Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hardutt Singh And Ors vs State on 8 October, 2018
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1006/2012
1. Hardutt Singh S/o Mahendra Singh,
2. Ramniwas S/o Mahendra Singh,
3. Mahendra Singh S/o Lal Chand,
All by caste Jat, R/o Bhanai, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
(Presently lodged at Sub Jail, Nohar).
4. Smt. Santosh Devi W/o Mahendra Singh, by caste Jat,
R/o Bhanai, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
(presently lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor
For Complainant : Mr. I.R. Choudhary
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur. 03/10/2018 The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants to challenge the judgment dated 09/11/2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 09/2011, whereby the appellants have been convicted (2 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.
During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant No.3(Mahendra Singh) has died, therefore, the appeal qua him stands abated.
In short the prosecution story starts from the lodging of the complaint (Ex.P.1) on 06/04/2011 by PW.1 Amar Singh who is the father of the deceased Manju to SHO Police Station Bhadra. He stated that his daughter Manju was married to Hardutt S/o Mahendra Jat, R/o Bhanai on 09/07/2008. On the same day, Suman (younger sister of Manju) was married to Ramniwas who is younger brother of Hardutt. In the marriage, he has given the dowry more than his capacity. 20 tolas gold, Rs.1,50,000/- cash, furniture, utensils, refrigerator, bed, television etc. were given as dowry articles to both the daughters but after the marriage when the daughters went to their matrimonial home Hardutt, Ramniwas, Mahenda and Santosh made unpleasant remarks and said that at least motorcycles should have been given in the dowry. Ranjeet S/o Brajlal who went with the daughters was also told that his uncle Amar Singh should be informed that he will have to give motorcycles. When Ranjeet came back home, he told this to (3 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] everybody on which it was said that they will counsel them. When both the daughters went back to their matrimonial home then all the four persons harassed and beaten them for not giving the motorcycles. One month back in the marriage ceremony of his nephew (son of brother Om), the accused persons had told that they will have to give motorcycles failing which the girls will be sent back. In these circumstances, they paid Rs. 10,000/- each to Hardutt and Ramniwas but the harassment continued thereafter for not giving motorcycles. Four months back, Manju was blessed with a daughter and in the ceremony of new born baby lot of articles were given to them but the demand of motorcycles was still continued by the in-laws of his daughter. She was not sent to her parental house then one month back, he along with PW.15 Brajlal and PW.3 Jai Singh went to the house of accused persons and requested them not to harass the daughters but all the accused persons repeated their demand for giving the motorcycles failing which they said that harassment will continue. Thirteen days back, wife of Saheb Ram died but accused did not come for condolence and even they did not send Manju on the ground that if they will send the money for the motorcycles then only accused will send Manju. Manju called his brother Shiv Bhagwan that they should send the money for purchasing the motorcycles, otherwise accused persons will kill her. On this, Shiv Bhagwan told her that they will come after the 12th day. At night, they received a telephone call that Manju and her daughter Sarika have been killed and thrown in the water tank or she has been forced to kill (4 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] herself along with her four months' old daughter Sarika.
On this information, a formal F.I.R. was registered and investigation was conducted and challan was filed under Section 498A and 304B IPC against the accused appellants.
Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 498A and 304B IPC. The accused denied the same and preferred trial in the matter.
During the trial, as many as 18 prosecution witnesses were examined and in all 37 documents were exhibited. Statement of DW.1 Sitram was also recorded in defence side and in all 7 documents were exhibited.
Thereafter, accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence adduced during trial to which they denied and submitted that they are innocent person and they have been falsely implicated in the matter.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides and after taking into consideration the statements of witnesses and the documents exhibited, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and passed the sentence as stated here-in- above.
For appreciating the facts in the present case, we have scanned the statements recorded during the trial along with documents produced and exhibited before the trial Court. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor (5 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] and learned counsel for the complainant.
PW.1 Amar Singh, who is the father of the deceased, has stated that his daughter Manju was married to the accused Hardutt on 09/07/2008 and on the same day, Suman was also married to Ramniwas who is the younger brother of Hardutt. He has stated that in the marriage, he has given the dowry articles according to his capacity but the accused persons were beating and harassing his daughters for not giving the motorcycles in the dowry. The accused persons demanded the motorcycles to be given to them under any circumstances. When demand was not fulfilled, the accused persons harassed his daughters and refused to send them to their parental house. He tried to counsel the accused persons and for the purpose a Panchayat was also held but the accused persons continued their demand for motorcycles. He also went with his elder brother Brajlal and brother-in-law Jai Singh to the house of the accused for counselling them and requesting them that his daughters should not be harassed. At the time of the marriage ceremony of his nephew Krishan, they paid Rs. 10,000/- each to Hardutt and Ramniwas but despite his best efforts, the accused persons persistently harassed his daughters for not bringing the motorcycles and ultimately two-three days prior to the death, deceased Manju called his brother Shiv Bhagwan that either they should send the money for purchasing the motorcycles, otherwise she will be killed by the accused persons and ultimately on 05/04/2011, they received a call that his daughter Manju and four months old grand-daughter Sarika (6 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] have been killed by drowning them in the water tank or she has been forced to kill herself by the accused persons. On 06/04/2011 when they went to her house, the bodies were taken out of the water tank. The police was called and the complaint was given. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the memos were prepared and some of them were attested by him.
In the cross-examination of this witness, he has narrated the entire story in a sequence without any material contradiction from the statement made by him in the examination-in-chief. PW.2 Parvati is the mother of the deceased and she has also stated on the same lines as stated by PW.1 Amar Singh. She has stated that her daughters were harassed for not bringing the motorcycles in the dowry. The daughters were beaten by the accused persons and despite their best efforts to counsel them including the Panchayat having been held, the accused persons continued to harass the daughters and ultimately Manju was either drowned by the accused persons along with her four months' old daughter Sarika or she was forced to kill herself along with her four months' old daughter.
In the cross-examination, this witness has also deposed in chronology the instances which have taken place and nothing contrary to the statement made by her in the examination-in-chief has been stated.
PW.3 Jai Singh has stated that Manju and Suman were married to Hardutt and Ramniwas in the year 2008 and after their marriage, all the four accused persons were harassing them for (7 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] not bringing motorcycles in the dowry. He along with Amar Singh, Brajlal, Om Prakash, Devi Lal and Shree Chand went to the house of accused persons and requested them for not harassing Manju and Suman. The Panchayat for the purpose was held but the accused persons did not accede to their request and continued the harassment to Manju and Suman and ultimately Manju died along with her four months' old daughter by drowning in the water tank. PW.15 Brajlal has stated in his statement that after the marriage of Manju and Suman, the accused persons harassed them for not bringing motorcycles in the dowry and for this they were also beaten by the accused persons. He went for Panchayat along with PW.1 Amar Singh and counselled the accused persons that they should not harass Manju and Suman but the accused persons replied that harassment will continue till the motorcycles are not given to them. Despite Panchayat having been held for not harassing Manju and Suman, the accused persons continued the harassment and ultimately Manju was killed by drowning her in the water tank or she was forced to kill herself by drowning along with her four months' old daughter Sarika.
PW.17 Suman is the real sister of the deceased Manju. She in her statement has stated that both the sisters were harassed and beaten by the accused persons for not bringing motorcycles. She has submitted in her statement almost all the lines of PW.1 Amar Singh. She has stated that after 12th months of their marriage, her uncle Brajlal, Om Prakash, Devi Lal and Jai Singh came to her matrimonial house for counselling and Panchayat was held but (8 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] despite the requests having been made to the accused persons, they continued harassment and either they have killed Manju by drowning her in the water tank or she was forced to commit the suicide with her four months' old daughter Sarika.
In the cross-examination of this witness, she has categorically submitted that they were harassed for the demand of motorcycles having not been fulfilled and number of instances were given to show the continuous harassment. Nothing contrary to what she has stated in the examination-in-chief has come on record.
PW.18 Shiv Bhagwan is the brother of deceased Manju has stated that twice the Panchayat had taken place for counselling and requesting the accused persons for not harassing his sisters for not bringing the motorcycles in the dowry. On 04/04/2011, Manju called him and said that Hardutt, Ramniwas, Mahendra and Santosh are pressing the demand for motorcycle and are beating her. On the next evening at around nine-ten p.m., an unknown person called and said that Manju has been killed and drowned in the water tank and on 06/04/2011, they went for funeral. PW.12 Hari Ram is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation in the matter and in his statement has submitted that he has recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the site plan etc. and has conducted the investigation in the matter in accordance with law.
PW.9 Jaswant Saharan has stated that on 06/04/2011, he was working as Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Bhadra (9 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] and was the Member of the Board who has conducted the postmortems. In the opinion of the Board, the death of deceased Manju and her four months' old daughter Sarika was caused due to drowning. Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 are the postmortem reports of Manju and her daughter Sarika wherein it has been mentioned that "death is caused due to asphyxia caused by drowning which is antemortem in nature".
