IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Appeal No. 508 of 2001 Avtar Singh …………Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ………Respondent Sri Raman Kumar Sah, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. Sri H.C. Pujari, A.G.A., for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. [Oral- Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.] This appeal is received through Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly, whereby appellant Avtar Singh has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1997, whereby accused / appellant Avtar Singh along with two others has been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C.. The appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 304-B I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two 2 years under Section 498-A I.P.C.. Sentences are directed to run concurrently. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court Record. (3) Prosecution story in brief is that accused / appellant Avtar Singh got married to Sunita Devi (deceased) in June 1996. After she went to her matrimonial house in Village Tyalvi, she was treated with cruelty and harassed for non- fulfillment of demand of dowry by the accused / appellant Avtar Singh (husband) and his parents, namely, Bachan Singh alias Palya (father-in-law) and Smt. Tankhi Devi (mother-in-law). On 11.03.1997 (within one year of marriage), Sunita died an unnatural death. On the next day i.e. 12.03.1997, accused / appellant Avtar Singh gave a report (Ext.A-4) to the Patwari Bagadwaldhar, that his wife has committed suicide by hanging herself. Meanwhile, on 11.03.1997 itself on receiving oral information, Patwari of the area had already taken dead body of Sunita Devi in his possession and prepared inquest report (Ext.A-5), sketch of the dead body (Ext.A-6), police form No. 13 (Ext.A-7) and sample seal (Ext.A-8). The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. A team of two doctors, 3 namely, Dr. Lalit Kishore Gussain (P.W.3) and Dr. M.K. Singh, conducted postmortem examination on 12.03.1997 at 3.00 P.M. and prepared autopsy report (Ext.A-1). In said report, they recorded ante mortem and post mortem injuries around the neck and opined that deceased had died of strangulation due to injuries caused by fingers, or foot or stick. On third day of incident i.e. 13.03.1997, First Information Report (Ext.A-2) was lodged by Jang Bahadur Singh (P.W.5), brother of the deceased, with Patwari of the area, Bagadwaldhar, alleging that Sunita Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and was killed by her husband accused / appellant Avtar Singh, Bachan Singh (father-in- law), Tankhi Devi (mother-in-law) and Ram Singh (brother-in-law). (In the interior hills of Uttarakhand certain revenue officials are given police powers under U.P. Government Notification No.494/VIII-418-16, dated 07.03.1916). On the basis of First Information Report (Ext.A-2), Crime No. 2 of 1997 was registered by Patwari and check report (Ext.A-9) was prepared. Initially, investigation was conducted by Satte Singh Bisht (P.W.7), Patwari, Bagadwaldhar, but the same was later transferred to Deputy S.P. Narain Singh 4 Napchayal (P.W.6), who completed investigation and submitted charge sheet (Ext.A-3) against all four accused, namely, Bachan Singh alias Palya, Avtar Singh (accused / appellant), Ram Singh and Tankhi Devi. (4) On receipt of the charge sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. The Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, on 08.08.1997, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. against all four accused, namely, Avtar Singh, Bachan Singh, Ram Singh and Tankhi Devi. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1-Sundar Singh, father of the deceased; P.W.2-Madan Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased; P.W.3-Dr. Lalit Kishore Gussain, who conducted postmortem examination; P.W.4-Vikram Singh, cousin of the deceased; P.W.5-Jang Bahadur Singh, complainant and brother of the deceased; P.W.6- Deputy S.P. Narain Singh Napchayal, who completed investigation; and P.W.7-Satte Singh Bisht, who started the investigation. The oral and 5 documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to which they alleged it to be false. However, they admitted that the deceased was married to accused / appellant Avtar Singh. In defence D.W.1-Chandan Singh was got examined, who has stated that accused / appellant Avtar Singh used to live with his wife (deceased) in his house and other members of family used to live separately. He has further stated that to the best of his knowledge there was no quarrel on account of demand of dowry. The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge is not proved against accused Ram Singh (brother-in-law of the deceased). However, the court found rest of the three accused guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 304- B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.. After hearing the parties on sentence, each one of the convicts was sentenced to imprisonment for life (under Section 304-B I.P.C.) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years (under Section 498-A I.P.C.). Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 06.01.1999, this appeal is got sent by accused / appellant Avtar Singh (husband of the deceased) through Superintendent of the Central Jail, Bareilly. 6 (5) Before further discussions, we think it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries recorded by a team of doctors, namely, Dr. Lalit Kishore Gussain (P.W.3) and Dr. M.K. Singh, who prepared autopsy report (Ext.A-1). Said report discloses following ante mortem injuries on dead body of Sunita Devi at the time of postmortem examination on 12.03.1997 at 3.00 P.M.:- (i) Contusion on the front of neck in its middle line, 15 cm above the supra sternal notch, 3cm x 2cm bluish black in colour, on dissection of neck, the subcutaneous tissues of the neck show extravasation of blood beneath the contusion. There is fracture of left superior horn of thyroid cartilage and the broken end is displaced inwards. (ii) Two contusions below the chin, 1cm apart. Right one was 1cm x .5cm bluish black in colour. Left one was .5cm x .5cm bluish black in colour. 