Ram Kumar and Another vs State of Haryana

N.K. Kapoor, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge jind, dated March 27, 1989, whereby Ram Kumar and Dharma Devi appelants have been convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of Indian Penal Code u/s 304B they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and u/s 498A rigorous imprisonment for two years each has been awarded to the appellants. Both the sentences of Imprisonment have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that Raj Dulari (deceas-ed) was married to Ram Kumar, appellant on June 20, 1984 i.e about four years prior to the occurrence. Bimla (P.W. 8), the younger sister of Raj Dulari (deceased) was simultaneously married to Ramesh, the younger brother of Ram Kumar, appellant. Ram Kumar and his mother .Dharam Devi, appellants, were dissatisfied with the dowry brought by Raj Dulari. They used to harass RajDulari by raising demand of dowry such, T.V. Sofa-set and other articles of furniture etc Whenever Raj Dulari visited her parents, she used to narrate to her relations about the behaviour of her in-laws.

Jasmer (P W 9), brother of Raj Dulari (deceased) had gone to her a month before this occurrence. At that time Bimla (P.W. 8) was also at her inlaws'' house. When Jasmer (P.W. 9) reached the house of the appellants, they were found taunting Raj Dulari for having not brought sufficient dowry. It is said that Raj Dulari had also been given beatings by the appellants prior to the arrival of Jasmer (P W. 9). On return to his house, Jasmer (P.W. 9) narrated the whole incident to his family members including his mother Lachhmi (P.W. 7). On the next day, Lachhmi (P.W. 7) went to Raj Dulari and found that Raj Dulari had been given beating by fist and slaps by the appellants. Raj Dulari told her mother that she was apprehending danger to her life and that she wanted to accompany her mother. Thereupon Lachhmi (P.W. 7) talked to the appellants and persuaded them not to ill-treat Raj Dulari.

On April 7, 1988, at about 10.00/11.00 p.m. three persons came to the house of Lachhmi (P.W. 7) and told that Raj Dulari was having severe pain in the stomach and that they should go to see her. On getting this information, Lachhmi (P.W. 7) accompanied by Shamsher (P.W. 6) and Birmati came to the house of the appellants but they were not found there. Raj Dulari was also not in the house. They found that Bimla (P.W. 8) was detained in a room on the first floor. They rescued her from there and she told them that both the appellants had given beating to Raj Dulari during the day and when she (Bimla) tried to intervene, she was detained in the Chaubara of the house. After taking out Bimla from the locked room, all the P.Ws, on learning that the dead-body of Raj Dulari was lying at the well, they went there and found that the dead-body of Raj Dulari was lying in the Kothri beside the well. Thereafter Shamsher (P.W. 6) came to the village in order to bring his uncle Dariya, who accompanied him to the spot. Shamsher (P.W.6) then left for the Police Station to lodge report. Assistant Sub-Inspector Nathu Ram (P.W. 10) met him on the way at Alewa Chowk at about 7.30 a.m. and he recorded the statement of Shamsher (Exhibit P.C/1.). The statement of Shamsher was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and on its basis First Information Report (Exhibit P.C. l) was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Balkar Singh (P.W.4).

Assistant Sub-Inspector Nathu Ram (P.W. 10) then accompanied Shamsher (P.W.6) to the spot where the dead-body of Raj Dulari was lying. Lachhmi (P.W. 7), Birmati etc. were found present near the dead-body. Joginder (P.W.2), Photographer, was called who took the photographs (Exhibits P.1 to P.3). Assistant Sub-Inspector Nathu Ram prepared inquest report (Exhibit P.A/3) and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination with his application (Exhibit P.A/2). He also prepared rough site plan (Exhibit P.E.) with correct marginal notes in his hand.

Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) along with Dr. Malti Gupta conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Raj Dulari on April 8, 1988 at 12.30 p.m. No mark of ligature was found on the neck. Froth was coming out from both the nostrils which was white leathery, tinged with blood.

Following two injuries were found on the dead-body of Raj Dulari :

(1) 1 cm X 1 cm abrasion was present on the chin;

(2) 2 cms X 2 cms abrasion was present on right wrist joint.

According to the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta (P.W.1), Joginder, Photographer (P.W.2), Rajpal Draftsman (P.W.3), Assistant Sub-Inspector Balkar Singh (P.W.4), Phula (P.W. 5), Shamsher (P.W. 6), Lachhmi (P.W.7), Bimla (P.W.8), Jasmer Singh (P.W.9) and Assistant Sub-Inspector Nathu Ram, Investigating Officer (P.W, 10).

Statements of Ram Kumar and Dharam Devi, appellants, were thereafter recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegation of harassment. Ram Kumar appellant stated that Raj Dulari (deceased) was Matriculate whereas he was only Middle pass. Raj Dulari was in Government service and had no liking for him; and that is why she committed suicide. In defence Satbiri (D.W.1) and Rajpati (D.W.2) were examined by the appellants. Satbiri (D.W.1) stated that Raj Dulari (deceased) had been under training with her at Bhiwani. They were also together at Alewa for about seven months working in the same, Anganwari. She further stated that she was conversant with the handwriting and signature of Raj Dulari. According to her, Raj Dulari (deceased) had no liking for her husband because he was less qualified than her, as told to her by Raj Dulari (deceased). She further stated that Raj Dulari never complained about the demand of dowry by her in-laws or her torture on that account. She further stated that there was no- electricity in the house of the appellants. Satbiri (D.W.1) also deposed that on the date of occurrence Raj Dulari was on duty till 2 p.m. Rajpati (D.W.2) deposed from the stock Register of Anganwari of Alewa and stated that entries dated April 5, 1988 and April 7, 1988 in the stock register were in the hand of Raj Dulari (deceased) and bore her signatures. She also deposed that working hours in the Anganwari were from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and the entries in the register used to be made after 1 p.m.

We have heard Mr. Jagan Nath Kaushal, Senior Advocate, Counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.C. Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State and have perused the entire evidence on record.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no direct evidence in this case and all the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are not made out. According to him, it is not conclusively proved on record that the two appellants subjected Raj Dulari (deceased) to cruelty or harassment. He further submitted that unless the appellants are held guilty of any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to derive a person to commit suicide the crime under Sections 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been committed. He further argued that a clear finding with regard to cruelty has to be recorded before the appellants can be held guilty. The learned Counsel for the appellants, in support of this contention, referred to the statement of Shamsher (P.W.6) on the basis of which First Information Report was registered, wherein it has been mentioned that information that Raj Dulari (deceased) had been suffering from acute pain in the stomach and was sick, had been given by two/three persons who had come from Village Alewa where the appellants were residing; there suggesting that had the appellants any guilty conscience, they would not have furnished this information to the parents of Raj Dulari (deceased). Besides this, it has been contended that except for the statements of the near relations of the deceased namely Shamsher (P.W.6), a cousin of the deceased, Lachhmi (P.W. 7) mother of the deceased, Bimla (P.W 8), real sister of the deceased and Jasmer (P.W.9), real brother of the deceased, there is no other independent evidence to suggest that conduct of the appellants during all these years had been so reprehensible as would impel Raj Dulari to finish her life.

On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. There is ample evidence in the statements of Shamsher (P.W.6), Lachhmi (P.W.7), Bimla (P.W.8) and Jasmer (P.W.9) to the effect that ever since the marriage of Raj Dulari (deceased), the appellants had been harassing her and time and again taunting her for the reason that she had not brought sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. The appellants had been demanding T.V. Set, Sofa-set and clothes etc. It has also come in evidence that Jasmer (P.W.9) visited the house of Raj Dulari (deceased) a month before this occurrence and, in fact, had found that she had been beaten and taunted by her in-laws. The appellants even taunted Raj Dulari (deceased) in the presence of Jasmer (P.W.9) at that time." He, on return to his house, narrated the incident of his mother, who went to the house of the appellants on the next day to dissuade the appellants from maltreating her daughter. It has also come in evidence that as and when Raj Dulari (deceased) happened to visit her parental house. She had been telling about the maltreatment which was being meted out to her and unsatiable desires of her in-laws.

The learned Counsel for the appellants also referred to the letter mark ''A'' allegedly written by Raj Dulari (deceased) and contended that the language of the letter itself suggested that she had no animus against her husband Ram Kumar, appellant No. 1, as it had been addressed as ''my dear''. This letter is undated and written on a torn paper. In our opinion, the letter mark ''A'' does not, in any manner, absolve the appellant Ram Kumar of his complicity in the maltreatment which he gave to Raj Dulari (deceased). In view of the unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses referred to above, the letter mark ''A'' pales into insignificance.

As regards the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that charge under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not proved against the appellants, in view of the unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record, all the essential ingredients of Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code are fully made out in the present case, i.e. (i) the death of Raj Dulari is otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) the death has occurred within seven years of her marriage; there is ample evidence on record that she had been subjected to maltreatment/harassment at the hands of the appellants; and (iv) this maltreatment/harassment was on account of. demand of dowry.

For the aforesaid reason, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly hereby dismissed.