State of Haryana vs Ramesh Chand and Others

This appeal against acquittal was admitted qua Pawan Kumar accused, husband of the deceased Shashi Bala.

Case of the prosecution is that deceased Shashi Bala was married to the accused Pawan Kumar on 27.11.1983. She was harassed for dowry and was turned out of the house. Pawan Kumar filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and matter was compromised and Shashi Bala resumed cohabitation. On the date of occurrence i.e. 19.8.1992 at 7.30 AM, mother-in-law of Shashi Bala came to the house of the father of the deceased and asked about her. Rattan Lal on learning that she was not in the house of her in-laws, made enquiries and came to know that her dead body was floating in the village pond. He lodged a report with the Police Station Naraingarh that Shashi Bala had been killed for not bringing sufficient dowry and her dead body was thrown in the pond by the accused her husband, husband''s brother and husband''s parents. SI Kewal Krishan PW11 initiated investigation. He sent the dead body for post mortem. The cause of death was due to drowning. Report of FSL Ex. AC was that she had been given insecticide but death was not on that account. After completing the investigation, the accused were challaned.

The prosecution examined SI Singhara Singh as PW1, Photographer Inder Lal Chopra as PW2, Draftsman Balbir Singh Patwari as PW3, Goldsmith Satish Kumar as PW4, Medical Officer Dr. Alok Jain as PW5, Balbir Kapoor as PW6, Constable Nafe Singh as PW7, complainant Rattan Lal as PW8, HC Avtar Singh as PW9, Hari Chand as PW10 and SI Kewal Krishan as PW11.

The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that the deceased was quarrelsome and used to leave the house frequently. Her father Rattan Lal was intervening in her family life. The deceased had left the house in the night after other members of the family had slept. In the morning, the family members went to different directions and later on, dead body was found in a pond.

After considering the evidence on record, the trial court held that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. Substance of reasons given by the trial court is as under:

(i) Evidence of Rattan Lal, father of the deceased was not reliable and was not corroborated with regard to the demand of dowry. Krishan Lal from whom Rattan Lal claimed to have borrowed money to meet the demand was not examined.

(ii) Allegation regarding demand of pair of golden bangles by Somi Devi was an improvement in court over the statement given to the police. In matrimonial proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, no demand of dowry was shown to have been pleaded.

(iii) There was no occasion for the accused Ramesh Chand, father-in-law to demand dowry as he was living at a different place and had started living with the family only 4/5 months prior to the incident. Anil Kumar and Somi Devi were not residing with the deceased.

(iv) The marriage had taken place for more than eight years and a daughter was born in the year 1984 and a son in the year 1986 and there was no evidence of maltreatment. (v) Hari Chand PW10 only relied upon information given by Rattan Lal. His version of having attended panchayat was contradicted by Rattan Lal himself.

We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

It remains undisputed that marriage of the deceased took place more than seven years prior to her death. Presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act could not, thus, be raised. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence showing that the accused caused her death. Evidence of harassment has not been found to be reliable. In these circumstances, the view taken by the trial court is certainly a possible view and no interference is called for unless the same is shown to be perverse. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show that the reasons given by the trial court are perverse.

Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:

The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, . The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, :

While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.

In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.