7 (iii) Contusion on lower border of left mandible, 2.5cm lateral to mid part of chin, .5cm x .5cm bluish black in colour The team of Medical Officers have also observed postmortem injuries i.e. ligature mark above thyroid cartilage between larynx and chin directed obliquely upwards following the line of mandible on left side up to left mandibular angle. It is directed horizontally on right side of neck and encircling the back of neck and then directed obliquely upwards and forward up to the left mastoid process. Ligature mark had circumference of 30cm. The team of Medical Officers opined that deceased had died of asphyxia as a result of strangulation due to ante mortem injury No. 1, caused by fingers or foot or stick. From the statement of P.W.3-Dr. Lalit Kishore Gussain read with autopsy report (Ext.A- 1), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sunita Devi (wife of accused / appellant Avtar Singh) had died homicidal death on 11.03.1997. It further shows that she was hanged thereafter. It is admitted to the accused / appellant Avtar Singh that deceased was his wife. It is also proved from the statement of the witnesses that deceased had died within one year of her 8 marriage. Now, this Court has to see whether accused / appellant Avtar Singh subjected his wife Sunita Devi to cruelty and harassed her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. (6) P.W.1-Sundar Singh, father of the deceased, has stated that his daughter got married to accused-Avtar Singh. He has further stated that in the marriage, he gave his daughter nose ring, earrings, beddings, chair, table and boxes. After her marriage, Sunita Devi when came back to her parents’ house she told her father (P.W.1) that her husband (Avtar Singh), father-in-law (Bachan Singh), and mother-in-law (Tankhi Devi) used to beat her and asked her to bring some more money. P.W.1-Sundar Singh has further stated that he sent back his daughter to her in-law’s house, after consoling and advising her. He further told that he himself took his daughter to her in-laws house and on that very day in the evening in-laws of the deceased quarreled with her. (7) P.W.2-Madan Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased, has stated that when deceased met him after her marriage she told him that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her for bringing deficient dowry. This 9 witness (P.W.2) has further stated that deceased accused him that he got the marriage arranged and now she is suffering. (8) P.W.4-Vikram Singh has stated that deceased was his cousin. This witness also corroborated the evidence adduced by P.W.1- Sundar Singh, and P.W.2-Madan Singh that after her marriage when Sunita Devi came back to her parental house, she complained that she is being harassed and beaten by her in-laws, but she was sent back after being consoled and advised. (9) P.W.5-Jang Bahadur Singh, complainant, is real brother of the deceased, who has stated that his sister got married to accused Avtar Singh in June 1996. The witness has further stated that after her marriage whenever she used to come to her parental house she complained that her husband (Avtar Singh), father-in-law (Bachan Singh), mother-in-law (Tankhi Devi), and brother-in-law (Ram Singh) asked her for bringing some more money. Testimony of this witness as against Ram Singh is concerned, that does not get corroboration from statement of P.W.1-Sundar Singh, who has admitted in his 10 cross-examination that Ram Singh is a retarded person and not concerned with the incident. (10) After reappraisal of evidence on record, as discussed above, we concur with the trial court that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under Sections 304- B and 498-A I.P.C.. It is sufficiently proved on record that accused / appellant Avtar Singh committed cruelty and harassed the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and she died homicidal death within a period of one year of her marriage. That being so, we do not find that the impugned judgment and order suffers from any illegality. (11) Sri Raman Kumar Sah, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of appellant, drew attention of this Court to the fact that First Information Report (Ext.A-2) lodged by P.W.5- Jang Bahadur Singh is delayed one and after consultations, the complainant has falsely implicated accused / appellant Avtar Singh. Having gone through the record, we find that no doubt the First Information Report is delayed one, but there is sufficient explanation on record for the delay in lodging the First Information Report. It has come in the statement of P.W.5- 11 Jang Bahadur Singh that on 11.03.1997, father- in-law of the deceased told him (P.W.5) that deceased had committed suicide. It is quite possible that complainant and other blood relations of the deceased were in a condition of shock after hearing the news as deceased died within one year of her marriage. In the circumstances, when the inquest report was already prepared by the Patwari and body was already sent for postmortem examination, the complainant had naturally not shown hurry in lodging the First Information Report, but merely for the reason that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report, other clinching evidence, which has come on record against accused / appellant Avtar Singh, cannot be disbelieved. (12) Learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant further argued that conduct of accused / appellant who gave report (Ext.A-4) to Patwari of area shows it above board, and had he been guilty, he would not have informed the Patwari of the area about the death of his wife. We have gone through said report. Report (Ext.A-4), given by accused / appellant to the Patwari shows that in fact accused / appellant Avtar Singh has tried to conceal the fact that she was subjected to 12 cruelty before her death, and strangulated as observed by team of doctors in the autopsy report. In our opinion, this fact does not shake the prosecution story. (13) Lastly, it is argued on behalf of appellant Avtar Singh that deceased had committed suicide and she was not killed by accused / appellant or his parents. Assuming for a moment, as Amicus Curiae has contended on behalf of appellant story of suicide is true, even then the fact of offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. are proved and made out from the evidence on record as against appellant. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. it is not necessary that a woman should be murdered. It is sufficient to prove on record that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and died an unnatural death within seven year of her marriage, which has been shown and proved in this case. (14) For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find any force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. Lower Court Record be sent back. Registry is directed to 13 send copy of this order to the Superintendent of Jail where the accused / appellant Avtar Singh is serving out the sentence. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 11.06.2009 NS