Criminal Appeal No.1951 SB of 2003(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.1951 SB of 2003(O&M) Date of decision: 11.10.2010 Jai Kishan and others ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Bipin Ghai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana. **** SABINA, J. The appellants were for an offence convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) vide judgment dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Vide order dated 18.9.2003, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years under Section 304-B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 498-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal. Criminal Appeal No.1951 SB of 2003(O&M) 2 Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Smt.Jeeti (since deceased) was got admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak at 8.25 a.m. on 13.7.2000 by one Puran son of Deep Chand. There the attending Medical Officer noted down her alleged case to be of accidental burns while preparing tea on a stove. On her admission in the PGIMS, Rohtak a medical rukka was sent to Incharge of concerned police post upon which the police reached at the place where Smt.Jeeti was lying admitted in the hospital and on the police request,Dr.Dharmender Sharma of PGIMS, Rohtak declared her fit at 5.00 p.m. on 13.7.2000 to make a statement. Her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in the PGIMS, Rohtak at 5.45 pm on 13.7.2000 by Ms. Madhu Khanna, the then Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. In her statement Smt.Jeeti told that in the morning of 13.7.2000 when she ignited stove then suddenly oil appeared outside of it and thereupon her saree face were burnt. Her rescue call attract her jethani, who also tried to extinguish fire and during this process her saree also caught fire. Her (Jeeti's) husband had gone to Dadri in the morning. Her mother-in-law gone outside to bring vegetables. Her father-in-law was at the Criminal Appeal No.1951 SB of 2003(O&M) 3 shop. Smt.Jeeti had died on 15.7.2000 at 6.00 a.m because of extensive burn injuries.” In the present case, deceased Jeeti as well as her sister Jyoti (PW-8) were married with appellants Jai Kishan and Bhim (brothers) respectively on 14.2.1997. Thereafter, deceased Jeeti has died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage in the house of her in-laws due to burn injuries. In order to admit the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:- “ 1. that the death of the woman took place due to burns or the bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. that such death had occurred within seven years of her marriage. 3. the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.” The question that requires consideration is as to whether the unnatural death of deceased Jeeti falls within the purview of Section 304-B IPC or not. If yes, further whether all the appellants are responsible for commission of the said offence. PW-7 Om Parkash, father of the deceased deposed that his daughters Jeeti and Jyoti had got married with appellants Jai Criminal Appeal No.1951 SB of 2003(O&M) 4 Kishan and Bhim respectively on 14.2.1997. Kalawati was the wife of elder brother of appellants Jai Kishan and Bhim Appellants Jai Kishan and Bhim used to torture his daughters qua demand of dowry. They had raised a demand of Rs.10,000/- from Jeeti and he had paid the said amount to the accused. His younger daughter Jyoti used to narrate to him the torture meted out to them qua demand of dowry. His daughters remained in his house for about one year. On 3.5.2000, panchayat from village Sanwar had come to his house and they had taken both his daughters to their matrimonial home. Jeeti had handed over a letter to her brother Joginder ten days before the occurrence. On 13.7.2000, brother-in-law of Jeeti had informed them that Jeeti had suffered burn injuries and was admitted in PGIMS Rohtak. When he met his daughter, she informed him that her dever had brought kerosene oil tin and had handed over the same to her sister-in-law Kalawati. Bhim had caught hold of her and Kalawati had sprinkled oil on her and thereafter, Jai Kishan had lit the fire with the match stick. PW-8 Jyoti deposed that Kalawati was her sister-in-law. Jai Kishan had raised a demand of Rs.10,000/- from her sister Jeeti and the same had been met by her father. They (deceased and PW- 8) had both come to their parental house and had stayed there for one year. The panchayat of village Sanwar had taken them to village Sanwar from their parental house. Bhim had sprinkled kerosene oil on her body about 1 ½ year prior to the occurrence and her sister Criminal Appeal No.1951 SB of 2003(O&M) 5 had saved her at that time. After ten days of panchayat, her brother Joginder had come to village Sanwar. At that time Jeeti had handed over a letter to him. She (PW-8) had come to her parental house along with her brother. On 13.7.2000, she had been informed that Jeeti had sustained burn injuries and had been taken to PGI Rohtak. Ex.PX/1 is the dying declaration suffered by the deceased before the Judicial Magistrate and the same reads as under:- “Stated that today when I had lit the stove to prepare tea then the oil suddenly came out and her face and saree caught fire. I raised alarm and my jethani came and tried to extinguish the fire and as a result her saree also caught fire. My husband had gone to Dadri in the morning. My mother-in-law had gone to buy vegetables. My father-in-law was at the shop. My in-laws are very good. It was an accident. I do not have any suspicion on any person.” The Judicial Magistrate, while appearing in the witness box as PW-14, has duly proved the said statement. PW-11 Dr.Prem Parkash Lamoria has deposed that the deceased was suffering from 90% burn injuries and there was smell of kerosene oil. PW-7 has further deposed that Jeeti had told him that she had been threatened by the accused persons and as such she had made a statement before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class. He had Criminal Appeal No.1951 SB of 2003(O&M) 6 moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak for recording of a fresh statement of his daughter but he was told that the statement had already been recorded. From the statement of PW-8 Jyoti, it appears that Jai Kishan had been demanding dowry from his wife and on one occasion he had raised a demand of Rs.10,000/- and the same was met by her father. Although PW-7 Om Parkash has stated that Jai Kishan and Bhim used to torture his daughters on account of demand of dowry but the said fact is not corroborated by the statement of PW-8 Jyoti. PW-8, on the other hand, has only levelled allegations qua demand of Rs.10,000/- by Jai Kishan. The deceased had suffered a dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate and in normal circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the deceased suffered by her before the Judicial Magistrate. The said statement was apparently suffered by the deceased before the arrival of her parents. Since the deceased has died due to burn injuries, the possibility that her father has tried to involve the husband of Jyoti as well as appellant Kalawati also cannot be ruled out. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The Criminal Appeal No.1951 SB of 2003(O&M) 7 efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. A reading of the entire evidence leads to the irresistible conclusion that the deceased has died because of the harassment meted out to her by her husband. PW-7, father of the deceased, has deposed in his cross-examination that all the brothers were residing separately. In these circumstances, it can be said that appellant Jai Kishan alone was responsible for the death of deceased Jeeti. Hence, the possibility that appellants Kalawati and Bhim have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, the appeal qua appellants Kalawati and Bhim is allowed and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them by giving them the benefit of doubt. However, the appeal qua appellant Jai Kishan is dismissed. His conviction and sentence , as ordered by the trial Court, are upheld. (SABINA) JUDGE October 11, 2010 anita