Criminal Appeal No.607-DBA of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. State of Haryana APPELLANT VERSUS Sanjay and others RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Shri S.S.Randhawa, Additional A.G. Haryana for the State. Shri Jasjeet Singh Bedi, Advocate for the respondent. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No.607-DB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.727 of 2001 by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 3.11.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby he acquitted Babu Ram son of Balwant Singh, Bimla Devi wife of Babu Ram, Sudesh wife of Harish and convicted Sanjay son of Babu Ram under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple Criminal Appeal No.607-DBA of 2001 -2- imprisonment for two months. Sanjay was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of Sanjay under Section 304-B I.P.C. Sanjay-respondent did not file any appeal against his conviction and sentence. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Dharambir Singh son of Kundan Lal father of deceased Mukesh. Dharambir stated that he has two children, a son and a daughter. Daughter Mukesh was married on 7.3.1991 to Sanjay son of Babu Tam. Out of this wedlock a daughter was born. Her age was 5 years on the date of occurrence. Dharambir had given sufficient dowry as per his means. Dharambir further stated that Bimla mother-in-law of Mukesh, Babu Ram father-in-law and Sudesh sister-in-law (Nanad), used to harass her and taunt her, that she had brought inadequate dowry. They further stated that Mukesh was from a poor family. Mukesh talked about this to her mother. Dharambir along with his son went several times to village Marodhi Rangran, to request the in-laws of Mukesh not to harass her. About 1-1/2 years before the occurrence, he paid Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- so that the in-laws of Mukesh could be satisfied. There was a demand of Chakki (grinder) which Dharambir met. The Chakki was worth Rs.1500/-. Dharambir further stated that his daughter Mukesh stayed with him most of the time because of the harassment, on account of demand of dowry. Panchayats were convened 2/3 times. The last panchayat took place on 6.6.1997. On reaching the house of the in-laws of Mukesh in Village Marodhi Rangra, he requested them not to harass his daughter. He agreed to the demand of giving colour TV Set, which he would send after arranging money. He further stated that last night his daughter was burnt by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and she is admitted in the P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak. Criminal Appeal No.607-DBA of 2001 -3- A case under Section 304-B/498-A I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Kalanaur. Smt.Mukesh succumbed to her injuries in the hospital on 2.10.1997. Post-mortem was conducted and the following injuries were found on her person by Dr.O.P.Dhaniya :- “There were superficial to deep burns of varying degree involving whole of the body except scalp. There was singing of scalp and public hair. There was red line of demarcation present. Area of burns involved was approximately 98%. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Ishwar PW-1, Dr.R.P.Verma PW-2, Dr.O.P.Dhaniya PW-3, HC Sukhbir Singh PW-4, Sumit Kumar PW-5, Samunder Singh PW-6, Dr.V.V.Prashar PW-7, Jagdish PW-8, SI Ram Parkash PW-9, Om Parkash alias Omla, PW-10, Sunil Kumar PW- 11, Dharamvir PW-12, Champa Devi PW-13, Mata Din PW-14 and SI Mahender Singh PW-15. Dalip Singh DW-1, Umer Singh DW-2, Budh Ram Yadav, DW-3, Ram Raji Bhardwaj DW-4, Kewal Krishan DW-5, Dr.Usha Wishawnathan DW-6 and Vijay Kumar DW-7 were examined in defence. Learned counsel for the State/appellant has argued that the death of Smt.Mukesh had taken place within seven years of her marriage in the house of the respondent/ accused. The death was unnatural. She had been harassed because of demand of dowry. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is cogent and convincing. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has argued that nothing has come on record that the marriage of Sanjay and Smt.Mukesh was solemnised seven years prior to the occurrence. The testimony of Dharambir PW-12, Champa Criminal Appeal No.607-DBA of 2001 -4- Devi PW-13 and Mata Din PW-14 is not consistent. These witnesses have contradicted each other on material facts. Mata Din PW-14 has stated that there was no demand of dowry made by the respondent/accused. The demand of dowry, if made, was not soon before the death of Smt.Mukesh, but 1-1/2 years prior to her death. If no demand had been made in this intervening period, the presumption is that both Sanjay and Smt.Mukesh were living a happy married life. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment with their assistance. The date of marriage of Sanjay and Smt.Mukesh is 7.3.1991. The respondent/accused has tried to make the date of marriage being 7.3.1990 by getting on record a Photostat copy of the record of Kanyadaan Ex.PS and the date of marriage Ex.PR. Oral evidence has also been brought on record in the form of the statement of Dharambir PW-12, Champa Devi PW-13 and Mata Din PW-14. From the statement of the priest who solemnised the marriage Om Parkash PW-10 and by the evidence on record, it is clear that the marriage was solemnised on 7.3.1991. Death of Smt.Mukesh took place within seven years. The learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no cruelty or demand of dowry soon before the death of Smt.Mukesh. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the demand of dowry and the payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- and Chakki (grinder) worth Rs.1500/-, was 1-1/2 years before the occurrence had taken place. In fact, Champa Devi PW- 13 has stated that the demand for Atta Chakki (grinder) was made 2 years before the death of Smt.Mukesh. There are discrepancies with regard to the demand in the list given by Dharambir PW-12, regarding articles at Sr.No.29 and 30. In fact, in the list Ex.PQ, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been demanded and given. This has also Criminal Appeal No.607-DBA of 2001 -5- created a doubt that the difference of money is a large amount as spelt out in the F.I.R. and in the statement of Dharambir PW-12. Harassment, demand of dowry and cruelty has also not been proved by the prosecution. Dharambir PW-12 in the F.I.R. and in his statement before the Court, has not mentioned the name of Sudesh, (Nanad) of Smt.Mukesh. In fact, the Investigating Officer put her name in Column No.2 when he presented the challan. She was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court, vide order dated 4.9.1998. The respondent/accused has brought into the witness-box Dalip Singh DW-1, Umer Singh DW-2 and Kewal Krishan DW-5 who had attended the panchayat which had been convened by Dharambir PW-12. They have stated that Babu Ram respondent/accused, father-in-law of Smt.Mukesh had stated in the panchayat that he was ready to face any punishment given by the panchayat, if he is found guilty. They have further stated that Dharambir PW-12 had admitted that demand of dowry was not the dispute, but there was some other dispute/discord between Sanjay and Smt.Mukesh. From the above discussion and observations, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Though Sanjay – respondent has not filed any appeal against his conviction and sentence, we deem it appropriate to suo motto consider the legality of his conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. while reappraising the evidence on record to secure the ends of justice. We are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted Sanjay under Section 498-A I.P.C. Demand of dowry has not been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Sanjay is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentence are set aside. Criminal Appeal No.607-DBA of 2001 -6- Criminal Appeal No.607-DBA of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.727 of 2001 are dismissed. ( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) October 6, 2009 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO