Criminal Appeal No.240-SB of 2001. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.240-SB of 2001. Date of Decision : 8.11.2010. Lehmber Kumar & others ......Appellants Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 1st, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby, the accused- appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default Surinder Kumar 304-B IPC RI for 10 years -- -- Lehmber Kumar and Geeta 304-B IPC RI for 7 years -- -- 2. During the pendency of appeal, Lehmber Kumar died so, the appeal filed by him stands abated. 3. Surinder Kumar and Geeta-appellants are husband and sister-in-law (husband's brother's wife) of Neelam Kumari (deceased) respectively. Neelam Kumari was married with Surinder Kumar accused-appellant on January 20th, 1998. She died on October 13th, 1998 on account of electrocution at her in-laws' house. Ram Saran (PW-3) father of Neelam Kumari was informed. He reached the house of the accused-appellants and found her dead body lying in the court-yard. Next day—October 14th, 1998 he along with Nasib Singh while proceeding to lodge report to Police met Gian Criminal Appeal No.240-SB of 2001. 2 Singh-Investigator (PW-9) at Bus-stand Mansoorpur and made statement (Exhibit PJ) to the effect that in the marriage of his daughter Neelam Kumari, he gave sufficient dowry but she was harassed by the accused-appellants for not bringing sufficient dowry. A demand of Rs.50,000/- was made for purchase of a motor-cycle. At another point of time, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the appellants. On August 12th, 1998 an account was opened by him in the name of his daughter at Phagwara and an FDR in the sum of Rs.9500/- was also purchased in her name. On October 6th, 1998 an amount of Rs.2000/- was deposited in her account. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on October 7th, 1998 on the eve of Karva Chauth. Even then the appellants were not satisfied and continued harassing his daughter forcing her to bring more dowry. 4. On the statement (Exhibit PJ) of Ram Saran, Gian Singh made endorsement (Exhibit PJ/1) and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case. First Information Report (Exhibit PJ/2) was recorded. Gian Singh-Investigator reached the spot and prepared inquest report (Exhibit PC). The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. Sarabjit Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phillaur along with Dr. R.K. Verma and Dr. Kamaljit Singh conducted autopsy on the dead body of Neelam Kumari. The appellants were arrested on October 20th, 1998. 5. On completion of the investigation, the accused were arraigned for trial. The accused were charged under Section 304-B IPC. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of their case, examined nine witnesses. These are:- Dr. Sarabjit Singh (PW-1), Dalip Singh (PW-2), Ram Saran (PW-3), Naseeb Chand (PW-4), Madan Lal (PW-5), Raj Kumar (PW-6), Surinder Singh (PW-7), Paramjit Pal (PW-8) and Gian Singh (PW-9). 7. In their examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations and pleaded that they were falsely implicated. They never made any demand for dowry from Neelam Kumari or her father Ram Saran Criminal Appeal No.240-SB of 2001. 3 (PW-3). She was never subjected to cruelty on account of demand for dowry. She died an accidental death due to electrocution. To show their financial status, it was added that a plot was purchased at Phillaur in the name of their mother vide sale-deed (Exhibit DC). They own a petrol station in the name and style M/s. Kumar Filling Station, an oil tanker, car, motor-cycle and four wheeler prior to the marriage of Neelam Kumari with Surinder Kumar. 8. In defence, five witnesses were examined viz. Rajneesh Gupta, Chartered Accountant (DW-1), Viney Kumar Goel, Manager Canara Bank, Jalandhar (DW-2), Surinder Kumar (DW-3), Parmod Kumar (DW-4) and Vijay Kumar (DW-5). 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there is no eye witness account available in this case. The death of Neelam Kumari was accidental as she died on account of electrocution while ironing clothes. Since financial position of accused-appellants was sound, there was no question of making any demand for dowry from the deceased or her father as alleged by the prosecution. The present case was registered at the behest of father of the deceased only to extort money from the appellants. 10. Against this, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that by examining Ram Saran (PW-3) it has been proved that deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused- appellants on account of demand for dowry and she was killed when the demand could not be met by the father of deceased. 11. Firstly, it has to be seen as to whether death of Neelam Kumari was homicidal or accidental ? 12. Dr. Sarabjit Singh (PW-1) along with Dr. R.K. Verma and Dr. Kamaljit Singh conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Neelam Kumari and found following injuries on her person:- 1. An electric burn mark2 cm x 1 cm was present over the sternum in the mid line, of brownish colour, on dissection subcut tissues were echemost. 2. Electric burn mark 4 cm x 2 cm of brownish colour present over the chest in the inter mammary region over the sternum. 3. A burn mark electric 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm of brownish Criminal Appeal No.240-SB of 2001. 4 colour present 5 cm below the left breast. On dissection both injuries No.1 and 2 were s/c tissues found to be echemogst. 4. A circumstantial electric burn mark width measuring o.5 cm x 1 cm present over the lower part of right forearm 6 cm above right wrist joint. Brownish in colour with rage margins on dissection s/c tissues were present. 5. An oval shape 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm electric burn mark of brownish colour having raised margin was present over the dorsal side of Ist web space of right hand. On dissection underlying tissues echymosed. 6. A burn mark electric 1 cm x 0.5 cm palebase with irregular margins was present over the dorsal side of PIT joint of little finger of right hand. 7. A burn mark electric 1 cm x 0.8 cm palebase dragged margins present over the doresom of PIT joint of ring finger of right hand. 8. A circumstantial electric burn mark varying width from 0.6 cm x 1 cm over the lower of left forearm 4.5 cm from wrist joint. Brownish in colour with raised margin was present. On dissection s/c tissues were present. 9. An oval shaped 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm electric burn mark over the base of left thumb brownish in colour with surrounding margins raised and crack. 10. An irregular shaped electric burn mark 3 cm x 2.5 cm over the doresum of left wrist joint brownish in colour. 11. Electric burn mark pale 1 cm x 0.5 cm over the doresom of middle finger over PIP joint of left hand. 12. An electric burn mark brownish colour 1 cm x 0.5 cm over the ulna side of left wrist joint with margins raised and cracked. 13. An electric burn mark brownish in colour 1 cm x 0.4 cm over the ulna side of the left wrist joint 1 cm away from injury No.12. Margins were ragged and raised. 13. It was opined that deceased died due to cardiac arrest on account of electrocution. Apart from medical evidence, in the inquest report (Exhibit PC), it was mentioned by the Investigator that the deceased had died on account of electrocution. Ram Saran has not stated at all that the accused-appellants were instrumental in killing the deceased by electrocution. Ram Saran deposed that on October 14th, 1998, he requested Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phillaur that post-mortem on the dead body of deceased be not conducted. This statement of Ram Saran suggests that at the initial stage, he did not suspect any foul play. It was later on that he thought of reporting Criminal Appeal No.240-SB of 2001. 5 the matter which he did. Since death of Neelam Kumari occurred due to electrocution, it can unhesitatingly be held that it was an accidental death and not the homicidal. 14. As regards the demand for dowry by the accused- appellants, it is proved from the oral as well as documentary evidence that they were financially well to do. They owned a petrol station, oil tanker, car, motor cycle and four wheeler prior to the marriage of Surinder Kumar with Neelam Kumari. Ram Saran (PW-3) has stated that amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited in the name of Neelam Kumari on the asking of Surinder Kumar at Phagwara. Had it been the result of demand for dowry then question of depositing the same in the Bank in the name of Neelam Kumari at the instance of Surinder Kumar would not have arisen. Why he would ask Ram Saran to deposit amount in the Bank which he demanded as dowry ? No answer to this pertinent question, much less a satisfactory one, is coming forth from the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that prior to death of Neelam Kumari, Ram Saran had made any grievance regarding the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased on account of demand for dowry by the accused. In this view of the matter, the story of demand for dowry made by the accused-appellants was cooked up to implicate the accused- appellants in the present case. 15. In view of above, it is held that Neelam Kumari died accidental death due to electrocution and she was never subjected to cruelty by the accused-appellants on account of demand for dowry. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As a result thereof, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Judge are set aside. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted. The appellants are on bail. The bail/surety bonds shall stand discharged. 8.11.2010 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE