Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 Date of Decision: 21.4.2008 Jagdish Chand and Others …Appellants Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Jagdish Chand, father-in-law, Raj Kumar, husband, Mishri Devi, mother-in-law, and Sandeep, younger brother of the husband have been convicted and sentenced in case FIR No. 321, dated 7.12.1994 registered at Police Station Jatusana, under Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304-B IPC for causing death of Shanti Devi wife of appellant Raj Kumar. They have been also convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC to undergo Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 2 rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The FIR in the present case was lodged at the instance of Kalu Ram son of Lakhmi Chand, caste Ahir. He has stated that he was working as Clerk in Government Girls High School, Pataudi and has two children, one son namely Sanjay aged ten years and daughter Shanti aged 23/24 years. Shanti Devi was married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 19.4.1988 with Raj Kumar son of Jagdish, caste Ahir, resident of village Berli Khurd. The complainant had given sufficient dowry including cash amount of Rs.7,100/- , gold ear rings weighing five grams for Raj Kumar and ear rings weighing six grams, one gold pendal weighing two and a half tolas and other household articles & utensils at the time of marriage. After about one months of marriage, Shanti Devi was turned out of matrimonial house by the accused who were demanding Scooter and Television. The complainant was unable to fulfill the demands. In the month of August 1992, Shanti gave a birth to daughter. His son Sanjay had taken chuchak (customary gifts at the time of birth of child) to village Berli Khurd where it is said that appellants Mishri Devi, mother-in-law, Jagdish, father-in-law, Raj Kumar, husband, and Sanjay, younger brother of husband, quarreled with him as to why Scooter and Television had not been given. After a few days, the complainant took his daughter Shanti to his house where she remained for about one year. The accused had not taken his daughter back to the matrimonial home due to demand of dowry. It is stated that in July 1993, he along with Sarjit Singh who is a Teacher in the School where he is Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 3 employed, went to Berli Khurd where father-in-law of his daughter Jagdish told why he had not brought Shanti. He was also advised to make Raj Kumar happy, upon which complainant told that he was not possessed of sufficient means to give Scooter and Television and in case son is born, then one month thereafter he will satisfy his demands. After about one month, his son-in-law Raj Kumar came to the village and told that he has come there to take Shanti back. He demanded Rs.2,100/- so that he could start some work. The complainant after giving Rs.2,100/- had sent his daughter Shanti along with Raj Kumar. After some time he came to meet Shanti who told him that her mother- in-law Mishri Devi, husband Raj Kumar, younger brother of her husband Sanjay and father-in-law Jagdish daily taunted her and sometimes they have beaten her also. He made everybody understand but the accused did not agree and had sent Shanti Devi along with him. After six months, father-in-law Jagdish and son-in-law Raj Kumar came and told that Shanti should be sent back. Then the wife of complainant Angoori Devi told that they have nothing to give in the dowry, on which they said that in next chuchak they should give Scooter and Shanti was sent back with the accused. About 15 days ago, son of complainant Sanjay had brought Shanti to their village and Shanti told that Mishri Devi, mother- in-law, Jagdish, father-in-law, Sanjay, younger brother of her husband and Raj Kumar, her husband daily taunted her and sometimes beat her also and was told that she should bring Scooter, otherwise the result will not be good. Two days thereafter she returned to Berli Khurd and she was about five months’ pregnant. The complainant was going to meet his daughter Shanti where he met Sarjit Singh at Bus Adda Rewari. He Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 4 told him that in-laws of Shanti maltreated her and they should go to make them understand and both of them reached at village Berli Khurd. There they learnt that in the night Shanti Devi was burnt to death by her husband Raj Kumar, mother-in-law Mishri Devi, father-in-law Jagdish and husband’s younger brother Sanjay, who after pouring kerosene oil had put Shanti on fire. The complainant along with Sarjit Singh went to Police Station to lodge the complaint and on the bus stand of Berli, he met Balwant Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, the Investigating Officer. The complaint was lodged by Kalu Ram on 7.12.1994 at 12.30 P.M.. The above said FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and the appellants were charged for the offences under Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC. After the charge, prosecution led its evidence. PW.1 Dr. S.K.Gupta conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shanti Devi on 8.12.1994. He found superficial to deep ante mortem burns present all over the body and skin peeled off at places. In the opinion of Board of Doctors, cause of death was shock due to ante mortem burns