Balbir Singh and Others vs State of Uttrakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal appeal, preferred u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/25.4.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli at Gopeshwar in Sessions Trial No. 21/1992, State v. Balbir Singh and Ors. and S.T. No. 3/1993; State v. Hemant Kumar Singh, thereby convicting the Appellants/accused Balbir Singh, Smt. Gangotri Devi and Hemant Kumar Singh for the offence punishable u/s 304B read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentencing each of them for ten years rigorous imprisonment. However, the Appellants/ accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 201, IPC. Co-accused Bharat Singh, Shivraj Singh, Kamal Singh, Kunwar Singh, Dilbar Singh, Anand Singh, Basant Lal and Gopal Singh were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 120B, IPC.

Vide report dated 18.6.2004, CJM, Rudraprayag informed that the Appellant-accused Hemant Kumar Singh has died. Hence, the appeal filed by the Appellant No. 3 Hemant Kumar Singh stands abated.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant (PW1) Mahavir Singh lodged an FIR in Patwari Jaggi Kandai, Tehsil Rudraprayag, District Chamoli with the averments that his niece Smt. Beena Devi was married with Hemant Kumar Singh about 5 years ago and after the marriage, Smt. Beena Devi remained at her father''s house for four years. Beena Devi was harassed by the Appellant-accused and Km. Laxmi for the demand of dowry and they did not want to keep Beena Devi in their house and they were annoyed with her and they also used to threaten her for her life. On 20.4.1992, Kundan Singh, father of Beena Devi, had left Beena Devi at her in-laws house. At that time also, the in-laws of Beena Devi threatened her for her life. On 23.4.1992, the complainant along with other villagers had gone in the marriage party of Virendra Singh. On that day in Jagtoli market, he heard that in the night of 22.4.1992,. Smt. Beena Devi had died and she was cremated by her in-laws and villagers without giving information to her parents. After hearing this information, he became suspicious that Beena Devi was murdered by her in-laws. With the same averments, the FIR Ex. Ka -1 was lodged by PW1 Mahavir Singh on 24.4.1992 at 4 p.m. with Patwari Jaggi Kandai, Distt. Chamoli. On the basis of the FIR (Ex. Ka-1), PW7 Pancham Singh, Patwari prepared the Chik FIR of the case, i.e. Ex. Ka-12. He also made entry in the G.D. copy whereof is Ex. Ka-13. The investigation of this case was also taken up by PW7 Pancham Singh, Patwari. (In Rural Hilly Areas of State of Uttarakhand, the Patwaris and certain Revenue Officials are being vested with police powers vide U.P. Govt. Notification No. 494/ VIII-418-16 dated 7.3.1916). During the course of investigation, the IO had received the letters Ex. Ka-2 to Ex. Ka-11. The I.O. also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan, i.e. Ex. Ka 14. He also prepared the site plan where the deceased Beena Devi was hanging, i.e. Ex. Ka. 17. He also prepared the site plan of the place, where the dead body of Beena Devi was cremated, i.e. Ex. Ka-18. The I.O. during the course of investigation recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the Appellants-accused and co-accused except the Appellant-accused Hemant Kumar Singh, i.e. Ex. Ka-20. Thereafter the I.O. also filed another charge-sheet against the Appellant-accused Hemant Kumar Singh (now died) Ex. Ka-21.

After receiving the charge-sheet, learned Munsif Magistrate, Karanprayag committed the case to the Court of Session on 18.9.1992 against the Appellant-accused Balbir Singh and Smt. Gangotri Devi and also against co-accused Kamal Singh, Shiv Raj Singh, Kunwar Singh, Anand Singh, Dilwar Singh, Bharat Singh, Basantu Lal and Gopal Singh after giving necessary copies to the accused as provided u/s 207, Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter on 18.1.1993, the case was committed by Munsif Magistrate, Karanprayag, Chamoli against the Appellant-accused Hemant Kumar Singh (now deceased).

On 15.10.1992, learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli has framed the charges against the Appellants/accused Balbir Singh and Smt. Gangotri Devi under Sections 304B/498A/201/120B, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to Appellants/accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Against the co-accused Kamal Singh, Shivraj Singh, Kunwar Singh, Anand Singh, Dilbar Singh @ Manoj Kumar, Bharat Singh, Basantu Lal and Gopal Singh, charge was also framed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli on 15.10.1992 under Sections 120B/201, IPC, which was also read over and explained to them, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges against the Appellant-accused Hemant Kumar was also framed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli on 8.7.1993 under Sections 304B/498A/201/120B, IPC, which was read over and explained to him against which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Vide order dated 8.7.1993, S.T. No. 21/1992 and S.T. No. 3/1993 were consolidated and S.T. No. 21/1992 was made the leading case.

To prove its case; the prosecution has examined PW1 Mahavir Singh, complainant, PW 2 Kundan Singh, father of deceased, PW3 Guddi Devi, neighbourer of deceased, PW4 Prem Singh, PW5 Darshan Singh, PW6 Anand Singh and PW7 Patwari Pancham Singh Rawat, IO of the case.

After that the statements of the Appellants/accused and that of co-accused were recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. The oral and documentary evidence was put to each of them in question form who denied the allegations made against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated. In oral evidence, they have examined DW1 M.S. Semwal, Pharmacist, DW2 Dr. Sushila Pant and DW3 Smt. Gayatri Devi. In documentary evidence, they have produced Ex. Ka.1, photocopy of OPD Register.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli at Gopeshwar vide judgment and order dated 24/25.4.1995 convicted and sentenced the Appellants/accused as above discussed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused/ Appellants have preferred the present appeal.

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Mahavir Singh, who has reiterated the version as stated by him in the FIR.

PW2 Kundan Singh, father of the deceased, who stated that the marriage of his daughter Beena Devi was solemnized with Hemant Kumar (now died) on 5.2.1987. For about two years after the marriage, Beena Devi remained in her in-laws house and in between the festivals, she used to come in his house. After that period, his daughter remained in his house. The in-laws of Beena was demanding Rs. 60,000 and due to non-fulfilment of this demand, Marpit was committed with his daughter Beena and for this reason, she started residing with him; His daughter remained with him for 4 years. He also gone to Roorkee to meet Hemant Kumar and informed him that his parents were demanding Rs. 60,000, which he was unable to pay. However, Hemant Kumar had not said anything but Hemant wrote a letter to him, i.e. Ex. Ka-2. Hemant also wrote another letter to him Ex. Ka-3. A notice was also given by Hemant, i.e. Ex.1. On 20.4.1992, he had gone along with Beena at her in-laws house and on the next day he came back to his house. His in-laws were saying that they would kill his daughter and another marriage of Hemant Kumar would be solemnized. On 22.4.1992, he had gone in a marriage party and when he came back on 23.4.1992, he was informed by the people who were in the marriage party that his daughter was murdered. About the death of Beena Devi, a letter was sent by her in-laws which he received on 29.4.1992. His cousin brother Mahavir Singh had lodged the report. Letters Ex. Ka-4 and Ka-5 were written by his daughter Beena addressed to Commanding Officer, which was in her own handwriting. He also proved the letters Ex. Ka-6 and Ka-7 written by Hemant Kumar to him. He also proved the letters Ex. Ka-8 and Ka-9 written by Hemant Kumar to his father Balbir Singh. He also proved the letter Ex. Ka-10 written by his daughter Beena to Central Command Officer. In cross-examination, he has stated that after 5-6 months of marriage, his daughter was separated from the rest of the family and also a separate room was given to her.

PW3 Smt. Guddi Devi stated that she was the neighbourer of deceased Beena Devi and she had good relations with Beena. The parents of Beena were residing in Malla Bakhai. Most of the time, Beena Devi stayed at her parents house. About 21/2 months before her death, she had come at her in-laws house. She also seen the dead body of deceased Beena Devi inside the house and she had died due to abdomen pain. Beena Devi used to tell her that she was not happy in her in-laws house and she wanted to marry with one Ramesh but her father married her with Hemant. Thereafter, this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. In her cross-examination, she stated that Beena Devi had died in the morning of 22.4.1992 and her dead body was cremated on 23.4.1992 and further Beena had come in her in-laws house two months before her death.

PW4 Prem Singh who staged that the deceased Beena Devi was married with Hemant Kumar in February, 1987. After 5-6 months of marriage, Beena Devi used to live at her parents house because her in-laws were demanding Rs. 60,000. Hemant Kumar was employed in the Army. He also proved the letters Ex. Ka-5, Ka-10 and Ka-11 written by him on the dictation of deceased Beena Devi.

PW5 Darshan Singh, who is the cousin brother of deceased Beena Devi, has stated that after sometime of marriage, deceased Beena Devi was residing at her parents'' house. When he enquired about the reason, then he was told by her that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 60,000. Father of Beena Devi took her at her in-laws house on 20.4.1992 and at that time, Hemant Kumar was also present there. On 22.4.1992, Beena Devi had died.

PW6 Anand Singh, who is a shopkeeper, has stated that Beena Devi was married with Hemant Kumar on 5.2.1987. Beena Devi remained in her in-laws house for 5-6 months and thereafter she had gone to her parents'' house and remained there for about 4 years. Beena Devi told him that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 60,000. Kundan Singh took his daughter Beena Devi at her in-laws house on 20.4.1992 and he had come back on the next day. On 23.4.1992, he came to know that Beena Devi had died on 22.4.1992.

PW7 Pancham Singh, Patwari/IO of the case who stated that on 24.4.1992, he was posted as Patwari Chiktoli. Since the Patwari of Patti Kandai was on leave, hence he was also having the charge of that circle. On that day on the basis of the report of Mahavir Singh, he prepared the CHIK FIR, i.e. Ex. Ka-12. He also made entry in G.D., i.e. Ex. Ka-13. He also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. Ex. Ka-14. He also recovered the sandals, socks, Dhoti and prepared Fard Ex. Ka-15. He also prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the Appellant-accused Balbir Singh of the place where the dead body was hanged, i.e. Ex. Ka-17. He also prepared the site plan of the place where the dead body was cremated, i.e. Ex. Ka-18. During the course of investigation, he received the letters and also recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheets Ka-20 arid Ka-21. In cross-examination, he stated that in the FIR given to him, there was no mention about the demand of Rs. 60,000.

After that the statements of the Appellants/accused and that of co-accused were recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. The oral and documentary evidence was put to each of them in question form who denied the allegations made against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated. In oral evidence, they have examined DW1 M.S. Semwal, Pharmacist, DW2 Dr. Sushila Pant and DW3 Smt. Gayatri Devi. In documentary evidence, they have produced Ex. Ka1, photocopy of OPD Register.

DW-1 M.S. Semwal has proved the Ex. Ka-1 which is the copy of the OPD Register.

DW-2 Dr. Sushila Pant has stated that deceased Beena was medically examined by her on different dates.

DW3 Gayatri Devi stated that the deceased Beena was having a relation with Ramesh and the deceased also used to complain about the pain in her abdomen. She further stated that deceased Beena Devi informed that she had aborted child for 2-3 times and that child was of Ramesh.

Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the Appellant-accused argued that the prosecution has not proved its case against them beyond reasonable doubt. I find substance in the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellants-accused before any further discussion, it is pertinent to mention the following definitions:

[304B. Dowry Death-- Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation--For the purpose of this Sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be extended to imprisonment for life.]

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation--For the purpose of this Section, "cruelty" means:

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is also relevant to mention here which also reads as under:

Definition of ''dowry''--In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person.

At or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] Dower or Mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Explanation II--The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

To prove the offence punishable u/s 304B, it is essential to prove the following essentials-- (1) Death of a woman should be caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances, (2) death should be caused within seven years of marriage, (3) woman must have subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (4) cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with any demand for dowry to the woman before her death.

For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, it would become crystal clear that the prosecution could not prove its case against the Appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt.

A. On a careful perusal of the evidence on record, I find that there is no mention in the FIR that Rs. 60,000 was demanded by the Appellants-accused in lieu of dowry from the deceased Beena. Even none of the prosecution witnesses has stated as to whether the demand of Rs. 60,000 was made in lieu of dowry. It is further pertinent to mention here that even in the FIR lodged by PW1 Mahavir Singh, there is no mention that about any demand of dowry being made by the Appellant-accused from the deceased or from her father. Rather, it was a development which was made in the statements of the witnesses and that too does not speak that the said amount was demanded in lieu of dowry. Thus, these facts create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that soon before her death, whether any demand of Rs. 60,000 in lieu of dowry was made from the deceased and for non-fulfilment of that demand, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her father in-law or mother in-law. Thus, in view of the facts, as abovestated, it cannot be said that it is a case of dowry death and hence the conviction of the Appellants-accused cannot be sustained.

B. That as per the above-discussion, it has become crystal clear that the cruelty upon the deceased, against the Appellant-accused could not be established, by the prosecution and for this reason itself, the Appellants were also acquitted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 498A, IPC which itself proves that the cruelty upon the deceased by the Appellants-accused could not be proved by the prosecution.

C. That the post-mortem of the dead body was not conducted and it could not be proved in the prosecution evidence as to how the deceased had died. Rather from the statement of PW3 Smt. Guddi Devi, it reveals that the deceased used to complain about the abdomen pain. She has specifically stated in her evidence that the deceased had died due to abdomen pain. Even on a perusal of the statement of PW3 Smt. Guddi Devi and DW3 Smt. Gayatri Devi, it reveals that there was a sudden pain in the abdomen of the deceased and she died due to that pain. Hence, in view of this discussion, it can be safely presumed that the deceased died a natural death.

Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Smt. Beena Devi had died on 22.4.1992 by any burn or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and the prosecution has further failed to prove this significant fact that the deceased was subjected to physical or mental cruelty or harassment soon before her death for, or in connection with the demand of dowry. Rather it reveals that the deceased had died a natural death. Thus, as per the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Appellant accused beyond the reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/s 304B read with Section 120B and they are liable to be given benefit of doubt.

For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated 24/25.4.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli at Gopeshwar in S.T. No. 21/1992, State v. Balbir Singh, convicting and sentencing the Appellants/accused as discussed above, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are on bail. They need not suffered. There bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

Pertinent to mention here that vide report dated 18.6.2004, CJM, Rudraprayag informed that the Appellant-accused Hemant Kumar Singh has died. Hence the appeal filed by the Appellant No. 3 Hemant Kumar Singh stands abated.