Hukam Singh and Another vs State of Haryana

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The first accused Hukam Singh and the second accused Mali Devi, the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Suman, were convicted u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced each to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted u/s 498A IPC and were sentenced each to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. They have preferred the appeal.

The brief case of the prosecution as spoken to by the witnesses examined on its side is as follow :

The deceased Suman, daughter of Prem Chand (PW1) was given in marriage to the first accused Hukam Singh, resident of village Mohri, Tehsil and District Karnal on 17.03.1997. At the time of marriage, PW1 gave sufficient dowry according to his status and capacity to the After a few days of the marriage, the deceased Suman having stayed in the matrimonial house returned to her parental home and informed PW1 that all the three accused having been not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage passed on taunting remarks and demanded an almirah and refrigerator as dowry. When the first accused came down to the father-in-law''s house to take back his wife Suman, PW1 and his brother Mahavir Singh (PW2) persuaded the first accused not to demand such dowry articles. Thereafter, the first accused took his wife to her matrimonial home. After ten days time, PW2 went alongwith his another brother to the matrimonial home of Suman. Suman informed them that the accused persisted their demand for dowry and also ill treated her. Within a few days thereafter, PW1 received the information that his daughter Suman fell down from the roof and fractured her legs and she was also admitted in the Hospital in Karnal. On reaching the hospital, PW1 was informed that the dead body of his daughter has been kept in the Mortuary. As the Mortuary was closed during the night time, he came down to his house to inform the other family members about the episode. On the next day morning, he came down to the hospital where the Sub Inspector Som Nath (PW8) recorded the statement and started investigation of the matter.

Dr. Shashi Prabha (PW3) examined Suman, who was admitted for treatment at about 7:48 PM on 15.9.1997. She found that the injured Suman was in a conscious state of mind. Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body of Suman. Smell of kerosene oil could be felt. The skin was found peeled off at many places. Blackening of skin was also present at places and tongue was burnt. The injuries were found fresh. The medico legal report prepared by PW3 was marked as Ex.PC. She sent admission information Ex.PC/1 to the police. Thereafter, she sent a report Ex.PC/2 regarding the death of Suman to the Incharge Police Post Government Hospital, Karnal. Dr. S.P. Singal, Medical Officer attached to the General Hospital, Karnal, who was examined as PW6, conducted post mortem on the dead body of Suman and opined that the deceased had died due to extensive burns which were ante mortem in nature. He had also noted down a male foetus in the uterus of the deceased.

PW8 having completed the investigation laid final report as against first and second accused alone for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.

When the trial was in progress invoking the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C., the mother-in-law Mali Devi of the deceased Suman was also arrayed as accused. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the trial, the father-in-law of the deceased Suman namely Jitu who was also one of the accused died and therefore only the other two accused faced the trial.

The trial Court having heavily relied upon the evidence of PW1 who is none other than the father of the victim Suman and PW2 who is none other than the brother of PW1 in the background of medical evidence has returned a finding that the Appellants herein had committed the offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that PW1 and PW2 are interested witnesses in this case. Except their testimonies, there is no other corroborating material available on record. Though, the deceased was alive even after admission to the hospital, no step was taken by any of the authority to record her dying declaration. It is his further submission that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. The same has not been properly explained by the investigating agency. No panchayat was convened even as per the case of the prosecution in connection with the demand of dowry made by the accused. The second Appellant who was relieved of the charge as she had a separate establishment by the Investigating Officer was also convicted by the trial Court on a wrong appreciation of the materials on record. Therefore, it is his submission that the Appellants are entitled to acquittal.

Per contra, the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 would go to establish that there was a demand of dowry made by the Appellants herein. They also committed cruelty by demanding dowry. The medical evidence on record would also lend corroboration to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction as against both the Appellants.

PW1 has deposed before the trial Court that his daughter who came down to her matrimonial home after a few days of her marriage bitterly wept and informed him that all the three accused ill treated her by demanding almirah and refrigerator as dowry. He had to persuade the first Appellant Hukam Singh who came down to his house for taking his wife to her matrimonial home not to demand dowry. PW2 was sent after ten days of departure to the matrimonial house of Suman. PW2 came down and informed PW1 that all the three accused continued ill treatment to the deceased Suman by demanding an almirah and refrigerator as dowry.

PW2 who is, of course, the brother of PW1 has deposed before the trial Court that PW1 informed him that the accused demanded an almirah and refrigerator as dowry. He had to persuade the first Appellant who came over to the house of PW1 to take his wife not to demand dowry as sufficient dowry had been given by PW1. He had further testified that he went alongwith his another brother to village Mohri after about ten days of departure of Suman alongwith her husband and Suman complained of ill treatment in connection with demand of dowry. He persuaded the first Appellant to desist from ill treating Suman assuring that more articles would be given to him in future.

The first portion of evidence of PW2 is found to be totally hearsay, inasmuch as the said information was allegedly passed on to PW2 by PW1. Further PW1 never speaks about such an information passed on by him to PW2. As far as the visit of PW2 to the house of first Appellant is concerned, PW2 has deposed in general that Suman complained of ill treatment in connection with the demand of dowry. Further PW2 has come out with a specific version that he persuaded the first Appellant to desist from ill treating the deceased Suman in her matrimonial home.

There is nothing wrong to rely upon the evidence of PW1 an PW2 that they are found to be closely related to the deceased Suman. The ill treatment in the matrimonial home would be shared by the victim only to the close relatives and not to the general public. Therefore, just because PW1 and PW2 are closely related to Suman, we cannot reject their testimony on that score.

But on a careful scrutiny of their evidence, it is found that the evidence of PW1 was not corroborated by PW2. PW2 specifically refers to the information passed on by the deceased to him about the demand of dowry made by the first Appellant only. Therefore, I find that the uncorroborated version of PW1 as to the demand of dowry made by the second and third accused is found to be doubtful. But, the evidence of PW1 that the first accused demanded dowry and ill treated Suman within a few days from the date of marriage is amply corroborated by PW2.

PW3 Dr. Shashi Prbha had examined Suman medico legally. She found that Suman had sustained extensive burn injuries all over her body, but Suman was found to be conscious. The medico legal report prepared by PW3 would disclose that she had infact made an attempt to inform the police to take steps to record the dying declaration of the injured Suman, but unfortunately the injured Suman had died before 9:05 PM on 15.9.1997, having battled for life for about one hour and fifteen minutes. No wonder no one could record the dying declaration of the deceased Suman. Therefore, it is not fair to say that no effort was taken to record the dying declaration of the deceased Suman.

Dr. S.P. Singal (PW6) had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Suman. He has opined that the extensive burn injuries sustained by the injured Suman was the cause of her death. He also noted the fact that a male foetus was also found in the womb at the time when he performed autopsy.

The evidence on record would show that the mortuary was closed for the night. PW1 had to inform his relatives in the village. The following evening the FIR was lodged by PW1 to the Police. The delay in lodging FIR has been explained by PW1.

The evidence of PW1 corroborated by the evidence of PW2 in the background of medical evidence would clinchingly establish that the first Appellant who is none other than the husband of the deceased Suman having demanded dowry, ill treated the deceased Suman. Persistent demand of dowry and continuous ill treatment had a nexus with the death of the deceased Suman. The marriage itself had taken place on 17.03.1997 and Suman had died on 15.09.1997. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the first Appellant has committed the offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. But the prosecution has failed to establish beyond the reasonable doubt that the second Appellant who is the mother of the first Appellant ever demand dowry and ill treated the deceased Suman, which ultimately ended in the death of Suman.

The trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the tenor of the testimony of PW2 which contains a hearsay version and also a generic version with respect to the demand of dowry by the accused.

In view of the above, the judgment of conviction recorded u/s 304B and 498A IPC and the sentence as imposed thereunder as against the first Appellant Hukam Singh stands confirmed, but the conviction recorded as against the second Appellant Mali Devi under the aforesaid provisions of law and the sentence as imposed thereunder stands set aside. The appeal is allowed in part. The bail bond executed by her shall stand cancelled. If the first accused/Appellant is on bail, then his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall take necessary steps to comply with the verdict with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C.