Angoori and Another vs State of Rajasthan

Three accused persons were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana, Bharatpur for the offences punishable u/s 304-B read with Section 120-B and Section 201 IPC. All the three were found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable u/s 304-B read with Section 120-B IPC, and a fine of Rs.2000 was imposed on each of them and for the offence u/s 201 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500 each. They challenged their conviction and sentence before the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan confirmed their conviction and sentence. The accused Amrit Lal and his wife Angoori Devi have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1110 of 2002 and their son Hemender Kumar has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1344 of 2002.

The prosecution case is that deceased Neeraj was the daughter of PW1 Vishambar Dayal. She was married to appellant Hemender Kumar in 1989. After the marriage, Neeraj was staying with the appellants for some period and occasionally she used to come to the residence of PW1. Whenever she came to the house of PW1 she used to say that she was being physically tortured by her husband Hemender Kumar. PW1 and his wife PW10 Somawati used to console and persuade their daughter to go to her husband's house. Deceased Neeraj found her life intolerable as her husband continued to physically assault her. She came back again to the house of PW1. Appellant Amrit Lal came to the house of PW1 and undertook that he would take care of his daughter-in-law and assured that his son Hemender Kumar would not cause any injury to Neeraj at the matrimonial house. On 8.11.1992, PW1 got information that his daughter Neeraj was done to death. He was in shock and he went to the house of the appellant along with the Station House Officer and SDM and saw the dead body of his daughter Neeraj. He later gave the FI statement before the police and based on the statement the police registered the case u/s 304-B IPC and started the investigation.

The dead body of Neeraj was sent for post-mortem examination and the doctor opined that she died of asphyxia. The investigation officer filed a charge-sheet under Sections 302/304-B/120-B and u/s 201 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge after perusal of the record framed charges only under Sections 304-B/201/120-B IPC. On the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW20 were examined and the documents in evidence as Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-22 were also produced. The Sessions Court held that these appellants were guilty of offence charged against them and the same was confirmed by the High Court.

We have heard Learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the State.

The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the offence, if any, committed by these appellants will not come within the purview of Section 304-B IPC. It is pointed out that PW1 gave the FI statement before the police and there was no allegation of any demand of dowry by any of these appellants. In FI statement given to the Station House Officer, Bayana on 8.11.1992, PW1 only stated that he suspected that the in-laws of the deceased have killed her after putting her on fire. He also stated that his daughter never wanted to go to the house of the appellant as they used to fight with her. He also stated that there was panchayat earlier but the deceased did not disclose this fact to the panchayat. PW1 stated that the deceased had told him that one day the appellant Hemender Kumar tried to kill her and even caused hurt to her with cycle chain and the deceased Neeraj refused to go to her in-laws' place but he sent his daughter to the house three months prior to the incident thinking that there may be some social stigma. Apart from these allegations, PW1 did not state anything regarding the demand of dowry. Apart from these allegations, PW1 did not state anything regarding the demand of dowry. At the time of evidence, PW1 deposed that Hemender Kumar wanted dowry of Rs. 10,000. It is clear that he specifically admitted in the cross-examination that he was disclosing for the first time in the court regarding the demand of dowry.

The counsel for the Respondent State submitted that PW1 on hearing the news of death of his daughter might have been in shock and was unable to give any clear and comprehensive statement before the police. It is pertinent to note that PW10, the mother of deceased Neeraj, who was also examined by the police, mentioned nothing in her statement to the police about the demand of dowry by any of these appellants. From these facts, it is clear that both PW1 and PW10 developed the story to the effect that there was demand of dowry by these appellants. In the absence of any demand of dowry, the harassment, if any meted out to the deceased Neeraj, will not come within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC. of course, there was sufficient evidence to show that the appellant Hemender Kumar used to assault deceased Neeraj and whenever Neeraj visited her parents she used to narrate the story of harassment. We do not find any reason to disbelieve PW1 to PW10 on this score.

In this background, we do not think that the conviction of these appellants u/s 304-B IPC is correct. However, there is evidence to the effect that the appellant Hemender Kumar caused injury to deceased Neeraj and it was due to his frequent harassment she committed suicide and thus there is clear evidence to the effect that he was abetting her to commit suicide. The offence committed by the appellant Hemender Kumar would come within the ambit of Section 306 IPC. We are told that Hemender Kumar has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 9 years. As regards Appeal No. 1344 of 2002 filed by Hemender Kumar is concerned, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 304-B is set aside and the sentence u/s 201 IPC is confirmed and he is found guilty of offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. Therefore, we hold that the sentence already undergone by him would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Coming to Crl.A. No. 1110 of 2002, the appellants Angoori and Amrit Lal were admittedly proved to be present in the house. There was no allegation that these appellants were causing any cruelty to deceased Neeraj. In fact, the evidence of PW1 would show that appellant Amrit Lal came to the house of PW1 and appealed to him that he would take Neeraj to the matrimonial home and take care of her. As regards appellant Angoori also, there is no case that she caused any cruelty or harassment to the deceased. Neeraj used to visit her parents' house and narrated the incidents which happened in the matrimonial home and these facts are admitted by PW1 and PW10 in their evidence. In any of these incidents she never complained that the appellants Angoori and Amrit Lal caused any harm or hurt to her life. It appears that the deceased might have wanted to end her life because of the mental and physical torture caused by her husband Hemender Kumar. In the absence of specific evidence to show the complicity of the appellants Angoori and Amrit Lal for the offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC, we can only say that they are not guilty of any offence charged against them. The counsel for the State submitted that these appellants have been convicted u/s 120-B IPC as there was conspiracy on the part of these appellants for the commission of offence. In respect of conspiracy also, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution of offence. In respect of conspiracy also, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution except their physical presence in the house at the time of incident. As regards actual commission of the suicide, there is no evidence as to how the incident happened - whether the suicide was in a bolted room or not.

In the result, we find that the appellants in Crl.A.No. 1110 of 2002 are not guilty of the offence charged against them. Crl.A. No. 1110 of 2002 is allowed. Appellants Angoori and Amrit Lal are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

In the result Crl.A. No. 1344 of 2002 is partly allowed and Crl.A. No. 1110 of 2002 is allowed.