their daughter that they had already given sufficient dowry and not in a position to give any more dowry. While making such like efforts, they may or may not associate the respectables and other relatives but in case no such respectable had been examined as a witness, that is no ground to doubt the testimony of the complainant when he stated that his sister used to be harassed and maltreated by the accused for bringing inadequate dowry and not fulfilling their demand for more dowry. His testimony stands corroborated by his father Ram Bhaj, who appeared as PW8 and maternal uncle PW9 Raghbir Singh. Both of them stated in clear terms that the accused had been harassing and maltreating Kamlesh for bringing inadequate dowry.
According to PW6 Pirthi, he had seen the dead body of Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -9- Kamlesh lying in the house of her in-laws on 27.3.1997 in a burnt condition. However, his testimony qua his visit to the house of the accused was rejected by the trial Court. Even according to the accused, Kamlesh had received burn injuries on account of bursting of stove. However, no material had been brought on record by the accused to corroborate the said fact. It is the case of the accused themselves that after sending information to the parents of the deceased on 27.3.1997 itself, they did not wait for their arrival and, instead, hurriedly cremated the dead body. The explanation given by them that until and unless the dead body was not cremated, no one in the village would have cooked the meals is highly improbable. The members of the affected family usually do not cook meals before cremating the dead body but there is no such practice of the entire village desisting from cooking the food. It is often seen that the food is cooked in the neighbouring houses and served to the members of the affected family even before cremation of the dead body. Therefore, the conduct of the accused in cremating the dead body of Kamlesh without waiting for the arrival of her parents and relatives goes a long way to show that they had a hand in Kamlesh receiving burn injuries.
From the evidence available on the file, it stands established that the accused had been harassing and maltreating Kamlesh for not fulfilling their demand for more dowry and because of the same, either the deceased ended her life by setting herself on fire or Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -10- it were the accused, who had killed her by setting her ablaze. Considered from any angle, it has to be held that the death of Kamlesh occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.
There is no denial of the fact that the death of Kamlesh occurred within seven years of her marriage. She had been subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused for not fulfilling their demand for more dowry. Therefore, the offence of dowry death was made out.
The delay in lodging of the FIR is well explained. The deceased left behind two infants, who were living in the house of the accused. Sunita, a cousin of deceased Kamlesh, was also married to Pawan accused, real brother of Ramesh. The parents of the deceased, under these circumstance, were to think twice before reporting the matter to the police. In any case, the dead body of Kamlesh had already been cremated before the complainant could know of the incident and reach the house of the accused. He verified all the facts before finally submitting written complaint dated 23.4.1997 Ex.PA/1 before Superintendent of Police, Jind on the basis of which FIR was registered against the appellants on 25.4.1997.
Regarding the filing of affidavit mark 'A' and civil suit Ex.DD, as brought on record by DW1 Om Parkash Nain, Advocate and DW2 Sat Narain Sharma, Record Keeper respectively, no benefit can be extended to the accused, as after the incident they tried to side-track the Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -11- investigation by claiming that the death of Kamlesh had occurred on account of bursting of stove and no one was responsible for the same and that a family settlement had been arrived at under which Manjit, minor son of deceased Kamlesh, was to get equal right in the property of his grand father Abhey Ram.
Regarding the involvement of Raj Kumar appellant under Section 201/34 IPC, the prosecution had examined PW6 Pirthi, who stated that said Raj Kumar alongwith Abhey Ram, Ramesh and Pawan took the dead body of Kamlesh to the cremation ground and cremated it there. He had also deposed that he had left the house of Abhey Ram before the dead body of Kamlesh was taken to the cremation ground. In his cross-examination, he clearly stated that he had not seen accused Abhey Ram, Ramesh, Pawan and Raj Kumar as pallbearers. He also stated that the cremation was not done in his presence. His presence at the spot had already been disbelieved by the trial Court. Raj Kumar accused, being a co-villager of the remaining accused, was not expected to know that Ramesh, Pawan, Abhey Ram and Smt. Khazani had committed some offence and in assisting them in cremating the dead body of Kamlesh, he was destroying the evidence of offence. Therefore, the conviction of Raj Kumar appellant under Section 201/34 IPC cannot be sustained. At the same time, the other convicts cannot escape the charge of destruction of evidence as they knew very well that they had committed the offence of dowry death and by their act of cremating the Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -12- dead body, they were destroying the evidence of offence.
One of the appellants, namely, Pawan, during his confinement in jail as a convict, died on 5.9.1999. This fact was brought to the notice of the Court on 29.3.2010. On 9.4.2010, learned State counsel produced the certificate issued by SI/SHO Police Station Sadar, Narwana to the effect that Pawan had died on 5.9.1999 in PGI, Rohtak where he was taken for treatment from District Jail, Jind. The said certificate had been given on the basis of the verification made by the Sarpanch of village Farain Kalan and signed by Suresh, Darima and Nafe Singh. In this view of the matter, the appeal of Pawan Kumar is required to be disposed of as having abated.
Resultantly, the appeal of Pawan appellant is disposed of as having abated. The appeal of Raj Kumar appellant is accepted and he is acquitted of the charges against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. As regards Ramesh, Abhey Ram and Khazani appellants, their conviction under Sections 304-B/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC is maintained. Their sentence of imprisonment under Sections 304- B/34 IPC is reduced from ten years' rigorous imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Their sentence of imprisonment and fine for the offence under Sections 201/34 IPC alongwith its default clause is maintained. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Their appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Crl. Appeal No. 395-SB of 1998 -13-
( T.P.S. MANN )
May 06, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1