Anil and Others vs State of Haryana

K. C. Puri, J.—Under challenge, in this appeal, is the judgment/order dated 24.5.2006/25.5.2006 passed by Shri S.S. Lamba, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 304B IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each u/s 498-A IPC. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

Vide same judgment, co-accused Sunil, Subhash and Sona were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted.

The prosecution story lie in a narrow compass as under:

Complaint, Exhibit P-1 was handed over by Raghbir Singh son of Shri Ram Sarup, resident of Ward No. 8, Kalanaur to the Superintendent of Police on 22.9.2004 which was sent to DSP for verification and subsequently on the direction of the concerned Police Officer, a case u/s 304-B IPC was registered on 28.9.2004.

It was mentioned in the complaint, Exhibit P-1, that Raghbir Singh, complainant had married his elder daughter Manju to accused Anil on 28.11.2003. In the marriage, he had given dowry beyond his capacity. After few days of the marriage, her daughter was being harassed by her in-laws. He fulfilled their demands once or twice to keep the life of his daughter smooth, but her in-laws continued raising their demands day by day. Consequently, he was unable to fulfil their demands. Because of this inability, Manju was harassed by her mother-in-law, father-inlaw, brother-in-law, younger sister-in-law and her husband continuously for demand of dowry and they used to taunt her that her parents have not given the dowry as per their status;that their prestige has been lowered down in the society and relations; that he pleaded many times that he was unable to fulfil their demands, but they did not pay any heed and started harassing his daughter Manju; that because of this harassment, his daughter remained worried and used to inform him about harassment; that they visited her after receiving such news; that whenever they came to her inlaws house, it was told by her in-laws that they would not repeat it in future and matter was sorted out. However, the accused crossed their limits and his daughter was subjected to electric current and her both hands were badly burnt. They immediately went to Rohtak and took his daughter to Kalanaur. The hands of his daughter were so badly burnt that she was unable to answer the call of nature and takes meals without the help of attendant. Because of fear in society, they did not take any legal action. After some days, Anil accused, husband of his daughter came to Kalanaur and threatened that if she was not sent, he would commit suicide. He also assured that in future he would not indulge in any beatings to her and that he would not allow his family members to indulge in any beatings to her. After getting such assurance, Manju was sent with him. After some days, Anil came to Kalanaur and stated that he required Rs. 10,000/- to do some business but they pleaded their poor condition,whereupon, Anil quarrelled with them and went back.

On 17.4.2004, he and his neighbourer Ram Niwas went to meet his daughter and after paying necessary Shagun to her inlaws they returned back. On that day also, his daughter was sad.

On 19.9.2004, at about noon time, they received a telephonic message on the telephone of their neighbour that Manju was ill and that they should reach immediately to Rohtak. When they were preparing to leave for Rohtak, a telephonic message was again received to the effect that Manju had died. After the receipt of said message, he alongwith his family members came to Rohtak and found that the dead body of his daughter was lying in the Varandah of her in-laws. No body was near the dead body. Some people were sitting in the shadow of trees at some distance and they noticed blood on the right side of the mouth which was almost dried. There were also signs of abrasions on the chin and right cheek was looking blue. Later on, the police also verified the said facts. When he enquired accused Suraj Bhan, father-in-law of Manju to tell the reason, he stated that Manju developed pain in her abdomen and she was taken to Emergency Department of PGIMS, Rohtak. Thereafter, he gave this information to the police of Octroi Post, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak. The police took the dead body into possession and sent it for post mortem examination. They went to the doctor for post mortem examination. The doctor gave a paper to them and required to bring the concerned papers from the Emergency Department. When he went to the Emergency Department and demanded the documents after showing the report of Ultra-sound, one lady C.M.O present there stated that there was no such paper. Thereafter, he suspected that his daughter had been killed and in this murder, her husband Anil, mother-in-law Roshni, father-in-law Suraj Bhan, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of Manju were involved.

After the registration of the case, investigation was conducted and all the above named accused were arrested and challaned.

Charge sheet was accordingly framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined PW-1 Raghbir Singh complainant, PW-2 Bhalle Ram, brother of the complainant, PW-3 MHC Ram Kumar, PW-4 EHC Jagbir Singh, PW-5 Har Bhagwan, neighbourer of the complainant, PW-6 Saviri mother of deceased Manju, PW-7 Dr. Archana Gupta, PW-8 Jagdish Ahlawat, PW-9 Arjun Singh, PW-10 Dr. S.K.Mathur, PW- 11 Dr. Sube Singh, Medical Officer, PW-12 ASI Sunil Kumar, PW-13 ASI Paramvir Singh, PW-14 ASI Lekh Ram and PW-15 ASI Har Narain.

After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. As far as sister-in-law of the deceased and her husband are concerned, they pleaded that they were not present there and were residing at Najafgarh. The remaining accused stated that on 19.9.2004, Manju developed pain in her abdomen and she was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak. After treatment, she was discharged and was brought back in the house. She again developed pain and was taken to PGI where she was declared dead. It was further pleaded that in connivance with the police, the complainant got changed the viscera and a false report had been obtained.

