Surender Kumar vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The Appellant, alongwith his father Puran Chand and mother Smt. Tulsi, was tried for offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. Vide impugned judgment dated 12.8.2002, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, acquitted Puran Chand and Smt. Tulsi of the charges against them. However, the Appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and vide order of sentence dated 14.8.2002 directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 304B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 498A IPC. The substantive sentences awarded to the Appellant were ordered to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution, the Appellant was married to Smt. Sunita, since deceased, about three years earlier to the incident. Whenever, Sunita used to visit her house after the marriage, she would inform her father that the Appellant and his parents had been harassing her by saying that she had brought less dowry in the marriage. They had been compelling her to bring more dowry from her parents'' house. About one and a half years earlier, the accused had sent the deceased to her parental house after threatening her to bring more dowry or face its consequences. When Sunita apprised her father, the latter made an application to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa. The said application was, thereafter, sent to Superintendent of Police, Hisar. The Appellant, his father Puran Chand and others were summoned. In the Panchayat so held, the matter was amicably resolved. Despite the decision that nothing of that sort would happen in future, the accused kept on harassing Sunita. On 11.5.2001 at about 7.00 p.m., Lal Chand, father of Sunita, was informed by Virender Kumar, son-in-law of Puran Chand, that he was being summoned to Hisar. Accordingly, Lal Chand alongwith his family members went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of his daughter lying on the floor of the house of the accused. She was bleeding from the mouth and nose. Froth was also coming from her mouth. Suspecting that the Appellant and his parents had murdered his daughter Sunita by administering her something, Lal Chand made a statement before the police on the basis of which, FIR No. 210 dated 12.5.2001 was registered at Police Station City, Hisar against the Appellant and his parents.

During investigation of the case, the police went to the spot and got the dead body photographed. Inquest report was prepared and so also the rough site plan. The dead body was then sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. The Appellant and his parents were arrested. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, followed by commitment of the case, all the three accused were charged for the aforementioned offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 HC Miya Singh, PW2 Constable Raju, PW3 Dr. R.J. Bishnoi, PW4 ASI Risal Singh, PW5 Bhagwan Dass, Complaint Clerk, PW6 Lal Chand, PW7 Ramji Lal, PW8 SI Vinod Kumar and PW9 Dr. Vijay Pal Singh.

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that they were innocent. In addition, Appellant Surender Kumar stated that he was the only earning member of his family. His wife wanted to live separately from his parents and sisters. His father had weak eye sight and was unable to do any work. His mother was operated for appendix. She was also weak and unable to look after the family.

In defence, the accused examined DW1 Virender.

After going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution case against the Appellant and convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned above.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance.

It has come in the prosecution evidence that Smt. Sunita got married to the Appellant about three years before her death. Soon after her marriage, she used to be harassed by the accused for having brought inadequate dowry. About one and a half years before her death, she was turned out from the matrimonial home by her in-laws and sent to her parents'' house for bringing more dowry. Lal Chand, father of Sunita, brought the matter to the notice of the police whereafter a Panchayat was convened and the accused assured that such a situation would not arise in future. Despite the same, the accused kept on harassing Sunita.

It has also come in the evidence that the accused had made a specific demand for a scooter and a cash amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Such a demand was made three days before the incident, i.e. soon before the death of Smt. Sunita.

According to PW9 Dr. Vijay Pal Singh, the cause of death of Smt. Sunita was on account of consumption of organo phosphorous pesticide. Mere fact that PW9 Dr. Vijay Pal Singh had not noticed any external injury on the dead body of Smt. Sunita despite the fact that according to PW6 Lal Chand, he had seen many black coloured spots on the dead body of Smt. Sunita, is no ground to reject the prosecution case against the Appellant. A perusal of the post mortem report would reveal that the face of the deceased was distended and facial features were bloated though recognizable. Even marbled appearance of skin was noticed by the doctor along the sides of trunk, roots of extremities and the neck of the deceased. The aforementioned appearance might have been seen by PW6 Lal Chand to state that there were injuries on the dead body and, accordingly, he stated before the police while lodging the FIR.

In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the Appellant.

The Appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than nine years. He is the only earning member of his family. Therefore, the sentence of ten years'' imprisonment imposed upon him u/s 304B IPC is on the higher side.

Resultantly, the conviction of the Appellant for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC is maintained. His sentence of imprisonment for ten years u/s 304B IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentence of imprisonment and fine for the offence u/s 498A IPC alongwith its default clause is maintained. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.