Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Brief facts of the case are that the FIR in the instant case was got registered by PW-6 Muni Ram, by alleging that he was an agriculturist. The marriage of his sister Seema was solemnized on 11.11.2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies with appellant No.1-Jai Karan, son of Ram Singh resident of village Khewra, District Sonepat (Haryana). In the 1 of 21 marriage, his parents had given gifts and dowry items beyond their capacity, but husband of Seema namely Jai Karan, Ram Karan, brother-in-law (Jaith), Shanti, mother-in-law, Saroj, sister-in-law (Jaithani) wife of Ram Karan and Sunita, sister-in-law (Nanand), who were also residing in the parental house, were not satisfied with the dowry articles. It was alleged that all these persons used to taunt and commit cruelty on his sister Seema for bringing less dowry in the marriage. Two-three times they visited the matrimonial home of their sister in village Khewra and requested them not to harass Seema, but they did not mend their ways and demanded more and more money. Even they paid Rs.50,000-60,000/- in cash. His sister had a daughter aged 2 ½ years namely Anshu. In January 2014, his sister Seema was ousted from her matrimonial home after giving beatings by her husband Jai Karan, Ram Karan, Saroj, Sunita and Shanti and was directed to bring more money. Again a panchayat was convened in village Khewra and the accused admitted their fault and requested for one opportunity to mend their ways. On 13.02.2014, Jai Karan, Ram Karan, Sunita, Shanti and Saroj went to their house and promised to keep Seema with honour and took her to village Khewra with them. At about 02.00/2.30 PM on 23.02.2014, the complainant received a phone call that Seema was burnt. They asked them to bring Seema to PGIMS, Rohtak for treatment and they would meet them in PGIMS, Rohtak. However, the accused did not come and replied that they were in Delhi. The complainant and others reached Delhi and found them in Mundka (Delhi). They found their sister to be unconscious and struggling between life and death and they took her from Delhi to PGIMS, Rohtak, where she was declared dead after checking by the doctors at the Emergency Ward. It was alleged by the complainant that all the five persons had killed 2 of 21 his sister by burning for not fulfilling their demand of dowry or she had committed suicide after their harassment in connection with demand of dowry raised by them.

With these broad averments, the statement of the complainant was recorded by SI Surender Kumar at 10.30 AM on 24.02.2014 and the FIR, Ex.PW1/A was registered at about 01.00 PM on the same day. Thereafter, the investigation formally commenced and the police found sufficient incriminating evidence against Jai Karan, Ram Karan and Sunita, who faced trial before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

Vide the above-said impugned judgment, the learned trial Court held Jai Karan and Ram Karan guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. However, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution has failed in proving the case against Sunita beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and was ordered to be acquitted.

Investigation At the preliminary stage, the investigation was conducted by PW-14 SI Surender Kumar, who had also registered the FIR, in the instant case. However, it is apparent that he did not conduct the investigation properly and in a fair manner. He clearly admitted that the house of the 16 of 21 accused, where the occurrence had taken place, was surrounded by Abadi of the village, however, he did not record the statements of the neighbours to verify the facts regarding the crime. Even appellant No.2-Ram Karan was residing in a separate adjoining house, but he did not see the ration card of Ram Karan. Still further, the co-accused-Sunita, daughter of Ram Singh was already married and was residing in a separate home along with her mother. He had not verified whether Sunita was having her separate ration card from the accused/appellant No.1 Jai Karan etc. Even though, he had noticed the above-said facts, still he challaned appellant No.2 Ram Karan and Sunita and ultimately, Sunita was acquitted by the learned trial Court on the ground that she was living separately and had no concern with the matrimonial life of appellant No.1-Jai Karan and Seema (since deceased). Still further, even the defence examined ACP Ajit Singh, Mujesar, Faridabad as DW-5, who was posted as DSP at Sonepat at the time of the alleged occurrence. Even during his verification, it was found that Ram Karan and Sunita were living separately in their separate houses still he presented challan against both of them. Thus, it is apparent that, the Investigating Officer also did not try to bring expert evidence during the course of investigation to ascertain as to whether the death was suicidal or homicidal. Apart from that, no recoveries were effected from the appellants. Still further, the Investigating Officer also did not try to find some evidence as to whether the deceased had offered some resistance or not and thus apparently, the investigation was conducted in the most unfair and partisan manner.

Separate residence of Ram Karan (appellant No.2) The learned trial Court rightly acquitted Sunita, sister-in-law 17 of 21 (Nanad) of Seema (since deceased) on the ground that she had proved to be residing separately from appellant No.1-Jai Karan in a house situated in another street, however, the learned trial Court wrongly convicted appellant No.2-Ram Karan, brother-in-law (Jeth) of Seema (since deceased). The learned trial Court completed overlooked the testimony of the complainant (PW-6), who admitted in his cross-examination that appellant No.2-Ram Karan was already married at the time of marriage of his sister Seema (since deceased) with appellant No.1-Jai Karan. Appellant No.2-Ram Karan was having children at that time and he was living in a separate portion of the same house from appellant No.1 and he was also living separately from his parents. Similarly, PW-7 Karan Singh, father of the deceased, also admitted in his cross-examination that appellant No.2-Ram Karan was living separately from his brother appellant No.1 and was cultivating his land separately. Similarly, PW-10 SI Naresh Kumar, who remained Investigating Officer, also admitted that appellant No.2 was living separately in a separate house with his family. Still further, PW-14 SI Surender Kumar also admitted that appellant No.2 was residing in a separate adjoining house, however, he had not seen the ration card of appellant No.2- Ram Karan. Apart from that, the defence examined DW-1 Narender Kumar, Inspector, Food and Supplies, who brought the ration card of appellant No.2, which showed his separate residence. Still further, the defence examined DW-4 Anil Kumar, Lambardar of village Khewra/neighbour of the appellants, who clearly stated that appellant No.2 was living separately for the last more than 20 years in a separate house and he had no concern with the family of appellant No.1. Still further, DW-5- Ajit Singh, who was posted as DSP, Sonepat at the relevant time, also stated that during his 18 of 21 verification and visit at the spot at village Khewra, he clearly saw that appellant No.2 was residing separately in a separate house. Consequently, it is apparent that appellant No.2, who was the brother-in-law (Jeth) of Seema (since deceased), was residing separately from their family and was cultivating his land separately. Even otherwise, appellant No.2-Ram Karan was living with his family members and could never be the beneficiary of demand of dowry by his brother appellant No.1-Jai Karan and has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial Court.