Ramesh Kumar vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—Appellant Ramesh Kumar has been held guilty for an offence u/s 304, Part B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. No separate order of sentence has been passed against him u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal. Ramesh Kumar, Lila @ Satbir and Hansu @ Hans Raj have been held guilty u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each or in default thereof to further unergo R.I. for a period of one month. Sentences awarded to Ramesh Kumar appellant have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. It is against this order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant named above by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 29.8.1995 that the present appeal has been filed.

Ram Rati who was married to appellant Ramesh Kumar about five years prior to the date of occurrence breathed her last on the intervening night of 18/19.4.1994. The FIR with regard to incident leading to the death of Ram Rati came into being on 21.4.1994 at 8.00 p.m. on the statement of Phulpati, mother of the deceased PW 1. The said statement was recorded by Sub- Inspector Inder Singh PW 5. The special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate at 10.30 p.m. on 21.4.1994 itself. In this incident not only that Ram Rati had lost her life but even her minor daughter Manju also died. Whereas Ramesh Kumar appellant herein was the husband of Ram Rati, the appellants Lila @ Satbir and Hans Raj are his brothers. The parents of Ramesh Kumar were tried alongwith appellants but whereas Parmeshwari was acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial Judge, Mandrup died during the currency of the trial.

While unfolding the prosecution version, the mother of the deceased stated that her husband had died about six years ago. She had two daughters. Elder one being Ram Rati and younger to her was Neelam. Her daughter Ram Rati was married to Ramesh s/o Mandrup, Harijan (Chamar) about 5 years ago and they had spent money at the time of marriage as per their capacity. At the time of departure of Barat (marriage party) Mandrup, father-in-law of Ram Rati and his son Leela and her husband (her son-in-law) Ramesh had remarked that they had not been given anything in the dowry and they had made relations with a very poor family. They had, however, sent their daughter making entreaties with folded hands. Whenever her daughter Ram Rati visited their village Bhagi to meet them, she used to start weeping. She used to tell that she was being harassed and given beatings by her husband for not brining T. V. and cash. Ram Rati had a daughter Manju aged 3 years. About a month earlier, Ram Rati and her husband Ramesh had come to their house at village Bhagi. At that time Krishan Kumar, Sarpanch and Sis Ram, Panch had also come there. Ram Rati had stated that they (her-in-laws) had demanded Rs. 6,000/- and had also said that otherwise they would not leave her alive. All of them had advised Ramesh Kumar that they were unable to give the said amount as they had no source of income. But while leaving their house Ramesh Kumar remarked that in case money was not given to him, he would not allow Ram Rati to live peacefully. In the morning when the FIR was lodged Ram Narain, resident of village Karor who is her relative informed her that on the intervening night of 18/19.4.1994 Ram Rati and Manju had been killed by throwing them into the well and thereafter dead bodies were cremated. When she went to the village Ajaib alongwith her relative, she came to know that Ramesh, husband of Ram Rati, Mandrup, father-in-law of Ram Rati, Parmeshwari, mother-in-law of Ram Rati, Leela elder brother of the husband of Ram Rati had killed Ram Rati and her daughter Manju aged 3 years by throwing them into the well and cremated their dead bodies. They were not even informed about their death. Now, she with his relative Ram Narain had come to the police station to lodge report with the police.

In order to bring home the offence against the appellants, the prosecution examined Phulpati, the first informant and mother of the deceased as PW 1. She deposed almost in tune with the F.I.R. lodged by her. PW 2 Krishan Kumar stated that he was not present at the time of marriage. On 15th/16th of March, 1994 Ram Rati and Ramesh had visited Phulpati''s house and on that day he had visited the house of Sis Ram, Member Panchayat and was passing towards the house of Phulpati when she called him. She complained that Ramesh was demanding Rs. 6,000/- from her. He persuaded Ramesh not to make demand as Phulpati was a poor lady having no income and that Panchayat provided her some odd jobs. On 20.4.1994, Ram Narain, a relation of Phulpati informed her that her daughter Ram Rati has been killed. On 22.4.1994 he alongwith Sis. Ram and other persons had gone to village Ajaib, where his statement was recorded by the police. Ram Narain who was examined as PW 3 stated that Phul Singh, husband of Phulpati was his wife''s brother. Phul Singh had died six years ago. Appellant Ramesh had been harassing Ram Rati for bringing insufficient dowry. At the time of marriage father of Ramesh, Lila, Hansu and Ramesh had protested for giving insufficient dowry. A year ago on 21st day in the month of Chet, Lila appellant came to him and informed that Ram Rati had died and she was cremated by them. Thereafter, he went to village Bhagi. Then he alongwith Phulpati went to police station where the matter was reported to the police. He had visited the cremation ground with the police on 22.4.1994 where the police had taken into possession the ash and bones of the deceased and made it into parcel and sealed with the seal which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PE. Sanjay, son of Satbir who was examined as PW 4 stated that about a year ago he had gone to the well to make his buffalo to take water and when he had thrown a bucket inside the well, he saw a child floating on the surface of water inside the well. He raised an alarm. Om Parkash and Dilbagh also reached there. They took the child out of the well. Thereafter Dilbagh had a dip into the water and took out the dead body of Ram Rati. The dead body of the child was that of Manju, daughter of Ram Rati. Inder Singh SI, Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak was examined as PW 5. He deposed with regard to the steps that he had taken while investigating the case. Ranbir Singh PW 6 only stated that he had prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PJ at the instance of police on pointing out of Om Prakash. The report of Assistant Chemical Examiner Ex. PL was tendered into evidence by the learned Public Prosecutor vide his statement made on 28.4.1995 on that behalf.

