JUDGMENT
1. The accused/appellant [ENTITY] has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in [CASE NUMBER], convicting the accused/appellant under [SECTION] [ACT] [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT] and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under [SECTION] [ACT]; two years R.I. under [SECTION] [ACT] and five years R.I. and fine of Rs. 15,000/- under [SECTION] [ACT] and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year. All the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.6.1999 at about 3.10 p.m. complainant [ENTITY] lodged written report, Ext. Ka. 1 at P.S. Banbasa with the allegations that his younger sister Smt. [ENTITY] was married to accused [ENTITY] on 12.3.1999. After marriage accused demanded rupees one lac as dowry. The dowry demand was not fulfilled by the complainant and due to this reason the accused started beating Smt. [ENTITY] and also threatened to kill her. On 7.6.1999 when Smt. [ENTITY], the mother of the complainant, went to the in-laws house of Smt. [ENTITY], then the accused again made demand of dowry of Rs. one lac and used unpleasant talk. On 13.6.1999 [ENTITY], the elder brother of the accused informed [ENTITY], the complainant at Barielly Police Line that his sister [ENTITY] had died. Thereafter on 13.6.1999 itself the complainant went to the house of accused and there he came td know that the accused has killed [ENTITY] by burning her. On the basis of written report, chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka. 13 was drawn at the Police Station and the case was registered against the accused.
3. [ENTITY], Station Officer of P.S. Banbasa on receiving information about the incident went at the spot and performed the inquest on the body of deceased Smt. [ENTITY] and prepared inquest report, Ex. Ka. 6. This witness also prepared Form 33, Form 13, sample seal and sketch dead body, Ext. Ka. 7 to Ext. Ka. 10 respectively and sent the dead body for post mortem. The Investigating Officer also took Into possession the pieces of burnt clothes, burnt pieces of bangles of the deceased and the match box and its burnt sticks and prepared recovery memo, Ext. Ka. 11.
4. Sri [ENTITY] R.I. started the investigation in the case. On 13.6.1999 he visited the place of the occurrence and prepared site plan. Ext. Ka. 2. On various dates he recorded the statements of the witnesses Under [SECTION] [ACT] and after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet, Ext. Ka. 3 against the accused.
5. On committal of the accused to the Court of Session, the Sessions Judge framed charges Under [SECTION] [ACT] [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT], against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial.
6. The prosecution to prove its case examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1, [ENTITY] is the informant. He has deposed that his younger sister [ENTITY] was married to accused on 12.3.1999. At the time of marriage accused was not satisfied with the articles given in the dowry. He deposed that, after 10 to 15 days of marriage his sister came to his house and told that the accused made demand of Rs. one lac on the pretext that the money was needed to him for His promotion. He also deposed that his mother also went to the in laws house of deceased on 7.6.1999 and there also the accused made demand of one lac rupees and when his mother expressed inability to fulfil the demand, the accused was angry and he misbehaved by using unpleasant words to her. Thereafter he got information about the death of his sister on 13.6.1999 froth [ENTITY], the elder brother of accused and went to Banbasa where he lodged the first information report.
7. P.W. 2, Smt. [ENTITY] is the mother of deceased Smt. [ENTITY]. She has also deposed about the dowry demand made by the accused and supported the version narrated by P.W. 1. [ENTITY].
8. P.W. 3, Sri [ENTITY] has deposed that at the time of incident he was residing in the next quarter of the accused. He deposed that on 12.6.1999 in the night at about 10.10.30, he heard the cries of the deceased. She was crying for help. He also deposed that in the day time on 12.6.1999 he had not seen the accused at his house. He also deposed that when he reached at the spot he saw Smt. [ENTITY] in a burnt condition but he did not see the accused there. He also deposed that he had told this fact to Smt. [ENTITY] the wife of elder brother of the accused. The thatch of the accused was also burning. This witness did not support the prosecution and he was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution.
9. P.W. 4 Smt. [ENTITY] wife of P.W. 3, Sri [ENTITY] did not support the prosecution case and she was also declared hostile at the request of the prosecution.
10. P.W. 5, [ENTITY] has stated that on 12.6.1999 at about 10-30 p.m. accused [ENTITY] came at his residence, which is situate at a distance of 500 meters from the quarter of the accused, and told him that he is in trouble, as his wife has put her on fire. The accused also told him that his shirt has also burnt in the fire and demanded a shirt from him. He was also demanding his motorcycle but he did not give him motorcycle, and he gave him shirt. This witness further deposed that thereafter at 11 p.m. he went at the spot but he did not go inside the house. After some time the elder brother of accused came there and carried Smt. [ENTITY] to the doctor.
11. P.W. 6 [ENTITY], R.I. conducted the investigation of the case and narrated about the steps taken by him during the investigation and also proved site plan, Ext. Ka. 2 and charge sheet Ext. Ka.
12. P.W. 7, Dr. [ENTITY] performed autopsy on the dead body of Smt. [ENTITY] oh 14.6.1999, at about 11 a.m. in the District Hospital, Pilibhit. The doctor has found the following ante mortem injury on her person:
Superficial burn on whole of the body, except scalp. The body was burnt about 90 to 95 percent.
In internal examination the doctor found that right heart was full of blood whereas the left heart was empty. There was no sign of pregnancy. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock due to burn. According to him the burn injuries could be caused on 12.6.1999 at about 10-30 p.m. He has proved the post mortem report Ext. Ka. 4.
13. P.W. 8 [ENTITY] at the time of the incident was posted as S.O.P.S. Banbasa and he had conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and also sent the dead body of post mortem. He proved the inquest report, Ext. Ka. 6, Form Nos. 13 and 33, sample seal, sketch dead body, Exts. Ka. 7 to Ka. 10, recovery memo Ext. Ka. 11, G. D. Reports, Exts. Ka. 12, and Ka. 14.
14. The accused in his statement Under [SECTION] [ACT] denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also stated that on the day of the occurrence the deceased was preparing food on the gas stove and her clothes Caught fire due to which she died by burn.
15. The accused also examined D.W. 1, [ENTITY] and D.W. 2, [ENTITY] in his defence.
16. D.W. 1, [ENTITY] has been produced to prove the fact that no promotion case of the accused was pending in the department for consideration before 13.6.1999. In this regard he has proved the certificate, Ext. Kha. 1 issued by Executive Engineer. This witness also proved the letter, Ext. Kha. 2 sent by Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer for taking action against the accused in the matter of committing the murder of his wife. He also proved the suspension order, Ext. Kha. 3.
17. D.W. 2. [ENTITY], who is the elder brother of accused [ENTITY], has been produced to depose that the deceased had died due to her own fault. He told that on 12.6.1999 at about 10.30 p.m. [ENTITY] came to him and, informed that the house of [ENTITY] was burning. When this Witness, went at the spot he saw that [ENTITY] had burnt and she had told him that fire caught her at the time of preparing food, She also told that the accused tried to save her and he went to [ENTITY] to bring motorcycle. Therefore he carried the deceased [ENTITY] to Khatima hospital but she died in the way.
18. The Sessions Judge on his appreciation of the evidence on record held the accused guilty, of the offences Under [SECTION] [ACT] [SECTION] [ACT] and 3/4 [ACT] and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life Under [SECTION] [ACT] years R.I. Under [SECTION] [ACT] and five years R.I. and fine of Rs. 15,000/- Under [SECTION] [ACT].
19. Feeling aggrieved, the accused/appellant has come in appeal before this Court.
20. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
21. In the instant case admittedly the marriage of the appellant with the deceased [ENTITY] was solemnized on 12.3.1999. The death of [ENTITY] took place on 12.6.1999 at 8.30 p.m. in the night, which is within three months of the marriage. Admittedly the place of the occurrence is also the house of the appellant.
22. To establish the guilt against the accused the prosecution must show the following essential ingredients of the offence Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] that,
(a) the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal civrumstances;
(b) such death should take place within seven years of the marriage;
(c) before her death such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
(d) the cruelty should be in connection with demand for dowry.
23. In view of the aforesaid provision, it is to be seen in the light of the evidence available on the record-whether the death of [ENTITY] in this; case has been caused on account of cruelty committed by the appellant and that cruelty was in connection with the demand of dowry.
24. As we have already discussed that in this case the death of [ENTITY] has been caused within a period of three months after her marriage and the place of the death of [ENTITY] under the suspicious circum; stances is the house of the appellant.
25. The prosecution has produced P.W. 1, [ENTITY], who is the brother of deceased, [ENTITY] and is the complainant In this case. This witness has stated that deceased [ENTITY] was his younger sister and was married with the appellant on 12.3.1999. He has also stated that the appellant had a grievance pertaining to the dowry even at the time of the marriage and when after 10-15 days [ENTITY] came to her parental house along with her husband then the appellant also demanded an amount of rupees one lac from him. This witness has also stated that [ENTITY] came to her parental house along with her husband then the appellant also demanded an amount of rupees one lac from him. This witness has also stated that [ENTITY] had visited her parental house three times prior to her death and all the time she had stated that her husband used to ask her that she should bring the money from her parental house. The evidence of this witness clearly indicates that when the appellant visited his in-laws house for the first time after 15 days of his marriage, he made a demand of rupees one lac from his in-laws. The evidence of this witness also shows that the appellant was also annoyed with regard to the dowry even at the time of the marriage. Therefore, the testimony of this witness clearly establishes this aspect that there was a demand of dowry by the appellant.
26. P.W. 2, Smt. [ENTITY] is the mother of deceased [ENTITY] and she has also stated that her daughter was married with appellant on 12.3.1999. She has also stated that the appellant was also annoyed on account of the dowry even on the day of the marriage. She has further deposed that when the appellant visited his in-laws place for the first time after his marriage, he made a demand of rupees one lac from [ENTITY], who is the brother of deceased [ENTITY]. She has also stated that [ENTITY] showed his inability to arrange rupees one lac then the appellant became angry and threatened for dire consequences. The evidence of this witness also shows that she visited the house of the appellant at Banbasa on 7.6.1999 arid then appellant asked her as to whether arrangement of rupees one lac has been made or not. The appellant thereafter started making unpleasant talks. He also beat [ENTITY]. She has also deposed that she narrated this incident to, her son [ENTITY] on telephone and only few days after she returned to her house the news of the death of her daughter [ENTITY] was received by her. Nothing could be pointed but in the cross-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses which, may discredit their testimony.
27. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 does not appear to be convincing as there is no report with regard to the incident of 7.6.1999 as has been stated by P.W. 2, Smt. [ENTITY].
28. We do not find any force in this argument for the reason that oil 7.6.1999 when Smt. [ENTITY] visited the house of the appellant it was only less than three months the marriage of [ENTITY] with appellant took place and nobody would like to bring the bitterness in the relations within such a short span of time. Hence this may be the reason that no report was lodged by Smt. [ENTITY] or [ENTITY] with regard to the incident which took place on 7.6.1999.
29. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the money demanded after the marriage cannot be brought within the ambit of the dowry demand.
30. We fail to appreciate this argument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] , as well as in a catena of decisions reported subsequently, has clearly observed that "in view of the amended provision Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] the additional demand of dowry would certainly fall Under [SECTION] of the [ACT]." The death in the instant case has admittedly taken place in the house of the appellant within three months of the marriage and this death has been caused by burns which has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. The evidence also discloses that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, therefore. In view of the evidence available on the record, it is quite clear that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
31. In the instant case it is also important to mention here that the appellant has taken the defence since very beginning that Smt. [ENTITY] died on account, of burn injuries when she was cooking the food in the kitchen. But this defence appears to be baseless as the evidence of P.W. 8, [ENTITY] shows that he prepared the inquest report but he did not find anything else in the kitchen except the burnt clothes, broken pieces of bangles, match box and burnt sticks of match box. This witness also did not find any utensils etc. which may show that the deceased was in fact cooking the food in the kitchen. No question has also been put to this witness in the cross-examination which may suggest that the deceased was cooking the food in the kitchen at the time of the occurrence. P.W. 6, is [ENTITY], who was the Circle Officer at the time of the occurrence and this witness has prepared the site plan, Ext. Ka. 2, but this site-plan also does not show that any utensil etc. was found in the kitchen which may indicate that the deceased was cooking food at the time of the occurrence.
32. A part of the aforesaid evidence discussed by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the conduct of the, appellant also establishes his guilt; firstly that the evidence nowhere shows that the appellant tried to save his wife as no burn injury on the person of the appellant was found. It is a natural phenomenon that in case if the wife of anybody has caught fire on account of any reason then that person would certainly try to save the life of his wife and in this process the person saving the life of his wife will also sustain burn injuries on his person but in the instant case as we have already discussed above that there was no burn injury found on the person of the appellant which may clearly suggest that the appellant did not make any attempt to save the life of his wife. The second aspect is that the appellant instead of making efforts to save the life of his wife, wasted the time for making irrelevant efforts. The occurrence in this case had taken place at 10.30 p.m. in the night but the report of this incident was lodged at 2.45 p.m. at P.S. Banbasa. The doctor found that there was 95% burn over the body of deceased [ENTITY], hence in view of the injuries of Smt. [ENTITY], she needed immediate medical aid, but the appellant instead of providing her immediate medical aid, tried to inform the different persons that his wife is burnt and this conduct of the appellant shows that he in fact tried to create the defence since very beginning.
33. The defence version which has been put by the appellant that the deceased was taken to Khatima hospital and the doctor after examining Smt. [ENTITY] asked the appellant and his brother [ENTITY] that [ENTITY] was dead and they should take her to their house. Thereafter the appellant and his brother took the deceased to their house and they lodged the report afterwards. This defence is not believable. In case if the appellant had taken his wife to the hospital and the doctor found Smt. [ENTITY] dead then certainly there would have been an entry in the hospital record in this regard and the hospital authorities should have certainly sent the report to the police but no material is available in the record of this case which, may suggest that the appellant had taken his wife to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead. Therefore this circumstance clearly establishes this aspect that the appellant had never tried to provide the immediate medical relief to his wife. This circumstance further shows that the appellant also tried to avoid the dying declaration of the deceased because in case if the appellant would have taken his wife to the hospital immediately then there was a possibility that the doctor would have called some Magistrate for recording her dying-declartion but in order to avoid this circumstance the appellant intentionally did not take his wife to the hospital immediately and waited upto 2.45 a.m., i.e., he lodged the first information report at Police Station after ascertaining that Smt. [ENTITY] was already dead.
34. Since the deceased has admittedly suffered from burn injuries in the kitchen of the house of the appellant, hence there was an obligation on the part of the appellant, who has admitted his presence in the house at the time of the occurrence, to explain the circumstances leading to the deceased dying of 95% burn injuries, but nothing has been averred. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant who did not try to extinguish the fire or render any first aid to his wife, totally betrays the theory of the defence.
35. The defence in this case has produced D.W. 1, [ENTITY] and D.W. 2, [ENTITY], but the evidence adduced by the defence is not going to help the defence version in any manner. D.W. 2, [ENTITY] is the brother of appellant who reached the place of the occurrence immediately, but he did not lodge any report to the Police Station till 2.45 a.m. The report lodged by P.W. 2, [ENTITY] at P.S. Banbasa is Ext. Ka. 5 and this report nowhere indicates that Smt. [ENTITY] died in the kitchen when she was cooking food. D.W. 2, [ENTITY] is the brother of the appellant, therefore, he is certainly an interested witness to shield the guilt of the appellant. Moreover, his evidence is not going to help the appellant in any manner. Likewise D.W. 1, [ENTITY] has been produced by the defence in order to show that no matter pertaining to the promotion of the appellant was pending in the department but his evidence is of no importance. Therefore the appellant does not get any benefit from the defence evidence.
36. The prosecution on the other hand has successfully established all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the appellant by clear, cogent and reliable evidence and the chain of established circumstances is complete and has no gap Whatsoever and the same conclusively establishes that the appellant and the appellant alone committed the crime of murdering the deceased on the fateful night of 12.6.1909 in the manner suggested by the prosecution. All these established circumstances are Consistent only to the hypothesis that it was the appellant alone who committed the crime an4 the circumstances are inconsistent with any hypothesis other than his guilt. It is most unfortunate that the appellant being the husband of the deceased failed to perform his duties and obligations as a husband to protect and take care of his wife as per the marriage vows.
37. The conduct of the appellant in this case at the time of the occurrence of bride burning till deceased succumbed to burn injuries of not trying to exginguish the fire and render first aid immediately, is consist tent only with the hypothesis of his guilt.
38. Of late there has been an alarming increase in cases relating to' harassment, torture, abetted suicides arid dowry deaths of young innocent brides. This growing cult of violence and exploitation of the young brides though keeps on sending shock waves to the civilized society whenever it happens continues unabated. There is a constant erosion of the basic human values of tolerance and the spirit of "live and let live". Lack of education and economic dependence of women have encouraged the greedy perpetrators of the crime. Awakening of tile collective consciousness is the need, of the day. What is needed is, change of heart and attitude. If many were to regain his harmony with others and replace hatred, agreed, selfishness and anger by mutual love, trust and understanding and if woman were to receive education and become economically independent the possibility of this pernicious social evil dying a natural death may not remain a dream only. The legislature, realizing the gravity of the situation has amended the laws and provided for stringent punishments in such castes and even permitted the raising of presumption against an accused in cases of unnatural deaths of the brides, within the first seven years of their marriage.
39. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the appellant of an offence punishable under [SECTION], [ACT] as well as under [SECTION], [ACT] as well as under [SECTION], [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT]. The conviction of the appellant is therefore upheld.
40. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the sentence of the appellant should be reduced keeping in view his age.
41. As regards the quantum of sentence we see no reason to interfere with the Sentence awarded by the trial Court. The manner in which the death of deceased [ENTITY] has taken place within a short span of time of, three moths after her marriage, does not allow us to extend any sympathy in favour of the appellant with regard to the quantum of sentence.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] has held that-
the role of Courts, under the circumstances assumes greater importance and it is expected that the Courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and riot allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities or insignificant lacunae in the evidence as otherwise the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crime would be totally discouraged by the crime going unpunished. The Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women. The verdict of acquittal made by the trial Court in this case is an apt illustration of the lack of sensitivity on the part of the trial Court. It, recorded the verdict of acquittal on mere surmises, and conjectures and disregarded the evidence of the witnesses for wholly insufficient and insignificant reasons. It ignored the, vital factors of the case without even properly discussing the same.
43. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, we find no force in this appeal which lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
44. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2001, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby confirmed.
45. The appellant is already in jail to serve out the sentence awarded against him.