Pyare Lal vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.—Pyare Lal, his brother Darshan Lal and their father Chander Bhan were prosecuted and tried by Shri Suresh Chand Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, who acquitted Darshan Lal and Chander Bhan, but convicted Pyare Lal under Sections 304B and 498A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and 3 years respectively. Feeling aggrieved, Pyare Lal has filed this appeal.

Prosecution story in brief is that Usha Rani deceased was married to Pyare Lal in the year 1983. One year later Usha Rani gave birth to a child and was again pregnant in December, 1987. After about eight months of the marriage, Pyare Lal and his father started demanding cash from Roop Chand P.W., father of Usha Rani. After about 1 year of the marriage, Pyare Lal demanded Rs. 10.000/- from Roop Chand, who paid Rs. 5000/- to Pyare Lal.

After about one month of the birth of the child, Usha Rani was turned out of the house by the accused and she stayed at the house of Roop Chand for about two years. Panchayat of the brotherhood was taken 10 the accused by Roop Chand a number of times but of no avail and ultimately a maintenance suit was filed by Usha Rani against Pyare Lal when Pyare Lal filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Usha Rani. Both the litigations were compromised and Usha Rani was rehabilitated at the house of Pyare Lal. Things remained normal for a few months. But later on Chander Bhan co-accused of the appellant got separated Pyare Lal and Usha Rani from him.

Usha Rani complained to her father that Pyare Lal had been mal-treating her. She was frequently given beating by Pyare Lal.

On December 15, 1987, Roop Chand lodged a report at Police Station, Sadar, Panipat, that on the previous night at about 8.30 P.M. Bitoo, younger brother of Pyare Lal, informed him that Usha Rani had taken poison and had died and she was admitted in the hospital. Roop Chand, his wife and other neighboured, reached the hospital and found Usha Rani dead.

In the F.I.R. Roop Chand had levelled allegations against Pyare Lal and his co-accused. They were arrested and after investigation challaned and tried as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. Ved Parkash Gupta P.W. 1, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Panipat, who deposed that on December 14, 1987 Usha Rani wife of Pyare Lal aged 22 years had been brought dead in the casualty Department of Civil Hospital, Panipat P.W. 2 Dr. Arun Sehgal, Civil Hospital, Panipat, had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Usha Rani. As poison was suspected, so portions of lungs, heart, liver and other vital organs were sent for chemical analysis. According to the report of FS.L., the cause of death was organo phosphorus pesticide poisoning. P.W. 3 Balak Ram is a Draftsman who prepared site plan Exhibit PD. P.W. 4 S.I. Dev Dutt, Police Station, City, Panipat partly investigated the case. P.W. 5 M.L. Vermani, Record Keeper, Officer of District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, had produced certain files. P.W. 6 A.S.I, Siri Chand also partly investigated the case. P.W. 7 Jagdish Lal Sharma was a witness of the earlier compromise. P.W. 8 Nar Singh, P.W. 9 Head Constable Ashok Kumar and P.W. 10 Rajinder Singh constable are formal witnesses. P.W. 11 Roop Chand, father of the deceased, is the first informant. He has narrated the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased and has stated that she was mal-treated by the accused Pyare Lal during her life-time and due So the .mal treatment, she has committed suicide. P.W. 12 Chuni Lal has also supported Roop Chand P.W. 11: P.W. 13 Head Constable Prithvi Raj, P.W. 14 Constable Randhir Singh and P.W. 15 Constable Raj Kumar are also formal witnesses. PW 16 A.S.I. Balwant Singh is the investigating officer.

Accused in their statements denied the prosecution allegations and examined Krishan Chand, DW 1, who had brought O.P.D., register and Laboratory Test register of Civil Hospital, Panipat, showing that the deceased had been under treatment and had been getting her hemoglobin tested and also got one tetnus injunction. D.W. 2 Prem Singh stated that there was no quarrel between Pyare Lal and the deceased as they had remained as a tenant in one of his rooms for a few months in 1987. DW 3 Gopal Krishan has stated that Usha Rani wanted to live separately from her in-laws and was bringing pressure on her husband for living separately.

I have beard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help.

The learned counsel for the appellant has brought to my notice some improvements made by Roop Chand in his statement and has argued that Roop Chand is not a reliable witness. His conduct had not been natural and the trial Court has committed a mistake in relying upon his testimony.

I have considered the argument and am unable to persuade myself to agree with the same.

Roop Chand is the father of the deceased. He had no animus against the accused. He has made a detailed statement as to how the accused was demanding money and house and as he was not financially well be could not meet the demands of the accused to his satisfaction which resulted in mal-treatment to Usha Rani deceased. Usha Rani was pregnant at the time of her death. Normally, it is not expected that a pregnant lady will commit suicide unless she is compelled by the circumstances, to end her life. The testimony of Roop Chand shows as to how the deceased was persistently mat-treated by the appellant and in these circumstances if she has committed suicide by taking insecticides . (poison), it cannot be said that her death is not linked with the mal-treatment meted out to her by the appellant.

Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by giving a well reasoned judgment. 1 do not find any justification to interfere with the findings.

This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.