1 S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.571/2000 Krishan Lal Sharma Vs. The State of Raj. And or. Dated of Order ::: 11th February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Vikrant Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, PP for the State. Mr. Deepak Soni for the respondents. *** REPORTABLE Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 17th June, 2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Behrod, District Alwar whereby the learned Sessions Court acquitted the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 of the offences under Sections 498A and 304-B of IPC. 2. The facts of the prosecution case as unfolded in complaint Ex.P/1 are, in brief, stated thus: That the complainant Krishan Lal Sharma married her daughter Renu with the accused Harendra Kumar in the year 1993. It is alleged that all the accused respondents No.2 to 4 soon after her marriage started humiliating her and demanded Scooter, Television and Fridge in dowry. As per the complainant, deceased Renu as and when used to come to her parents, she used to complain that her husband, her husband's brother and brother's wife always demanded Scooter, Television and Fridge. Thereafter, on 2nd October, 1995 some unknown person asked him to reach at Bansoor as he was being called there. On being asked 2 as to what happened and why was he being called at Bansoor, he did not tell anything in reply. On the same day at about 5.00 PM when he reached at Bansoor, he found that his daughter had died and she was cremated sans giving any information to him about it. 3. The complainant submitted a written report Ex.P/1 before SHO Police Station, Bansoor who lodged FIR Ex.P/2 thereon and commenced investigation. The Investigating Officer prepared a site-plan Ex.P/4, recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. who were acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and arrested accused persons namely Harendra Kumar @ Shibbu and Suresh Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.P/6 and 7 respectively, collected the ashes of deceased Renu from the cremation ground vide Ex.P/8 and after usual investigation, the police filed the police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. against the accused persons namely Harendra Kumar, Laxmi Devi and Suresh Chand before the competent Court. The accused persons were charged with the offences under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. In their statements u/s 313 of 3 Cr.P.C., the accused respondents pleaded innocence and submitted that they had no complicity with the crime and had been falsely implicated by the father of the deceased. The accused Harendra Kumar sought permission and put himself in defence evidence. On completion of trial, the learned Sessions Court did not find the accused respondents guilty and acquitted them as indicated here-in-above. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvased that all the accused respondents No.2 to 4 harassed and subjected the deceased Renu to cruelty for demand of dowry. PW-4 Sunita Devi categorically deposed that on the day of “Rakshabandhan” when Renu and her husband came at Alwar, her husband Harendra Kumar demanded Scooter. Similarly, PW-1 Krishna Lal, PW-2 Gulab Devi and PW-3 Sunil Kumar also deposed that the accused always tortured and humiliated her and asked for Scooter, Television and Fridge in dowry. When the demand of dowry was not meted out by them, they committed the murder of Renu. Learned counsel also took me through the statements of PW-5 Omprakash, PW-8 4 Dr. Prashant Kumar and PW-10 Virendra Kumar and contended that the patient was not vomiting whereas the accused respondents defended that before taking her to hospital, she was vomiting. This contradiction leads to hold that the accused respondents deliberately concealed this fact and with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence, hurriedly cremated the dead body of Renu. The learned trial Court did not take into consideration all these aspects and wrongly arrived at a finding of acquittal which deserves to be set aside. 7. The sole fact, that the accused persons brought the deceased for treatment from Bansoor to Alwar and when she died in transit and came to Alwar for getting Diesel filled in their Jeep and they did not inform her parents at Alwar about the death of Renu and hurriedly cremated her, was sufficient to draw presumption about their guilt. The learned trial Court did not take into account all these factors and acquitted the accused persons of the alleged charges. 8. E contra the learned counsel for the accused respondents as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State defended the judgment of the learned trial Court and stated the same to be just and proper. 