In their defence, the accused only tendered OPD register mark X.

After the conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted while their co-accused were acquitted,as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment.

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that to prove the commission of offence u/s 304-B, the prosecution is required to establish the following ingredients:

The death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;

Such death has taken place within seven years of her marriage.

Soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove ingredient Nos. 1 and 3, mentioned above. The prosecution has failed to prove unnatural death. In fact, at the most, it can be a case of suicide. It is further contended that so far as demand of dowry articles is concerned, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the said ingredients against any of the three appellants. Two other accused against whom there were similar allegations in the FIR have been acquitted. It is the tendency amongst people that in case of a death of a woman in the matrimonial house, they involve all the family members, irrespective of their participation in the offence.

It is further submitted that there is a delay of 9 days in lodging the FIR. No explanation has been placed on the file why the FIR was lodged after 9 days. The prosecution story is liable to be ignored, on this score alone.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has further contended that in the FIR, it is mentioned that Anil, husband of the deceased was demanding Rs. 10,000/- for setting up his business. It is submitted that the said allegation is wrong on the face of it. No business can be started with a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Otherwise also the demand of Rs. 10,000/- for setting up business does not fall within the ambit of demand of dowry articles. So, in these circumstances, the ingredients of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are not made out.

It is further contended that PW-1 Raghbir Singh, while appearing as a witness for the prosecution has stated that demand of Rs. 8,000/- was made by Anil from his wife to start some work and his wife paid Rs. 1,200/- to Anil and assured to give him the remaining amount. It is further contended that so far as accused Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi are concerned, no allegations of demand of any article including dowry have been made. So, Suraj Bhan and Roshni have been implicated only being parents of Anil. The trial Court has taken into account the fact that electric current was given to the deceased and, on that count, there is maltreatment on the part of the appellants. It is submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has stated that electric current was received by the deceased or even the prosecution witnesses have not stated that current was given by Suraj Bhan and Roshni. No offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC is made out against them. Suraj Bhan was a Government employee and has been dismissed simply on account of his conviction in a false case.

It is further contended that the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Bhalle Ram. He has also not stated about the factum of demand of any dowry article by the accused. This witness has also simply stated that at one time, Anil demanded Rs. 8,000/- from his brother Raghbir Singh but . 0only Rs. 1,200/- were paid.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon following authorities:

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 2005(4) RCR 310.

Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab 2006(1) RCri R 133.

Mithu Ram v. The State of Punjab 2004(2) RCR 211.

Om Parkash v. State of Haryana 2004(3) RCR 508.

Baljeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana 2004(2) RCR 52.

The learned State counsel has supported the judgment of the trial Court. He has submitted that the deceased died in the house of the accused and the onus lies on the accused to prove how Manju got the poisonous substance. Electric current was given to her and this fact has been proved by PW-11 Dr. Sube Singh who has stated that Manju deceased was treated for electric burns.

Manju died an unnatural death due to Organo Phosphorous Pesticide (poisonous substance) within 11 months of her marriage with Anil. She was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry articles. So, all the ingredients of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are made out against the accused. A prayer has been made for dismissal of appeal.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case.

So far as the first two ingredients of offence u/s 304-B IPC are concerned, the same have not been seriously disputed. Manju, deceased died within seven years of her marriage with Anil, accused, due to poisoning. So, death otherwise than under normal circumstances is not disputed.

Now, the questions arises, whether the ingredients of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are made out against the appellants. In this regard, the evidence on the file has to be appreciated.

PW-1 Raghbir Singh, father of the deceased has stated that Manju was married to Anil accused on 28.11.2003. After five months of the marriage, accused Anil came to his house and demanded Rs. 8,000/- from his wife to start some work but his wife gave Rs. 1,200/- to him and assured to give the remaining amount after some time as they were not having sufficient funds at that time. He has further stated that he brought his daughter Manju to his house. The accused gave beatings to Manju and asked them to pay some money but they showed their helplessness. On 19.9.2004, a telephonic message was received from Bhagwana that Manju was ill. Two persons were sent but Manju had died. He has further stated that six persons namely Anil, Suraj Bhan, her fatherin- law, his wife, her brother-in-law (Devar) i.e younger brother of her husband, sister-in-law ( Nanad) and brother-in-law Nandoia) harassed Manju,deceased. The dead body of Manju was lying in the house. She was having burns on her hands. He got her treated for burn injuries at Medical College, Rohtak. He also got her treated for 4 or 5 months after the marriage. He has further stated that on enquiry, it was revealed that Manju had been murdered by the accused.

PW-2 Bhalle Ram and PW-6 Savitri have also deposed on the same lines as that of PW-1 Raghbir Singh.

PW-3 MHC Ram Kumar and PW-4 EHC Jagbir Singh have simply tendered their affidavits, Exhibits P-2 and P-3.

PW-5 Har Bhagwan has stated that he was living in the neighbourhood of PW-1 Raghbir Singh. On 19.9.2004, at about 11-00 AM, a telephone was received from Rohtak which was attended to by Raghbir Singh. After 10/15 minutes, another telephone was received from Rohtak in which it was stated that have murdered Manju and they (complainant party) can do anything. Hands of Manju were also burnt 15/20 days prior to the occurrence.

