Anil Kumar and Another vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present appeal has been preferred by Anil Kumar son of Daya Chand and his mother Kamla. Both the appellants were tried along with the acquitted accused Surinder, brother of Anil Kumar, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in case FIR No. 204 dated 15.06.1999 registered at Police Station Sohna under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 IPC. The Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide impugned judgment dated 24th September, 2002 held Anil Kumar and Kamla guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and vide a separate order dated 28th September, 2002, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each u/s 304-B IPC. Both the appellants were further sentenced u/s 498-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 13th June, 1999, in which Bala aged 22 years and Ms. Jyoti aged 3 years received burn injuries. Bala was married to Anil Kumar and Ms. Jyoti was their daughter. Both, Bala and Ms. Jyoti, succumbed to their injuries, therefore, charge u/s 302 IPC was also framed for causing death of Ms. Jyoti. However, the accused have been acquitted of the charge on this count.

No State appeal has been preferred.

Brief facts of the case can be gathered from the statement Ex.PA made by Bhule Ram Dahiya, father of the deceased Bala, who stated that he had three sons and two daughters. Bala was the youngest one. Her marriage was solemnized with Anil Kumar accused appellant on 9th February, 1996 as per Hindu rites and customs. The complainant had given dowry according to his capacity at the time of marriage. After her marriage, Bala used to come to her parental house and complain that she was maltreated and harassed by her husband, mother-in-law and husband�s younger brother Surinder on account of demand of dowry. The accused were demanding scooter, or cash worth Rs. 50,000/- in lieu thereof. The complainant along with his sons Dhare and Chattarpal visited the village of the accused and persuaded them not to harass his daughter but the accused failed to mend their ways. On 9th February, 1999, the marriage of Guddo, sister of Anil Kumar accused, was to be solemnized and the complainant had sent his sons Chattarpal and Dhare to assist his son-in-law. Bala complained to her brothers that the accused were still harassing her and demanding dowry. This information was relayed to the complainant by his sons. He immediately reached at the village of the accused and held parleys. The accused misbehaved with the complainant as well as with his sons, and also gave beatings. The complainant was not permitted to meet his daughter. The complainant and his sons were thrown out of the house by Anil Kumar, Surinder and Kamla.

On 13th June, 1999, an information was received by the complainant that Bala and Ms. Jyoti have suffered fire injuries due to pouring of kerosene oil and were admitted in Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi in burnt condition. The complainant, along with his sons, reached there and met Bala and her daughter Ms. Jyoti but they were not able to communicate. They were lying there in burnt condition. In the FIR, it was complained that the accused Anil Kumar, Surinder and Kamla had made an attempt to kill Bala and Ms. Jyoti by setting them on fire after pouring kerosene oil, as they were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage.

The above said FIR was investigated and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions along with the accused and was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for trial.

On 13th January, 2000, charge was framed against the present appellants and the acquitted accused Surinder that on 13th June, 1999 in the area of Garhiwazidpur, they being husband and relatives of the husband of deceased Bala subjected her to cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. They were further charged for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC for having caused the death of Ms. Jyoti. On the same allegation, charge u/s 304-B IPC was also framed for causing unnatural death of Bala.

HC Prithavi Raj of Police Station Sohna appeared as PW-1 and stated that on 15th June, 1999, he was posted in Police Station Sohna and on that day Jaswant Singh ASI had forwarded the statement of Bhule Ram Dahiya Ex.PA. This witness had made his endorsement Ex.PA/1, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered against the accused.

Dr. B.B. Aggarwal PW-4, who was posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon, deposed that on 13th June, 1999, Ms. Jyoti aged 3 years and Bala wife of Anil Kumar aged 22 years were brought to the hospital by Jagdish Chand. The condition of both the patients was very poor. This witness suspected smell of kerosene. He prepared the medico legal report and had sent the ruqa Ex.PG to SHO, Police Station Gurgaon for information.

Devinder Singh PW-3, who was then posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vasant Vihar, Delhi, stated that on 18th June, 1999 he received information that Bala, who was admitted in the Safdarjang Hospital, on 13th June, 1999 had expired. He gave directions to the officers to call the parents of the deceased in his office. He recorded the statement Ex.PC/8 of Murti Devi, mother of deceased Bala. This witness conducted inquest proceedings and made arrangements for conducting autopsy on the dead bodies of Bala and Ms.Jyoti.

Dr. Alexander F. Khakha PW-2 on 19th June, 1999 performed autopsy on the dead bodies of Bala and Ms. Jyoti. According to the opinion of this doctor, the death of Ms. Jyoti was due to shock caused by ante mortem thermal burn injuries, whereas Bala had died due to septicemia caused by ante mortem thermal burn injuries.

Naresh Kumar Draftsman PW-5 had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PE.

Chattar Pal PW-6, brother of deceased Bala, in his deposition stated that the appellants along with the acquitted accused Surinder were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage. They were demanding scooter, fridge and cash worth Rs. 50,000/-. This witness further stated that on various occasions, this demand was repeated. He further deposed that Kamla mother-in-law of the deceased had stated that their reputation in the society had been lowered. He further deposed that the accused used to misbehave with Bala and Kamla mother-in-law of Bala had directed them not to visit her house. This witness proved the statement Ex.PA made by his father Bhule Ram Dahiya, who had died on 20th August, 1999. This witness stated that Bala died on 18th June, 1999, whereas Ms. Jyoti died on 17th June, 1999. In cross examination, this witness admitted that prior to the incident, no complaint was made to the police, panchayat or any respectable. His deposition further states that his sister had never written any letter to the complainant against the accused persons regarding demand of dowry and they had never taken any panchayat to the house of the accused for resolving the matrimonial dispute. This witness was also confronted on material portions with his previous statement Ex.DA.

Murti Devi, mother of Bala appeared as PW-7 and reiterated as to what was stated by Chattarpal PW-6. She further stated that at the time of vidai, Anil Kumar became annoyed for not giving sufficient dowry. She further stated that Anil Kumar had said that his wife had not brought fridge, scooter and cash of Rs. 50,000/-. Kamla had stated to this witness that the marriage was not solemnized according to their status. In cross examination, this witness also admitted that she had not made any complaint against the accused persons before the panchayat, sarpanch, any respectable, neighbour or the police.

Jaswant Singh ASI PW-8 proved various facets of the investigation.

Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and statements of both the accused, i.e. Anil Kumar and Kamla, u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication.

In defence, the accused examined Munshi Ram DW-1. He stated that he was a mediator to the marriage. Father of the deceased Bala was his maternal uncle and no demand of dowry was ever made by the accused at the time of sagai, lagan and vidai. He used to visit the house of the accused. He further stated that Bala never made any complaint of demand of dowry at any occasion. In cross examination, this witness stated that he was neighbour of the accused.

Jagdish DW-2 had taken both the deceased to the hospital at Gurgaon. This witness stated that at the time of incident, the accused were not present at their house.

Kailash Chand DW-3 stated that the accused had come to meet him on 10th June, 1999 and stayed there for three days and on 13th June, 1999 Bala and Ms. Jyoti had burnt themselves.

Ami Lal DW-4 was Sarpanch of village of the accused. He testified the fact that no demand of dowry was made by the accused.

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate appearing for the appellants, has submitted that in the present case, incident had taken place on 13th June, 1999, whereas statement was made by Bhule Ram Dahiya on 15th June, 1999. In the FIR, it was stated that the accused were demanding a scooter or a cash of Rs. 50,000/-. It is stated that later-on, after the death of Bhule Ram Dahiya, Chattarpal PW-6 and Murti Devi PW-7 had improved the case and had stated that the accused were demanding scooter, fridge and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. It is stated that the word mentioned in the FIR, i.e. �or� has been converted as �and� and the FIR was lodged after consultations and deliberations. Learned Counsel has submitted that the complainant party had named all the family members and had become part of the prevailing tendency to inflate the number of the accused.

Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that from the testimony of Chattarpal PW-6 and Murti Devi PW-7, it is evident that the accused were harassing the deceased.

In the present case, marriage was solemnized in the year 1996. Bala had died in the month of June, 1999. Thus, the death of Bala occurred within seven years of her marriage. Learned trial Judge has rightly discarded the plea of alibi. Even the plea of alibi would not absolve the accused, as the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC are made out. Death of Bala was unnatural, within seven years of her marriage and in her matrimonial home. Furthermore, it has come in the testimony of the witnesses that the accused used to harass and maltreat Bala. Murti Devi, mother of Bala, while appearing as PW-7 in the Court, has specifically stated that at the time of vidai, Anil Kumar was annoyed and had said that sufficient dowry was not given. In the statement Ex.PA made by Bhule Ram Dahiya, which was proved by his son Chattarpal PW-6, it has been specifically stated that the accused were demanding scooter, fridge or Rs. 50,000/- in cash. In these circumstances, the delay of two days in lodging the FIR assumes importance. The Court is put on guard to sift the grain from the chaff. The scooter was to be used by the husband Anil Kumar. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that due to demand of dowry, the relations between husband and wife were not cordial. The demand of scooter was predominantly for the benefit of husband. In this context, the argument raised by counsel for the appellants that there was a delay in lodging the report and the same was used for consultations and deliberations, cannot be ignored.

In Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , Hon''ble the Apex Court observed as under:

For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.

In Salamat Ali and another Vs. State of Bihar, , Hon''ble Apex Court observed as under:

Uniformly every witness has said that the family members of the husband, i.e. Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in the form of television and scooter. The nature of the demand is some indication. The demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use.

The view propounded in Salamat Ali''s case (supra) has also been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab 2007 (2) RCrim R 665 and another Single Bench of this Court in Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) All ICri LR 181.

Taking into consideration the whole gamut of the case, this Court is of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to Kamla, mother-in-law of the deceased Bala and accordingly, she is acquitted of the charges. Her conviction and sentence are set aside. However, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant Anil Kumar are maintained and his appeal is hereby dismissed.