which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life. In cross-examination , he has stated that burns were all over the body, which means there were 100 per cent burns. PW.2 C. Mam Chand, Constable had taken the body to Government Hospital, Rewari, for post-mortem. PW.3 Mahavir Singh is the Draftsman, who prepared the rough site plan. PW.4 Nathu Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, stated that on 8.12.1993, Mam Chand, Constable, had produced ornaments, which Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 5 were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PD and a sealed parcel of ornaments Ex.P1 was prepared. PW.5 Daya Nand, Sub Inspector, had arrested the accused Jagdish, Raj Kumar and Mishri Devi, on 10.12.1994. He took into possession letter Mark PG vide recovery memo Ex.PG/1, original of which is marked as Ex.PG/2. PW.6 Kalu Ram, complainant, reiterated the version revealed in the FIR. He has stated that he re-collected the name of Sandeep, younger brother of Raj Kumar later, as earlier he has named him as Sanjay. It is not in his knowledge that there are two younger sons of Jagdish, who are named as Sanjay and Sandeep. He denied the suggestion that he had substituted the name of Sandeep against Sanjay. He had admitted that accused Sandeep was married and worked at cloth shop. PW.7 Sarjit Singh was employed in the School as Teacher where Kalu Ram was employed as Clerk but he has stated that on 7.12.1994 he had accompanied Kalu Ram to village Berli Khurd where Shanti had died. PW.8 Sanjay is son of the complainant and brother of Shanti Devi, deceased. He also stated regarding allegations corroborated PW.6 Kalu Ram and also produced the original letter Ex.PG/2. PW.9 Balwant Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had investigated the case. PW.10 Sheoden Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PL. Thereafter, prosecution has closed its evidence. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. They have stated that Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 6 marriage was more than seven years old and no demand of dowry was made nor Shanti Devi was tortured and she had died due to accidental fire. In defence, Sanjay Kumar appeared as DW.1 DW.2 Brij Lal, brother of Jagdish accused stated that complainant party was satisfied regarding the natural death of Shanti Devi, deceased. I have heard Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Shanti Devi was married on 19.4.1988. She died on 7.12.1994. The marriage was more than six years old, therefore, marriage being within seven years, Section 304-B IPC is attracted subject to other ingredients prescribed under the said Section. Shanti Devi had died of burn injuries. Her death was unnatural. Evidence of PW.6 Kalu Ram, PW.7 Sarjit Singh and PW.8 Sanjay aspire confidence. They have stated that the accused were demanding Scooter and Television. Shanti Devi was turned out of her house in order to pressurize the complainant to fulfill the demand of accused who wanted Scooter and Television. Therefore, third ingredient that accused were demanding dowry also stands fulfilled. To summarize, Shanti Devi within seven years of marriage died unnatural death and she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the accused/appellants. I have also considered defence evidence i.e. statement of DW.2 Brij Lal and the same is not reliable. I have also read inland letter Ex.PG/2, which has been written by Raj Kumar. The same prove that Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 7 accused Raj Kumar was demanding dowry. A perusal of the same also shows that husband Raj Kumar, father-in-law Jagdish and mother-in-law Mishri Devi, were responsible for ill-treating Shanti Devi. In the FIR, name of the younger brother of husband is mentioned as Sanjay, whereas Sandeep appellant has been put to trial. This came in evidence that there is another younger brother of Raj Kumar, who is named as Sanjay. He appeared as DW.1. Sandeep is married and is working in a shop of Cloth Merchant. A definite suggestion has been given that subsequently Sandeep was substituted in place of Sanjay. Taking this evidence into account, benefit of doubt can be extended to Sandeep appellant. Even otherwise, he being married will not be gainer from the demand of Scooter and Television. As a result of above discussion, I extend benefit of doubt to Sandeep appellant. He is acquitted of the charges and the present appeal qua him is accepted. However, I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants Raj Kumar, Jagdish and Mishri Devi, that they have been falsely impleaded and Shanti died due to accidental fire, therefore, their conviction under Section 304-B IPC is upheld. However, in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 7.12.1994. The accused have also suffered a protracted trial of more than 13 years. Even otherwise, Section 304-B prescribes minimum sentence of seven years. It is in the rarest of rare cases, where sentence of more than seven year is awarded. Accordingly, the sentence awarded upon the appellants Raj Kumar, Jagdish and Mishri Devi is reduced from ten years to seven years. However, their sentence under Section 498-A IPC is maintained. Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1997 8 In view of the observations made above, the present appeal is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 21, 2008 “DK”