PW-7 Dr. Archana Gupta has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manju and has stated that death of Manju had taken place on account of Organo Phosphorous Pesticide.

PW-8 Jagdish Ahlawat is a witness of recovery of articles.

PW-9 Arjun Singh has stated that on 19.9.2004, Raghbir Singh told him that the condition of Manju was serious and that he along with 50/60 persons went to Rohtak and found the dead body of Manju. There were blood spots on her face and the body.

PW-10 Dr. S.K.Mathur has simply stated that there was no significant pathological change in the heart of deceased Manju.

PW-11 Dr. Sube Singh has stated that on 15.7.2004, he treated Manju for electric burns.

PW-12 ASI Sunil Kumar, PW-13 ASI Paramvir Singh, PW-14 ASI Lekh Ram and PW-15 ASI Har Narain have deposed about the investigation conducted by them.

In their statements, the accused have pleaded their false implication.

The trial Court had reached at the conclusion that Manju deceased suffered electric burn injuries regarding which Dr. Sube Singh has made his statement.

The main ground of attack by the counsel for the appellants is that there is a delay of 9 days in lodging the FIR but the accused have themselves produced statement of Raghbir Singh, Exhibit DD dated 19.9.2004 in which all the details as mentioned in the FIR have been given. It so seems that the lapse is on the part of the police for not registering the case in spite of the fact that cognizable offence was made out and the prosecution cannot be penalised for the same. Delay, in these circumstances, stands fully explained by producing document, Exhibit DD i.e. DDR containing the statement of Raghbir Singh, complainant. So, the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal in the present case.

So far as Anil accused is concerned, the ingredients of offence u/s 304-B IPC are made out against him beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased was given electric current for which PW-11 Dr. Sube Singh has been examined. PWs Raghbir Singh, Bhalle Ram and Savitri have stated that Anil had raised a demand of money for setting up his business. Minor discrepancy regarding the amount does not go to the root of the case. In these circumstances, the ingredients of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are clearly made out against Anil, accused and he has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. Otherwise also, he was the husband and the death had taken place in his house. He was to explain the circumstances how Manju, within one year of her marriage with him, has turned into a corpse. The stand taken by him that the deceased was removed to the PGI is not substantiated by him on the file. The demand of dowry articles soon before death of Manju stands proved against Anil accused. The demand of money would be deemed to be demand in connection with dowry articles. Had there been no marriage between deceased Manju and Anil, in that case, Anil was not able to demand the amount for setting up his business except that he had other relations with the complainant.

So far as authority in case Amrik Singh (supra) is not helpful to accused Anil. There is no inconsistent statement of a witness.

So far as authority in case Harjit Singh (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable so far accused Anil is concerned. There are allegations that Manju deceased received burn injuries in the month of July i.e two months prior to the occurrence. In the said authority, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the term "soon before death" has to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case in respect of demand of dowry articles.

Authority in case Mithu Ram (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable as in that case, there was no DDR giving the details of occurrence. So, the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal, as mentioned above.

Authority in case Om Parkash (supra) is not helpful to the accused. In the said case, the accused had raised demand of Rs. 2,000/- three years prior to the death. So, there was no corelation between the death and demand of Rs. 2,000/-.

Authority in case Baljeet Singh and another (supra) is also distinguishable as in that case, there was delay of 8 days in lodging the FIR without any explanation. However, in the present case, DDR was recorded on the same day i.e. 19.9.2004 and the same clinches the issue.

So far as accused Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi are concerned, in my view, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence u/s 304-B IPC. There is no specific demand of dowry articles by them. The demand of Rs. 8,000/- was made by Anil as per prosecution witnesses and not by Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi. The other witnesses i.e. PW-1 Raghbir Singh, PW-2 Bhalle Ram and PW-6 Savitri have not stated about demand of dowry articles by accused Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi "soon before death" of Manju from them. Further, co-accused Sonia, Subhash and Sunil against whom there were similar allegations have been acquitted by the trial Court. So, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence u/s 304-B IPC against Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi. The learned trial Court in para No. 17 of the judgment has observed as under:

I agree that there should be harassment soon before the occurrence but it is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence to that effect.

So far as accused Anil is concerned there is evidence of demand of Rs. 8,000/- but there is no such allegation against Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi. There is no other indirect evidence regarding the demand of dowry articles by Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi from deceased Manju or her family members "soon before death" of Manju. So, in these circumstances, accused Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi stand acquitted u/s 304-B IPC, by giving them benefit of doubt.

However, so far as conviction of Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi u/s 498-A IPC is concerned, I am of the considered view that the evidence on the file is sufficient to convict them u/s 498-A IPC. Therefore, the conviction of Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi stands confirmed.

In view of above discussion, the appeal of Anil accused stands dismissed.

So far as the appeal of accused Suraj Bhan and Roshni Devi is concerned, the same stands partly accepted and both of them stand acquitted u/s 304-B. However, their conviction u/s 498-A IPC recorded by the trial Court stands confirmed and their appeal against conviction recorded u/s 498-A IPC stands dismissed.

A copy of the judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for strict compliance.