5 9. Learned counsel for the accused respondents further contended that there was no cogent evidence available on record which could lead the Court to infer that the accused persons soon before her death subjected the deceased to cruelty which caused her dowry death. He further contended that the witnesses examined by the prosecution belonged to one family and their evidence did not stand corroborated by any independent witness. The evidence of the relatives of the deceased being interested one cannot be said to be credible and basing conviction on such untrustworthy evidence may lead to miscarriage of justice. In view of these facts, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment dated 17th June, 2000 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Behrod District Alwar, it is found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to demand for dowry is omnibus in nature. It has been consistently deposed by all the family members of the deceased Renu that as and when she used to come to her parents, she always complained of having been tortured by the accused persons and asked for dowry. PW-4 Sunita Devi, albeit, 6 has deposed that on the Festival of 'Rakshabandhan' when the deceased Renu and her husband Harendra Kumar came to Bansoor, Harendra Kumar put his demand of Scooter in dowry. When the demand of dowry was not meted out by her parents, she was done to death by them. Albeit, these witnesses PW/1 Krishna Lal Sharma, PW/2 Smt. Gulab Devi, PW/3 Sunil Kumar, PW/4 Sunita Devi have stated that prior to her death Renu used to tell them that her in- laws including her husband usually complained that she had brought nothing in dowry. They also used to ask her, what her parents had given in dowry? The witnesses also deposed that the deceased Renu whenever wrote letters, she always mentioned the fact of demand for dowry therein but perusal of the statements of these witnesses does not reveal that any letter was ever written by the deceased to her parents. It is pertinent to record that no letter was made available by the prosecution during investigation nor any letter was produced in the Court during trial. The statement of all the prosecution witnesses are vague and omnibus in nature. The statements of the interested witnesses, which belonged to one family, do not stand corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness. Otherwise too, the contradictions emerging in their statements are also galore. 7 11. Adverting to the statements of PW- 5 Omprakash, PW-8 Dr. Prashant Kumar and PW-10 Virendra Kumar, it is noticed that the accused Suresh Chand told Virendra Kumar that his brother's wife was not feeling well and asked him to see her. When he went to see her at their house, he found that she had already been shifted to Bansoor Hospital. The Doctor could not treat her and she was referred to Alwar. PW/8 Dr.Prashant Kumar has stated that on 1st October, 1995 the deceased Renu was brought to Community Health Centre, where he was posted as Medical Office. He examined the patient. The patient was in unconscious state and there were cramps over her body. He suggested the attendants of the deceased to take her to Alwar immediately for treatment. Similarly PW-5 Omprakash who was posted as Compounder in Community Health Centre at Bansoor, stated that there were cramps on the body of deceased, who was being attended by Dr.Prashant Kumar. She was referred to be taken to Government Hospital Alwar. He accompanied the patient but the patient died on the way before they reached at Alwar. It has emerged from the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the patient was on a long 'fast' as she was observing Navratra. It has also emerged that it was 6th day of Navratra. Both PW/5- Omprakash and PW/8 Dr. Prashant Kumar have categorically stated that the patient had 8 cramps on her body. No foul smell was coming from her mouth. No mark of injury was also seen on the body. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Renu was done to death by the accused respondents on account of not fulfilling the demand of dowry, whereas the defence of the accused respondents is that Renu died in a natural way as she was observing 'fast' and she was hungry for the last six days. She met with the natural death. From the perusal of the prosecution evidence, it is not found that any poisonous substance was ever administered to the deceased Renu by accused persons. In the cross examination, Dr. Prashant Kumar explained that the cramps over the body could be on account of epilepsy or mental fever also. 12. So far as the cruelty to the deceased Renu is concerned, there is not even a shred of direct evidence which could suggest that Renu was ever subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives. Albeit, prosecution witness PW- 1 to PW-4 have stated that prior to death, she was subjected to cruelty, she was humiliated, she was beaten and the demand of dowry was made by the accused respondents but all these allegations are omnibus in nature. These allegations are found to have cropped up after the death of Renu. Though, a mention has been made with regard to the letters having been 9 written by the deceased to her parents, but no letter is found to have been placed by them either during investigation or during trial before the Court. This ocular testimony does not stand corroborated by any direct or indirect evidence. The statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 do not seem to be dependable and reliable as they are belonged to one family. The testimony of interested witnesses cannot become the basis of conviction of the accused persons, unless that stand corroborated by the evidence of the independent witnesses and the same is found to be credible and trustworthy. Apart this, there is no evidence with regard to demand for dowry or cruelty soon before her death. 