IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 68/2010 Suresh Ram ..……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent With Jail Appeal No. 22/2010 Suresh Ram ..……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Advocate, present for the appellant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. (Oral : Prafulla C. Pant, J.) These two appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 17.3.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Champawat in Sessions Trial No. 21/2008, whereby the accused appellant Suresh Ram has been convicted under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He (accused appellant) has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 304-B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 498-A IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the trial court’s record. 2 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant Suresh Ram got married to Nanda Devi (deceased) about one and half year before her death. After her marriage, Nanda Devi lived with her husband (appellant) in her village Buga Chokni in District Champawat. Prosecution case is that appellant Suresh Ram used to make demands of dowry and beat his wife for non- fulfillment of the same. The deceased when visited her parents, told about the demands and physical cruelty she had underwent. The parents of Nanda Devi refused to send back their daughter to Suresh Ram’s house thereafter for two months. But when Rami Ram (father of the accused appellant) and Ganesh Ram (PW5) came and took responsibility of safety and security of Nanda Devi, her parents allowed her to go with them. When accused appellant again started assaulting his wife Nanda Devi, his father sent him to Delhi in connection with a job. During that period Nanda Devi remained happily in her in-laws’ place. Again after about ten months, accused appellant Suresh Ram came back to his village and started making demands of dowry and committed physical cruelty against his wife. For a day, Nanda Devi went to her father’s place with her husband and told there about the fresh developments. This time, the parents of the deceased persuaded her and, hoping that everything would calm down, sent her back to her in-laws’ place. But after about 8-10 days, the parents of Nanda Devi received message that their daughter has died. On this, PW1 Ummed Ram, father of the deceased, went to the village Buga Chokni and found his daughter hanging from a wooden beam in her husband’s house. 4. The matter of unnatural death of Nanda Devi was reported to the police and inquest report (Ex. A-2) was prepared on 10.8.2008, and dead body was sent in a sealed condition along with other necessary papers like Police Form No. 13 (Ex. A-4), sketch of the dead body (Ex.A-5), sample seal (Ex. A-6) 3 and letter to the Chief Medical Superintendent (Ex. A-7) requesting for post-mortem examination. On 11.8.2008, a team of two doctors, viz., Dr. P.D. Pangaria (PW7) and Dr. P.K. Dube, conducted the post-mortem examination and found ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. Team of the doctors opined that deceased (Nanda Devi) had died of Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. In the meantime, on the very day (11.8.2008), Ummed Ram (PW1), father of the deceased, lodged the First Information Report (Ex. A-1) with Police Station Kotwali Champawat, where on its basis, Crime No. 251/2008 was registered relating to offences punishable under Section 398-A, 304-B IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused appellant Suresh Ram, and check report (Ex. A-8) was prepared. The crime was investigated by PW11 Harish Chand Sati, Dy. Superintendent of Police, who interrogated the witnesses and inspected the spot, and on completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet (Ex. A-11) against the accused appellant Suresh Ram for his trial in respect of the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5. On receipt of the chargesheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, after giving necessary copies of the documents to the accused as required under Section 207 CrPC, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Champawat on 16.10.2008, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, to which the accused Suresh Ram pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4 7. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Ummed Ram, informant and father of the deceased; PW2 Munni Devi, mother of the deceased; PW3 Amar Ram & PW4 Ummed Ram S/o Jas Ram, both distant cousins of deceased; PW5 Ganesh Ram, uncle of the accused appellant; PW6 Dhani Ram; PW7 Dr. P.D. Pangaria, one of the members of the team who conducted the post-mortem examination; PW8 Harendra Singh Bisht, who prepared the inquest report and other related papers; PW9 Constable Pushpa Malyan, who took the dead body in a sealed condition for post-mortem examination, PW10 Head Constable J.C. Kandpal, who prepared check report of FIR and PW11 Harish Chand Sati, Dy. Superintendent of Police, who investigated the crime. 8. Oral and documentary evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, in reply to which the accused pleaded that he did not demand any dowry. He has further pleaded that his wife wanted not live with him. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. 9. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that the accused appellant was guilty of charge of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 304-B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 498-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5 10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 17.3.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Champawat in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2008, one appeal was got sent by the convict through Superintendent of Jail, and another appeal has been filed by his Counsel, which are being decided together. 11. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries found on the body of deceased by the team of two doctors, who prepared the autopsy report (Ex. A-3). The report is proved by PW7 Dr. P.D. Pangaria, one of the members of the team who conducted post- mortem examination. The ante mortem injury recorded in autopsy report is as under: Ligature mark above thyroid bone and below chin around the neck, size 30 cm x 2 cm. The tongue was found protruded, mouth swollen, decomposition has already started. 12. The two doctors, who conducted the post-mortem examination, have opined in their report that deceased died of Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and the dead body was 3- 5 days’ old. From the medical evidence read with the other evidence on record, it is established that Nanda Devi (wife of accused appellant Suresh Ram) died an unnatural death. Now, we have to examine whether she was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry or not? 13. PW1 Ummed Ram, father of the deceased, has stated that about one and half year before, he got married his daughter Nanda Devi with Suresh Ram and gave customary dowry, but Suresh Ram after the marriage used to demand more dowry and assaulted his daughter for non-fulfillment of the demand. PW1 Ummed Ram further states that when Nanda Devi came to her parental house, she told about the agony she 6 was undergoing at the hands of her husband Suresh Ram. The witness further states that he allowed his daughter to stay with him and refused to send back his daughter for two months to her husband’s house. But when father of the accused Rami Ram and Ganesh Ram (PW5, uncle of the accused appellant) came and took responsibility of safety and security of Nanda Devi, she was allowed to go with them to her in-laws’ place. PW1 Ummed Ram further states when accused Suresh Ram again started beating his wife, his father sent him to Delhi in connection with a job. For about 10 months, when accused remained at Delhi, deceased lived happily in her in-laws’ house, but when he came back to the village, the accused appellant again started making demands of dowry and started assaulting his wife. The witness has further stated that when Nanda Devi and her husband came to him for a day, his daughter told him about the further harassment at the hands of her husband, but he persuaded her and sent back with her husband. After about 8-10 days, he (PW1) received information about the death on his daughter (Nanda Devi). On going to house of in-laws’ of Nanda Devi, he saw her body hanging from a wooden beam in her husband’s house. The witness also proved the FIR Ex. A-1 lodged by him. 14. The statement of PW1 Ummed Ram is corroborated by statement of PW2 Munni Devi, mother of the deceased, who has also narrated the same story. Apart from this, PW3 Amar Ram and PW4 Ummed Ram S/o Jas Ram, who are distant cousins of the deceased, also supported the prosecution story relating to demand of dowry and harassment on the non- fulfillment of the same at the hands of accused Suresh Ram, as told to them by the deceased. Not only this, even Ganesh Ram (uncle of accused Suresh Ram) supported the prosecution story to the extent that after the accused had beaten his wife Nanda Devi, she was not allowed by her parents to go back to her in- 7 laws’ house. The witness further admits that on promising that the accused would not beat Nanda Devi in future, she was allowed to go with him and Rami Ram. The witness further states that after coming back from Delhi, once again the accused started assaulting his wife. 15. PW6 Dhani Ram has also corroborated the statement of abovemetnioned witnesses by saying that Nanda Devi had told her on phone that Suresh Ram (accused) used to make demands of dowry and assaulted her for non-fulfillment of the same. 16. Having carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the PW1 Ummed Ram, PW2 Munni Devi, PW3 Amar Ram, PW4 Ummed Ram S/o Jas Ram, PW5 Ganesh Ram and PW6 Dhani Ram, we find that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that Nanda Devi (deceased) was subjected to cruelty soon before her death by the accused appellant Suresh Ram on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 17. In view of the provision of law contained in Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act 1871, we find that the trial court has committed no error of law in holding that the charge of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC is proved on the record. We further find that charge of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are also proved from the evidence already discussed above. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no specific demand of dowry disclosed by the prosecution, as such it cannot be said that the deceased was subjected to harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of 8 dowry. However, on scrutiny of the evidence on record, we find that the accused appellant Suresh Ram was not happy that his wife has not brought sufficient gold ornaments with her and used to ask his wife to bring it from her parents. As such, we do not find much substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 19. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out the contradiction in the statement of PW1 Ummed Ram and PW2 Munni Devi that one witness has stated that during the last visit of the deceased to her parent’s house, she was accompanied by her husband, whereas the other witness has stated that her husband followed her after some time to her parent’s house. In our opinion, this is a minor contradiction, which does not shake the otherwise reliable testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. 20. On the point of sentence, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the trial court has awarded the maximum and too harsh sentence against the appellant, which was not required in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. Having gone through the evidence on record and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 304-B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 498-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, would have met the ends of justice in the present case. To that extent, we think it proper to allow the appeal. 22. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed so far as the conviction of the accused appellant Suresh Ram is recorded by 9 the trial court relating to charge of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. But the sentence awarded by the trial court is set aside and substituted by rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 304-B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 498-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. To that extent of modification in sentence, the appeal stands allowed. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 23. Accused appellant Suresh Ram is in jail. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of the jail concerned. Let the trial court record be also sent back. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 18.3.2011 Prabodh