Murti and ors. vs State of Haryana

J.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Shrimati Murti appellant 1 is the wife of Om Parkash appellant 3, Partap Singh appellant2 is their son; Dharambir, Lilu Ram and Phattu Ram are maternal uncle, uncle and grant father respectively of Partap Singh appellant. Accused 1 to 4 were charged for offence u/s 304 B, IPC and they, alongwith accused 5 and 6 were also charged for offence u/s 201, IPC. At the time of recording statements of the accused u/s 313. Cr.P.C. Sh. Chhabra, learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide order dated 9.3.1990 found that there was no incriminating evidence which could be put to Lilu Ram and Phattu. He, therefore, acquitted them of the charges. On trial, the learned Judge found the prosecution case against Dharambir as doubtful and also acquitted him. The Court, however found the remaining three accused appellants, namely Smt. Murti Partap Singh and Om Parkash guilty and vide its judgement and order dated 17.4.90 and 19.4.90 convicted and sentenced each of them to RI for seven years under the former charge and RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/, in default further RI for one month, under the latter charge. The sentences were made to run concurrently. Feeling dissatisfied, Smt. Murti, Partap Singh and Om Parkash have preferred this appeal.

The charge relates to the death of Smt. Rajbala wife of Partap Singh appellant and destroying of her dead body. The prosecution version briefly narrated, is to the effect that Smt. Rajbala was married to Partap Singh appellant on 1.3.1988. Muklawa ceremony was also performed at the time of marriage. After staying at her in laws house for about 3/4 days, she returned to her parent, house. She informed her brother Balwant Singh that her in laws were not happy over the dowry and they used to taunt her about the same. After spending about a month with them, she returned to her matrimonial home. She lived for about two months at her in laws'' place. She again visited her parents. This time, she complained that the appellants Smt. Murti Partap Singh and Dharambir (since acquitted) made a demand for a sewing machine and a radio set in dowry and also that they used to hurt abuses on her. She returned to her in laws after staying for about a month with her parents. Her brother Balwant Singh visited her matrimonial home r/5 days thereafter. He requested the appellants not to harass Smt Rajbala and made a promise to given other articles. However, the appellants did not feel satisfied. On her next visit to her in laws, Smt. Rajbala was given a sewing machine and a radio set, as presents. On the ocassion at Holi in March 1989 Smt. Rajbala visited her parent''s place. This time, she complained to them that her in laws had been making demand of a fridge. After spending about 4/5 days, She returned to her in laws'' house. Balwant Singh gave a promise that he would make present of a fridge after harvesting season. About 2 days before the occurrence she visited her Bhua''s house in Sikandarpur in connection with a marriage. Her brother Balwant Singh had also attended that marriage. In presence of Bhagmal PW and her Bhua, named Bharpai she told that as she had not been given the fridge, the accused had given her a threat of death. She was given beating and abuses were hurled on her. A day after the marriage Bhagmal and Balwant Singh visited her in laws'' village Barsi. They promised that they would give the fridge to them after the harvesting season. They asked for their permission to take Rajbala to her parents. The accused however, told them that she could not be sent as the harvesting season was approaching and would be sent thereafter.

On 7.5.1989 Dharambir, maternal uncle of Partap Singh appellant went to village Lahli and informed Rajbala''s parents that she had died due to electric shock while she was ironing the clothes on 6.5.89 and that her deadbody had gone blue and swollen. Balwant Singh had to wait for his father, who was away to the fields. However, Dharambir PW left the village within 10 minutes for village Barsi. Balwant Singh and his uncle Sher Singh visited village Sikandarpur. From that place they joined Bhagmal with them and came to village Barsi on 8.5.89. Reaching there, they learnt that cremation of Rajbala had already taken place. They were not satisfied with the explanation given by the accused about Rajbala''s death. They went back to village Sikandarpur and living Bhagmal there, they came to village Lahli. On 10.5.89, in the company of 7/8 persons including his father Balwant Singh went to Police Station Bawanikhera and application Ex. PD was moved before the Police which formed the basis of the FIR. Ex. PD. II

SI Dharam Pal took over the investigation. From the cremation ground, he collected some bones and ashes regarding which Memo Ex. PE was prepared. He also took into possession some metal bangles vide Memo Ex PH, as also some broken pieces of glass bangles vide Memo Ex. PF.

After arresting all the accused persons, they were sent up for trial.

The accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed the prosecution version to be false. They denied the allegations of harassment and further claimed that Smt. Rajbala had died due to electric shock while she was ironing the clothes. They also examined Lila Ram DW who claimed that he had gone to convey the information about the death of Rajbala to her parents.

Sh. RS Cheema, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant has urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the cause of death or to establish that death of Smt. Rajbala was otherwise than under normal circumstances. For prove a charge u/s 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to establish the essential ingredients of that section, which includes that there was harassment of Smt. Rajbala on account of demand of dowry and then the death had occurred in circumstances other than normal. He seeks support to his argument from the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case, Akula Ravinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991(3) Recent CR 642 :

"2. To appropriate these submissions it is necessary to state the facts which have given rise to this appeal. The deceased as well as the accused their parents are closely related. The deceased is A2''s sister''s daughter. The marriage took place in the month of April, 1984. At the time of marriage demand was made out for a dowry of Rs. 10,000/. But the parents of the deceased PW 1 paid Rupees 8,000/ and promised to pay the balance amount some time after marriage. But they could not pay. The accused harassed the deceased for the payment of the balance amount. A1 was working in the Army and used to come now and then and used to demand the balance of the dowry from the parents of the deceased and he also used to join with the other two accused in harassing the deceased. The deceased died in the month of April, 1987, i.e. within seven years from the date of marriage. The dead body showed some external injuries. The parents were informed. The report was lodged. The case was registered. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The doctor PW 8 who conducted the post mortem opined that death was homicidal in nature and was not suicidal. The viscera was not sent for examination since the doctor did not suspect that the death was due to poisoning. The prosecution examined PWs 1, 2, 4 and 7 to prove about the demand of the dowry made out to the deceased. The trial court however did not accept the prosecution case that death was due to asphyxia because it appeared from the investigation that the deceased survived for about 15 minutes even after death as per PW 3 who is the first doctor who examined and gave the first aid to the deceased. However, both the courts below held that alternatively the offence under section 304B is made out,"

I accept this argument of Sh. Cheema. There is no direct evidence as to the cause of death and even the circumstances do not establish that her death was unnatural. Admittedly, intimation about her death had been sent to her parents'' house and even if it is accepted that her parents had failed to reach her matrimonial village, her dead body had to be cremated. There is no evidence that this cremation had taken place prior to the conveying of information about her death to her parents, or the same being under suspicious circumstances. The very fact that information about death was sent to her parents'' house, speaks of the innocence of the accusedappellants with respect to the matter of death. I am, thus, of the view that offence u/s 304B, IPC is not proved and along with it, the offence u/s 201, IPC must fail.

The evidence on record is however, sufficient to establish that Rajbala during her life time used to be harassed by her husband and in laws on account of insufficiency of dowry and further demands used to be made. It is unchallenged testimony of Balwant Singh that on making visits to her in laws'' house, whenever she came to her parents'' place, she used to complain about demands by her husband and other members of his family. Whenever Balwant Singh visited her in laws'' place, he used to make a request that Smt. Rajbala should not be harassed and that they should not mind their failure to give small articles to them and the accused, whosoever was present at that time, did not feel satisfied. The complaint made by Balwant Singh were, thus, not contradicted by the accused persons who were present on such occasions. This will amount to acceptance of the said allegations by the accused persons. This will amount to acceptance of the said allegations by the accused persons. Shri Cheema, Learned Counsel for the appellants however, urges that considering the fact that Om Prakash, appellant is a Govt. School teacher and he may, in all probabilities, be present in the school and unless he was specifically named as the person present on such occasions, the statement of Balwant Singh qua him should not be accepted.

I, while accepting this argument of Sh. Cheema, hold that the case of Om Prakash is distinguishable and the case against him is not free from reasonable doubt. I, therefore, acquit him of the charges against him Fine if paid shall be refunded to him. I, however, conclude that Smt. Rajbala used to be harassed for dowry by Partap Singh and his wife Smt. Murti and they became liable for a lesser charge u/s 498A, IPC. They are, therefore also acquitted of the charges u/s 204B and 201 IPC and instead convicted u/s 498A, IPC. Partap Singh appellant has undergone about 32 months and Smt. Murti about 10 months. Sentence of imprisonment already undergone by each of them and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ each, in default RI for three months, shall meet the ends of justice in their case. I order accordingly, fine if recovered, shall be paid to the father of Smt. Rajbala(deceased). The appeal stands disposed of in view of the foregoing discussion.