13. The three ingredients for establishing the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC are (a) that there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused; (b) that the deceased died; and (C) that the death is under unnatural circumstances. Once there is harassment for the payment of dowry and unnatural death occurs within seven years after the marriage, the presumption of dowry death is inherent. 14. In the instant case deceased Renu never complained to anybody about the alleged harassment by the accused for 10 bringing inadequate dowry, albeit a mention of this fact has been made by the prosecution witnesses No.1 to 3 in their deposition but it does not stand corroborated by any documentary or material evidence. 15. The accused respondents were charged for causing death of the deceased Renu for dowry and subjecting her to cruelty and harassment, but there is no evidence to evince such cruelty and harassment. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, no presumption can be drawn about the dowry death and thus, the prosecution is found to have failed to bring home the accusation so far as they relate to offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498A of IPC. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited two judgments of Dhian Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2004) 7, SCC, 759 and Yashoda and another Vs. State of M.P. Reported in (2004) 3 SCC 98 in support of his arguments. 17. I have gone through both the judgments and found that the facts of these two judgments are altogether distinct from the facts of the instant case. In the case of Yashoda and Another (Supra), the death of deceased was not 11 under normal circumstances, whereas in the case of Dhian Singh and Anr.(Supra), the deceased Shinder Kaur was burnt to death. 18. In the instant case, the deceased suddenly became unwell and she was immediately shifted to Government Hospital Bansoor. PW/8 Dr. Prashant Kumar and PW/5 Omprakash compounder examined her and referred her to be taken to Government Hospital Alwar. Both these witnesses found cramps over the body of the deceased and as per PW-8 Dr.Prashant Kumar, these cramps could possibly be on account of epilepsy or meningitis or mental fever. Dr. Prashant Kumar has positively stated in examination-in-chief that no foul smell was coming from her mouth. Neither there appears any evidence with regard to administering poison to the deceased nor there is any evidence of beating and causing cruelty to her on record. The deceased Renu was being taken to Alwar for treatment but she died during transit to Alwar. The only circumstance which has adversely been taken by the parents of the deceased is that the accused respondents cremated the deceased sans informing her parents. It caused doubts in the mind of the father of the deceased and led him to think that she was done to death by the respondents and that was the only reason they hurriedly cremated her to destroy the evidence of crime. In fact, there is no 12 direct evidence with regard to cruelty or demand for dowry on record. 19. Learned counsel for the accused respondents also canvassed that the occurrence of this case took place on 2.10.1995 in the evening and the FIR of this case was lodged on 05.10.1995 at 1:45 p.m., whereas, the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only ½ furlong. This delay is fatal to the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation of an inordinate delay of three days in lodging the First Information Report Ex.P/2 with police station Bansoor, Alwar. 20. In Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: “First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be over-estimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye- witnesses present at the scene 13 of occurrence. Delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.” 21. In the above case, the occurrence was not reported for more than 20 hours. The delay was found to be fatal to the prosecution and to base conviction upon such evidence was held to be unsafe. But in the instant case, the FIR Ex.P/2 has been filed in the police station after an inordinate delay of three days of the occurrence and the prosecution has miserably failed to furnish satisfactory and reasonable explanation of this delay which to my firm view, is found to be fatal to the prosecution. 22. In the ultimate analysis, it is recorded that the prosecution case exclusively rests on circumstantial evidence, that too, is found to be of very weak nature. In the case at hand the evidence emerging on record does not form a chain so as to fasten guilt upon the accused respondent. The learned trial Court discussed the prosecution evidence 14 in detail and appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in its right perspective. The learned trial Court did not find any evidence on record which could suggest that Renu was ever subjected to cruelty and done to death by the accused respondent No.2 to 4. The impugned judgment seems to be just and proper based on cogent reasonings. I am in full unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court and to my view too, the impugned judgment calls for no intervention as it does not suffer from any infirmity. 23. For the reasons stated above, the criminal revision petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg