Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On the morning of 10th March, 1995 the first informant reached Payli where he learnt from his sister Nirmala that Suman was happy until mid night and was dancing in the marriage festivities, but in the morning she was found dead. Her cremation too has been done surreptitiously. She expressed that Suman has been killed by throttling by Ramesh Singh.

6. Prithvi Singh further says that he made enquiries in the village and he was informed that Ramesh Singh was drunk previous night. There was exchange of words in between Ramesh Singh and Suman on account of dowry and during exchange of words Ramesh Singh strangulated Suman and in the morning without informing them, she was cremated.

12. P. W. 7 Bhanwar Singh is a neighbour. He has supported the version of P.W. 1 Prithvi Singh. He has said that the accused used to say that he will not bring his wife firstly because the dowry given was less and secondly she is black and on this count either he will himelf get killed or would kill her. He used to proclaim that he will contact second marriage and this Used to be his rhetoric under the influence of liquor. The accused used to repeat this threat every now and then, under the influence of liquor. On the night intervening 9th and 10th March, 1995atabout2a.m. he was shouting that, "when I said that she is not to be brought she has been brought" and then he threatened that since she has been brought now watch what happens. Some time later he came out of his house speaking that whatever I have done, you people should settle. He saw accused getting out of his house, he was drunk. When this witness asked as to why he was shouting, this witness was replied, that he has done whatever he wanted to do. Early morning a tempo came and at that time a lady was taken to bus stand and within 15 minutes she was brought back. Soon thereafter the deceased was taken to cremation ground. This witness was cross-examined in detail. But the basic tenor of his testimony was not shaken in the cross-examination.

14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge felt that the cruelty as defined under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code is clearly made out. Turning of Nirmala hostile is not a circumstance which can go against the prosecution because Nirmala was married in the same family and she still had to live her life in that family. But Nirmala is witness of the fact, that until mid night the deceased was in the fit state of health. It was after mid night only, that she died. Human blood was detected on the petticot of the deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has drawn corroboration of this fact from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P.27. This fact is clear to establish that her death was not under normal circum- stances. Blood on petticot cannot be explained in any normal fashion. Further the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the cremation was done under surreptitious circumstances. Even the paternals were not informed about the death of the deceased and, therefore, it was a fit case where the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act deserves to be drawn and held the offence under Section 304B read with Section 498A, Indian Penal Code proved. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, however, acquitted the accused persons of the offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code as the evidence was lacking in material details to bring out the offence under this section.

27. The case of the accused that the defence has been prejudiced because the charges under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and Section 304B, Indian Penal Code have been simultaneously levelled against the accused has no legal basis. The Courts have taken a constant view that the charge under Sections 302 and 304B, Indian Penal Code can coexist vide 1993 Cr. L.J. 2636 and, therefore, no prejudice has been caused.

28. The conviction of the appellant has been supported by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Smt. Shanti & Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226=I (1991) DMC 187. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has held that where the body is cremated hurriedly without even informing the parents, the unnaturality of the death can be seen in it. The cremation has excluded the possibility of post mortem and, therefore, the cause of death could not be clearly established. When the death in not shown to be normal then it was definitely an unnatural either homicidal or suicidal and under these circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that an offence under Section 304B is attracted. The support is perfect from the citation and, therefore, nothing wrong has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in finding the offences under Sections 304B and 498A, Indian Penal Code proved against the accused appellant.