Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Anita, deceased sister of the complainant, Raghuvinder Singh was married with Harinder Singh on 10.6.1990. After marriage, Anita started residing with her husband at village Silana. Rajpal, father of Anita had died much earlier to her marriage. Complainant, his brother and mother had given sufficient dowry according to their status. But the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles. They started ill-treating Anita for want of dowry. They demanded a scooter and cash. Once on a night in winter season in the month of December, Anita was kept on the roof of the house without clothes and was not allowed to enter the house. Anita had disclosed about that incident to her brother, Raghuvinder Singh when he came to meet her, 15 days after that incident. Anita was brought by Raghvinder Singh to his house. Raghuvinder Singh then contacted his maternal uncle, Malha Ram, resident of Village Kathura. Malha Ram had approached the accused and made them to under stand. After returning from the house of the accused, Malha Ram advised the complainant and his family members to send Anita to village Salana if somebody comes from her matrimonial home to take her. After a lapse of 3-4 days, Bijender, brother of Harinder accused came to take Anita with him to her matrimonial home. Anita was sent with Bijender. But, the accused again started maltreating Anita for want of dowry. Anita had informed the complainant when he had gone to her after about a month to enquire about her well-being. The accused Balwan and Dharmo demanded scooter from Raghvinder Singh, complainant. About 9/10 months prior to the date of occurrence, again Anita had gone to her parental house and informed her family members that the accused used to beat her and that she is being pressurized to bring scooter and cash. Complainant had summoned his maternal uncle, Malha Ram. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was arranged. Payment was given to Anita. Anit went back to her matrimonial home with the aforementioned payment. Thereafter, complainant continued to visit her sister at Village Salana. He came to know that accused are still demanding a scooter. About 1½ months prior to her death, Anita was brought to her parental house by the complainant. After 3-4 days, Bijender, brother of Harinder and Daryao Singh father of Harinder came to the village of the complainant and assured him that Anita is to be kept properly in future. On the assurance of Bijender and Daryao Singh, Anita was again sent to her in laws house. But, while going Anita was weeping and was saying that her life is to be in danger, in case scooter is not given. Complainant requested the accused to keep Anita properly and assured that a scooter will be arranged when he gets employment. After 15 days, again he had gone to the house of Anita. At that time, Anita was weeping. She had told the complainant to give a scooter to her in- laws, otherwise her life is to be in danger. On return to village Salana, complainant had narrated about the incident to his brother and mother and they were thinking to approach Malha Ram to send him to the house of the accused. On the intervening night of 17- 18/2/1993, Balraj Singh, son of Malha Ram came and informed about the unnatural death of Anita. Complainant, his brother Vijay Pal and Balraj had gone to the house of the accused at village Salana on 18.2.1993 at about 8/9 A.M. Dead body had already been sent to hospital for post mortem examination. After post mortem examination, dead body was brought to Salana for cremation. Malha Ram was also present at the time of cremation with the complainant. After cremation, complainant, Malha Ram and Vijay Pal had gone to Village Sisana, where elder son of Malha Ram was married. Accused had convened a Panchayat and made an effort to settle the dispute through compromise. However, compromise could not be materialized. On 19.2.1993 at about 7:00 P.M, statement by the complainant was recorded. Ultimately FIR No.52 was registered.

PW-7, ASI, Satbir Singh had arrested Dharmo produced by Krishan.

PW-8, Raghuvinder Singh is the brother of the deceased and on oath stated that his sister Anita was married with Harinder Singh on 10.6.1990. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. But the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles. Accused started demanding a scooter and cash. Once in the month of December, Anita was kept on the roof of the house without clothes and was not allowed to enter the house. Anita had disclosed this incident to him. After fifteen days, he had gone to see Anita and brought Anita along with him. Matter was brought to the notice of his brother, Vijay pal and mother Khazani Devi. Information was also given to Malha Ram. Malha Ram was sent to the village of the accused to make them to understand and on return Malha Ram advised them to send Anita to her matrimonial home if somebody comes from there to take her. After a gap of 3-4 days, Bijender, brother of Harinder came. Anita was sent along with Bijender. Thereafter, he went twice to the house of Anita after a gap of 15 days to enquire about her well-being. Anita on both the occasions reported that accused are harassing her to bring cash and scooter. About 9-10 months prior to the date of occurrence, Anita again came to her parental house and stated that she may be given some cash to settle down in the in-laws house. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was arranged and was handed over to Anita. Anita was sent to her in- laws house. Again he had visited the house of the accused about one or two months prior to her death. Anita reported that accused are still harassing her. Accused told him that Anita will be deserted by them, if the demand of a scooter is not fulfilled. Anita was again brought back. After 2/3 days, Bijender and Daryao Singh, father of Harinder came to take Anita and assured that in future Anita will not be harassed and will be kept properly. On the request of Bijender and Daryao Singh, Anita was sent with them. After 15 days again, he had gone to the house of Anita. At that time, Anita was weeping. She requested to give a scooter to her in-laws, otherwise her life is in danger. He requested them to send Anita, but, at that time, Anita was not sent by the accused. He assured them that he will give a scooter when he got some employment. Matter was brought to the notice of his brother and mother when he had reached his village. They were thinking to send Malha Ram to the house of the accused. But, on the intervening night of 17th and 18th of February, 1993, Balraj came and informed about the unnatural death of Anita. On 18.2.1993 at about 8:00/9;00 A.M, he along with Vijay Pal and Balraj had gone to the house of the accused. Dead body of Anita had already been sent to Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination. After post mortem examination, dead body was cremated. Then, they had gone to village Sisana. Panchayat was convened by the accused to arrive at a compromise. On 19.2.1993, at 7:00P.M, report was lodged.

First submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants-accused was that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. Delay was not explained. Story was concocted. Appellants-accused were falsely implicated by citing some interesting witnesses. But I am not in a position to agree with the submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants-accused.

Undisputedly, Anita was married with Harinder. Marriage was solemnized on 10.6.1990. Occurrence was dated 17.2.1993. FIR was lodged on 19.2.1993. Death was within seven years from the date of marriage. Death was at in-laws house. Evidence on the file shows that on the intervening night of 17/18-2-1993, complainant- party came to know about the incident from Balraj, PW-6. Firstly, Malha Ram came to know about the incident then Balraj was sent to inform the complainant-party. After getting information, complainant- party had gone to the house of the appellants-accused on the next date at about 8:00/9:00 A.M. No doubt, dead body was cremated in the presence of the complainant-party. But after the cremation, accused party convened a Panchayat to effect compromise. When compromise could not be effected, then report was lodged. Occurrence is an admitted fact. Only dispute is whether accused party is at fault or on account of depression, deceased had committed suicide. Bijender is brother of Harinder, appellant- accused, Daryao Singh is the father of Harinder. But all the family members of Harinder were not implicated. If intention of the complainant-party was to falesely implicate the in-laws of the deceased, then all the family members could easily be named. But only those members were named, who were harassing the deceased for want of dowry. Defence version of the appellants-accused was that intimation was sent to the complainant-party through Davinder. Davinder had given intimation to Malha Ram. But Davinder was not produced in defence to state that when Anita had committed suicide, then he was sent to inform the complainant-party. As per evidence on the file, death was unnatural. If the appellants-accused were not at fault, then, complainant-party should have been informed. There was no idea to approach the police without informing the complainant-party. In fact, Harinder is in the Police Department when he came to know about the incident, then he concocted entire story to avoid any controversy. Statement of Daryao Singh is Ex.PB at 11:40 P.M. As per Ex.PB, wife of Daryao Singh was present in the house. After seeing that Anita had committed suicide, then, Daryao Singh had gone to inform his relations. Shera, Chowkidar was also present there. Darayo Singh had noticed the dead body at about 3:00 P.M. But no suggestion to any witness that intimation was given to the complainant-party. Shera-Chowkidar was not produced to state that dead body was noticed by Darayo Singh. After leaving him on the spot, Daryao Singh had gone to inform his relations. No one appeared in defence to state that he was informed by Daryao Singh. That means delay is not fatal. Delay was fully explained. When compromise could not be effected, then, case was got registered. All the family members were not named. PW 8 & PW 9 in examination- in-chief stated that before the present occurrence, deceased used to tell them that she is being harassed for want of dowry. Delay, if any, is not sufficient for the acquittal of the appellants-accused. Delay is one of the suspicious circumstance to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution. Something could be said if all the family members would have been implicated. Trial Court had rightly considered the delay.

Last submission of the defence counsel was that occurrence is dated 17.2.1993 and if the appellant-accused were at default then, why they were not arrested immediately. Arrest of the appellant-accused on 23.2.2008 shows that story is unnatural one. Secondly, Balwan and Dharmo, appellants-accused were not the beneficiary, if there was demand of cash and scooter. At the most Harinder can be liable for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. But submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants-accused carries little weight. Admittedly, occurrence is dated 17.2.1993. Complainant-party came to know about the occurrence on the intervening night of 17-18/2/1993. On the next date i.e 18.2.1993 at about 8:00/9:00 A.M, complainant-party had gone to village Salana. Dead body of Anita had already been shifted to hospital. After post-mortem examination was conducted, dead body was brought back and in the evening, dead body was cremated. After cremation, complainant-party had gone to Village Sisana where elder son of Malha Ram was married. Panchayat was convened but no compromise could be materialised. One of the accused namely, Harinder was serving in the Police Department. It was for the police to see that when the appellants-accused are to be arrested. If the appellants-accused remained present in the house after committing crime, and to favour the accused-party, arrest not made by the police because one of the accused was employee of the Police Department, then due to the fault of Investigating Officer, complainant-party is not to suffer. Arrest of the appellants-accused on 23.2.1993, nowhere shows that story is unnatural one. All the appellants-accused were residing jointly. All the family members are to be benefited, if payment and cash and scooter is given. If any member is not knowing to drive scooter then, it does not mean that he is not the beneficiary. No documentary proof that Harinder was residing separately from his parents and his brother, Balwan.