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that mostly the witnesses are close family members of the deceased and, therefore, it will not be safe to rely upon the testimony of these witnesses as they are interested witnesses and have thus falsely implicated the accused persons. He further submits that PW.6 Om Prakash and PW.7 Sultan are the independent witnesses and they have not supported the prosecution story, thus, declared hostile. Therefore, the testimony of the interested witnesses who are the family members of the deceased should be discarded.
Learned counsel for the appellants after reading the statements of PW.2 Parvati (mother of the deceased Manju) and PW.17 Suman (sister of the deceased) have tried to impress upon us that there is material improvements in their statements and there is material contradiction in the same. He has further submitted that as per the Investigating officer also, the reason for death is not the demand of dowry.
Lastly, he has submitted that learned trial Court fell in error by awarding the extreme punishment provided under Section (10 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] 304B IPC, whereas the minimum sentence provided under Section 304B IPC is seven years which may extend to imprisonment for life. He, therefore, has argued that this Court should consider that despite seven years of the minimum sentence provided under Section 304B IPC, learned trial Court has chosen to award the maximum sentence i.e. imprisonment for life. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, he submits that the punishment awarded is very harsh and, therefore, the same should be reasonably reduced.
Per contra, learned public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that in view of the testimony of PW.1 Amar Singh, PW.2 Parvati, PW.7 Suman and PW.18 Shiv Bhagwan and other witnesses, the offence alleged against the accused appellants have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, learned trial Court has passed an order of conviction after correct appreciation of evidence on record. They have further submitted that as per the statement of PW.18 Shiv Bhagwan, it has come on record that soon before the death, Smt. Manju has called and told him that they should send the money for purchasing the motorcycle. If the same is not sent then she will be killed. There is evidence on record which shows that Manju and Suman were harassed for not bringing the motorcycles in the dowry. The medical evidence and the statement of the doctor also corroborates the story of the prosecution as the cause of death is stated as "drowning". There is no quarrel on the point that the deceased i.e. Manju along with her four months' (11 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] old daughter Sarika have died an unnatural death within a period of seven years of her marriage. The prosecution has proved the case beyond the shadow of doubt. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused persons of the charges under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.
We have considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on record.
The evidence which has come on record clearly establishes beyond all reasonable doubts that deceased Manju and her sister Suman were harassed for not bringing the motorcycles in the dowry. It is stated in all the statements of witnesses that the accused persons were counselled and for the purpose the Panchayats were also held requesting them not to harass Manju and Suman for not bringing the motorcycles in their dowry but the accused persons vociferously stated that the harassment will continue, if the demand of motorcycles is not fulfilled. The unnatural death of Manju is within seven years of her marriage.
We also note that PW.3 Jai Singh and PW.15 Brajlal accompanied the father of the deceased Amar Singh PW.1 in Panchayat and requested the accused persons not to harass Suman and Manju for not bringing the motorcycles in the dowry but the efforts did not materialize and the accused persons continued to beat and harass two daughters of Amar Singh.
Therefore, learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence for demand for dowry and has rightly convicted the appellants for Section 498A of IPC.
(12 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] The demand of dowry is also reflected soon before the death of deceased Manju from the statement of PW.18 Shiv Bhagwan who is the brother of deceased Manju. He has stated that just one day before death of Manju, she telephoned him and said that if the amount of motorcycles is not sent, the accused persons will kill her and she was beaten by the accused persons. When the amount of the motorcycles was not sent, Manju died due to drowning. Admittedly, death of Manju is within seven years of her marriage and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws. In these circumstances, we find that all the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC are present in the instant case and, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused persons for the offence under Section 304 B of IPC.
We also find that as per Section 113 B of IPC, there is a presumption of dowry death as in the present case and the demand of motorcycles is repeatedly made by the accused persons even soon before her death and the same is projected in very many words by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason of doubt that accused persons are guilty of the charges levelled against them.
In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the sentence awarded by learned Trial Court and the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the sentence is too harsh, is only noted to be rejected. The charges alleged against the accused persons are proved beyond shadow of doubt.
In view of whatever stated above, we are not inclined to (13 of 13) [CRLA -1006/2012] interfere in the impugned judgment 09/11/2012 passed by learned trial Court.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (NIRMALJIT KAUR), J. sanjaysolnkai,pa Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)