State of Haryana vs Ram Chander and others

Hemant Gupta, J.

This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 479DBA of 1994 acquitting the respondents herein of the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Revision No. 617 of 1994 filed by the Ram Chandercomplainant, father of deceased Smt. Raj Rani.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that Smt. Raj Rani was married to Gulshan Kumar about 21/2 years prior to May 25, 1990 in the area of village Bichpari. However, Smt. Raj Rani was being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and thereafter she committed suicide on May 25, 1990 within seven years of her marriage.

The case was registered on the statement of Ram Chander, father of deceased Smt. Raj Rani, who has appeared as PW10. The prosecution has also produced PW9 Smt. Santosh, sister of the deceased, PW11 Som Nath, husband of Smt. Santosh, i.e., sister of Smt. Raj Rani and PW12 Ashok Kumar, brother of deceased Smt. Raj Rani.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, appreciating the entire evidence returned a finding that there is no evidence on the file that the accused, respondents herein, harassed Smt. Raj Rani on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. It was also found that the conduct of the accused was not of such a nature as was likely to drive the deceased Smt. Raj Rani to commit suicide.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case.

While hearing the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, it is well settled principle that the appellate Court shall not reverse the findings recorded by the trial Judge merely because the appellate Court on re appreciation of evidence takes a possible alternate view. The appellate Court will exercise its jurisdiction only if the findings recorded by the trial judge are illegal and not possible in law. Mere different view will not confer any jurisdiction on the High Court to reverse the findings recorded by the trial Judge in an appeal arising out of the judgment of the acquittal.

Keeping in view the said jurisdiction, we have examined the statements of PW10 Ram Chander, father of deceased Smt. Raj Rani, PW9 Smt. Santosh, sister of the deceased, PW11 Som Nath, brotherinlaw of the deceased (sister''s husband) and PW12 Ashok Kumar, brother of the deceased. The First Information Report, Exhibit PK/1 was recorded on the statement of Ram Chander, father of deceased Smt. Raj Rani. The said statement, Exhibit PK reads as under :

"I am a resident of Panchkula and am a shopkeeper. About 21/2 years back, I had performed the marriage of my daughter, Raj Rani with Gulshan Kumar son of Ram Chand Arora, r/o v. Bichpari, according to Hindu rites. I had given dowry to my daughter beyond my means. The ornaments detailed below were also given by me in the dowry.

Gold ornaments weighing three totals, silver Pajeb (anklets) of five tolas, a gold ring for the father or my soninlaw, OSCAR T.V., an iron Almirah, Gas Chullah and cylinder, double bed and Sofaset with Gaddas Dressing table, Big iron box, ceiling fan, sewing machine, centre table, 11 suits for my daughter and the suits and other clothes for all the members of the family of my soninlaw, cash, ornaments, utensils and other domestic articles. But Ram Chand father of my soninlaw Gulshan Kumar was not satisfied with the above articles of dowry. He (Ram Chand) has started quarrelling with me during the marriage for giving inadequate dowry but I sent my daughter Raj Rani to her inlaws house at Village Bichpari. Gulshan husband of my daughter, Ram Chand, fatherinlaw, Maya Devi, motherinlaw, husband''s brother (Devar) Sukha and husband''s sister (Nanad) Santosh used to beat her for bringing less dowry at Village Bichpari. On being fed up with the maltreatment meted out to her by her inlaws, my daughter remained in my house at Panchkula for about four months. At last on 12th April, her fatherinlaw Ram Chander brought her to Village Bichpari where she was illtreated and harassed for bringing more money from her parents. At last on having been fed up with her inlaws, my daughter Raj Rani has committed suicide today by consuming some poisonous substance and I have received a telephonic message in this respect. On receipt of information regarding the death of my daughter Raj Rani, I along with my sons, Ashok Kumar and Suresh Kumar and wife Dharam Devi have reached Civil Hospital, Panipat. My daughter Raj Rani has committed suicide on having been fed up with the maltreatments meted out to her by her husband Gulshan Kumar, fatherinlaw Ram Chand, motherinlaw Maya Devi, husband''s brother (Devar), Suresh Kumar and husband''s sister (Nanad) Santosh for bringing less dowry.

Action according to law may be taken against them."

However, Ram Chandercomplainant when appeared as PW10 has tried to improve upon his first version which he gave in Exhibit PK. In Exhibit PK, the witness has stated that the father of his soninlaw, was not satisfied with the dowry articles and he started quarrelling with him (Ram Chander complainant) during the marriage for giving inadequate dowry. However, while appearing as a witness, the stand of the witness was that the accused were not happy with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. Before Phera ceremony, Ram Chand, fatherinlaw, Gulshan Kumar, husband of Smt. Raj Rani deceased, Sukha, her brotherinlaw quarrelled with him and asked him to show the list of articles to be given in the dowry. There is no statement that any particular demand was made in the shape of material goods or money. The allegations are vague. In the statement as a witness, the grievance is in respect of quarrel and the list of articles to be given in dowry. There is no allegation that there was any demand of dowry made by the accused at the time or before the solemnisation of her marriage. Even PW10 Ram Chander complainant has tried to improve upon his statement given to the police at the time of imitation of proceedings. There is no allegation in the initial statement that any demand of Rs. 5,000/ was made. The witness has made material improvement in his statement in Court which throws a serious doubt on his veracity. The statement of the father is also not reliable as he denied that Smt. Raj Rani has not written any letter alleging that the inlaws did not allow her to write any letter. PW9 Santosh, sister of the deceased, has stated that Smt. Raj Rani had sent letters to her father and to her. It is, thus, apparent that the statement of father is contradictory and there is material improvement over the first version given soon after the occurrence.

On the other hand, the statement of PW9 Santosh does not suggest that her sister was being harassed for bringing inadequate dowry. Letter, Exhibit PJ, allegedly written by PW9 Santosh to Smt. Raj Rani deceased is general and advisory in nature to make adjustment. It is no doubt true that after marriage, the wife is required to make numerous adjustments and probably the letter, Exhibit PJ, was in the said context. The witness states that the deceased has written many letters alleging harassment by the accused but none of such letters has been produced. The witness has staed that the complaint of Smt. Raj Rani was that her motherinlaw gets excessive work from her. Such excessive work is not in the context of demand of dowry or harassment. Similarly, the statements of PW11Som Nath as well as that of PW12 Ashok Kumar are again general in nature given by these persons, who are bound to depose against the accused. Harbhajan Singh, who was the middleman in getting the marriage effectted was the best person to depose regarding the demand of dowry, if any by the accused, but the said witness has not been produced. Similarly, the statement of PW12 Ashok Kumar at the best reflects a dispute between the husband and wife. Even the said witness admitted that Harbhajan Singh was requested to persuade Gulshan Kumar to bring Raj Rani where Gulshan Kumar was called. Still, the best evidence of Harbhajan Singh regarding demand of dowry or harassment was not produced.

The only specific demand of dowry was reiterated by PW10 Ram Chander complainant. However, such stand is not believable for the reasons that such aspect has not found mention in the first version and seems to be clearly an afterthought.

Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat are possible findings in law based upon appreciation of evidence. We do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.