Crl. Misc. No.40658 of 2010 [ 1 ] Crl. Appeal No. 933-MA of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.40658 of 2010 Crl. Appeal No. 933-MA of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: Sept.27,2010 State of Punjab ................................................................. Appellant Versus Satrohan Dubey ............................................................ Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh Present: Mr. A.S.Grewal, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the appellant. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. C.M. No. 40658 of 2010 There is a delay of 39 days in filing this appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay is condoned. C.M. is disposed of. Main case The State of Punjab is partly aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the respondent-Satrohan Dubey was acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B and 120-B IPC whereas the State is, however, not challenging the conviction of the accused Lalit Kumar and Phulo Devi. Crl. Misc. No.40658 of 2010 [ 2 ] Crl. Appeal No. 933-MA of 2010 (O&M) The prosecution story in nutshell is that Jyoti daughter of Satish Kumar was married to Lalit Kumar (accused). No issue was born out of this wedlock. Some time after their marriage, Lalit Kumar asked Jyoti that she should bring more dowry as at the time of her marriage she had brought very less dowry. He demanded that she should ask her parents to give him a gold chain and a cycle otherwise he would not keep her. On 20.2.2006, Laxmi Devi, mother of Jyoti, along with her nephew Kundan Kumar went to see her daughter at her in-laws house. There Jyoti said her mother that they should take her along with them as her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-law's husband are torturing her for bringing less dowry. While weeping, Jyoti told her mother that her in-laws are demanding that a gold chain and a cycle be given. On 28.2.2006 at about 9:30 A.M. Laxmi Devi received a telephonic call from Jyoti's mother-in-law Phulo Devi and Jyoti's sister-in-law Babita, informing her that Jyoti had burnt herself to death. Laxmi Devi along with her nephew Kundan Kumar, Ravi Kumar and some other persons of the locality reached Jyoti's in-laws' house where they saw that Jyoti's dead body was lying in a badly burnt condition in a room. Laxmi Devi, mother of the deceased, reported the matter to the police and on her statement, the case was registered against the accused. Charges under Sections 120-B and 304-B IPC were framed against the three accused, namely, Phulo Devi (mother-in-law), Lalit Kumar (husband) and Satrohan Dubey (brother-in-law of the deceased) to which they pleaded not guilty. The trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the charges against accused Phulo Devi and Lalit Kumar Crl. Misc. No.40658 of 2010 [ 3 ] Crl. Appeal No. 933-MA of 2010 (O&M) stand fully proved and accordingly both were convicted under Sections 304- B and 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. However, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence against Satrohan Dubey was not inspiring enough to reach a conclusion that he was also involved in the crime. Accordingly, the respondent was acquitted of all the charges. Counsel for the State has submitted that the respondent has played an equal part in demanding dowry from the deceased and as his role is similar to that of the other two accused, namely Lalit Kumar and Phulo Devi, hence he is also liable to be convicted and sentenced under Sections 120-B and 304-B IPC. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that Satrohan Dubey has been involved in the case as he is the brother-in-law of the accused Lalit Kumar. The complainant Laxmi Devi, who is the mother of the deceased Jyoti, has stated that the accused were demanding a gold chain and a cycle. She has, however, categorically stated that the aforementioned demand was made only by Lalit Kumar accused and not by the respondent Satrohan Dubey. She has further admitted that the respondent never demanded any dowry article either from her or from her deceased daughter. She has further stated that she had named Satrohan Dubey as he is the relative of Phulo Devi and Lalit Kaur, the other accused. This witness has also stated that on the date of incident, Satrohan Dubey was not present at the place of occurrence. She has also stated that she does not know where the respondent resides nor where he is working. Apart from the statement of Laxmi Devi, there is the testomony of Ravinder Kumar (PW5), who is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He Crl. Misc. No.40658 of 2010 [ 4 ] Crl. Appeal No. 933-MA of 2010 (O&M) has stated in his examination-in-chief that he cannot say whether Babita and her husband Satrohan Dubey ever harassed the deceased on account of dowry. Subsequently, while correcting himself he had stated that although Babita used to harass the deceased Jyoti and demanded dowry but he has clearly stated that her husband i.e. Satrohan Dubey never harassed the deceased. From the aforementioned statement of the complainant as well as of PW5 Ravinder Kumar, it is clear that no overt act has been attributed to the respondent. None of the prosecution witnesses has levelled any allegation that the respondent also harassed the deceased and demanded dowry. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, it is obvious that there was hardly any evidence against the respondent to implicate him in the crime. The trial Court has rightly acquitted Satrohan Dubey of the charges under Sections 120-B and 304-B IPC. In view of the above, we find no ground to grant leave to appeal. Therefore, leave to appeal is declined. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE 27.9.2010 ( NAWAB SINGH ) Rupi JUDGE