When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appellant Ramesh Kumar while denying the incriminating material put to him further stated that it was a false case. The complainant had demanded money from them and in case they failed to do so, they were threatened to be roped in a false case. The complainant had made a false report at the instance of village Sarpanch. It was a case of accidental death. Ram Rati was washing clothes when her daughter Manju fell into the well and in the process of saving the life of Manju, Ram Rati jumped into the well and drowned because she did not know swimming. Complainant and ex-Sarpanch of her village were present at the time of cremation of Ram Rati and Manju. The appellants examined in defence two witnesses. Inasmuch as nothing based on the statement of defence witnesses has been urged by the learned defence Counsel, there is no need to mention the statements made by them in details. Suffice it, however, to say that whereas Baljinder Singh was examined as DW 1, Bhalley was examined as DW 2.

We have heard Mr. Rajbir Sherawat, learned Counsel representing the appellants and Mr. N.K. Sanghi representing the State of Haryana and with their assistance carefully examined the records of the case.

After giving our anxious thoughts to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the firm view that the appellants herein could not be pinned down under the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. It may be recalled that Ram Rati was married to the appellant Ramesh about five years prior to the date of occurrence and the couple was also blessed with a female child and even though it has been stated by Phulpati, the mother of the deceased who also happened to be the first informant that at the time of Bidai ceremony, Mandroop, Ramesh, Hansu and Lila had protested for giving insufficient dowry and after the marriage also whenever her daughter used to visit their house, she would also complain that she was being harassed by the appellants, she, however, further goes on to say that about a month prior to the date of occurrence, his daughter and son-in-law had come to her house where appellant Ramesh had demanded an amount of Rs. 6,000/- for which reason she had called Krishan Sarpanch and Sis Ram, member Panchayat. From the cross-examination that was adverted to this witness and other witnesses who supported the prosecution case, there appears to be inherent fallacy in the prosecution version that the appellants were protesting for insufficient dowry given to them at the time of marriage. It is significant to mention here that Phulpati is a widow and was so even at the time when she married her daughter with appellant Ramesh. In her cross-examination she denied the knowledge that appellant Ramesh was not getting married before he was actually married with her daughter. Krishan Kumar P W 2 even in his examination-in-chief stated that Phulpati was a poor lady having no income and Panchayat used to offer her some odd jobs. Insofar as PW 3 Ram Narain is concerned and who we may mention here is related to Phulpati, as Phool Singh, her husband was his wife''s brother admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant Ramesh was uneducated, illiterate and was a labourer and that the appellants had not made any demand at the time of marriage even though they had protested that the marriage was not performed according to their wishes.

From the evidence what emerges is that mother of the deceased was a very poor lady having lost her husband before even she married Ram Rati to appellant Ramesh. One normally makes a demand from a person who can meet the same and if Phulpati was unable to meet the demands made by the appellants, it does not appear to be plausible that such demands were ever made. The matter does not end there as PW 3 Ram Narain who, as referred to above, is related to the mother of the deceased candidly admitted that no demand was made at the time of marriage and it was only suggested that marriage was not performed according to their wishes. Further, what according to prosecution case infuriated the appellants immediately preceding the occurrence is not a demand of dowry. It is, in fact, demand of Rs. 6,000/- so that appellant Ramesh could get an employment. It would be very doubtful if such a demand could be covered u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. As per explanation appended to Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which defines "dowry" reads as follows :

"2. 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 parents 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 Mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Laws (Shariat) applies."

Surely, a demand of Rs. 6,000/- being required for appellant Ramesh to get a job would not be covered u/s 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This amount of Rs. 6,000/- cannot mean any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to marriage. It would not even be covered under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as reproduced above.

Even though prosecution has failed to pin down the appellants under the provision of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Ramesh, however, cannot escape punishment under Sections 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It has come in evidence that a month prior to the date of occurrence, a demand of Rs. 6,000/- was made even though the same was not in connection with demand of dowry and as mentioned above, the same was for getting employment to appellant Ramesh. Ram Rati committed suicide and so much so that being fed up, she resorted to end the life of her female child and that would certainly suggest some element of cruelty meted out to her by appellant Ramesh. Surely insofar as other appellants are concerned they have nothing to do with the employment of Ramesh and even as per the prosecution itself the demand of Rs. 6,000/- was made by the appellant when he alongwith his wife visited the house of Phulpati a month prior to the occurrence.

Thus, this Court is of the view that on the scanty evidence that has been led in this case, a finding of conviction cannot possibly be recorded u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code. The evidence led by the prosecution is not such that may show manifest involvement of the appellants in the commission of crime as alleged against them. So many doubts have crept in and, thus, it is not safe to convict the appellants u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, the prosecution has brought sufficient evidence to show that Ram Rati committed suicide on account of harassment meted out to her at the hands of the appellant Ramesh. We are satisfied that even though out of fear or whatever reason the appellant Ramesh hurriedly cremated the dead bodies of Ram Rati and her daughter. We, thus, hold appellant Ramesh guilty under Sections 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and inasmuch he has already undergone about 5 years R.I., the ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced to the period of three years already undergone by him under both the counts. It may be mentioned here that maximum sentence that can be awarded u/s 498-A is three years.

So far as other appellants are concerned, as mentioned above, the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence alleged against them. They as also Ramesh be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

This appeal, thus, partly succeeds to the extent indicated above. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants by the learned trial Judge is accordingly modified.