IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 162-DB of 2007 Dated of Decision:- Febraury 05, 2009 Ramesh ....APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present:- Sh. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. Advocate General Haryana for respondent. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 4.1.2007 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, whereby he convicted Ramesh son of Azad Singh under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 304-B IPC. In default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three years. Under Section 498-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default to further undergo R.I. for nine months. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The learned trial Court had charged Azad Singh, Anaro and Ram Mehar, along with appellant Ramesh, but Azad Singh, Anaro and Ram 2 Criminal Appeal No. 162-DB of 2007 Mehar were acquitted. State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal. We are left with the case of Ramesh son of Azad Singh only. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PD of Sube Singh given to ASI Johri Mal at Police Station Bawanikhera at 3.00 p.m. Sube Singh stated, that he is an agriculturist. He had six daughters and two sons. His daughter Promila was married about five years back with Ramesh son of Azad Singh. She gave birth to two daughters. He had given dowry and spent more than his capacity on the marriage. Promila was pregnant for 5/6 months. She came from her in-laws’ house and told her parents, that her in-laws were demanding more dowry. He had given Rs. One lac to his daughter Promila. After some days, Promila came back to her parents’ house and stated that her in-laws were demanding more money. Sube Singh told her, that he could not afford any more money and told her to go back to her in-laws’ house. About 15 days before the occurrence, which took place on 27/28 June, 2005, Promila came back to her parents’ house and told her father, that her father-in-law Azad Singh, her mother-in- law, husband Ramesh and her Devar Ram Mehar were wanting more money. Sube Singh replied, that he had already paid Rs. One lac and did not have any more money, as he had to marry his five daughters. Promila went back to her in-laws’ house at Village Badsi. On 28.6.2005, Sube Singh came to know that Promila had died in her in-laws’ house. Promila was killed for dowry by her father-in-law Azad, mother-in-law Taro, husband Ramesh and Devar Ram Mehar. She was killed by pressing her throat. 3 Criminal Appeal No. 162-DB of 2007 On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PG/1 was registered on 28.6.2005 at 3.00 p.m. at Police Station Bawanikhera. Special report reached the J.M.I.C., Bhiwani on the same day at 6.45 p.m. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Dr. R.S.Punia PW1, Sube Singh PW2, Jaibir Singh PW3, MHC Wazir Singh PW4, C. Dalbir Singh PW5, Subhash Chander EHC PW6, Rajesh Kumar Photographer PW7, Johri Mal ASI PW8, Girish Kumar Draftsman PW9, SI Vikram Singh PW10 and SI Rajesh Kumar PW11. In defence, the appellant examined Satyavan DW1, Ram Bhagat DW2, Dilbag Singh DW3, Munish Kumar DW4 and Bhagat Singh DW5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there are discrepancies in the statements of Sube Singh Complainant PW2 and Jaibir Singh PW3. Both these witnesses have given different timings as to the intimation given regarding death of Promila and time of reaching at the Bus Stand. Strangely both these witnesses have stated, that there was no one in the house of the appellant, when they reached there. Both these witnesses i.e. Sube Singh PW2 and Jaibir Singh PW3 have been introduced later on. Sube Singh PW2 has stated in FIR Ex.PG/1 and his statement before the Court, that Promila was pregnant for 5/6 months, but this is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Sube Singh PW2 has not stated in FIR Ex.PG/1 or in his statement, that money was given to the appellant, but stated that the amount of Rs. One lac was given to his daughter. He could not tell the name of the commission agent to whom he had sold the wheat 4 Criminal Appeal No. 162-DB of 2007 crop. There are only allegations regarding demand of dowry. Bhagat Singh DW5 has stated in his testimony, that both the appellant and the deceased were living separately and the appellant had gone to Delhi and was not present in his house. He has put on record Toll Tax receipt Ex.DM dated 28.6.2005 showing, that at the time of occurrence, appellant was not in his house. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that occurrence had taken place on the night of 27/28 June, 2005. Sube Singh PW2 and his brother-in-law Jaibir Singh PW3 came to the house of the appellant on being informed about the death of Promila. FIR Ex.PG/1 was recorded on the statement Ex.PD of Sube Singh PW2 by ASI Johri Mal on 28.6.2005 at 3.00 p.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Bhiwani on the same day at 6.45 p.m. The promptness in recording the FIR, with all the allegations mentioned in it, itself goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. If there was any little doubt, benefit has been given to the co- accused of appellant Ramesh i.e. Azad Singh, Anaro and Ram Mehar, who have been acquitted. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant do not materially affect the case of the prosecution. They are minor discrepancies and every witness, who comes into the witness box after a long lapse of time, some sort of minor discrepancy crops up in the statement. Amount of Rs. One lac was given by Sube Singh PW2 to his daughter, as appellant Ramesh was demanding this amount and it can be 5 Criminal Appeal No. 162-DB of 2007 safely presumed, that this amount was given to appellant Ramesh, as he was the one who was harassing deceased Promila to get more dowry and money. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Sube Singh PW2 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that Promila kept complaining about her husband Ramesh’s taunting of her for getting less dowry. He gave Rs. One lac to the family members of his daughter prior to her death. Appellant being a greedy person, sent Promila back for getting more money, but Sube Singh PW2 did not have any more amount so that he could give it to her. On 28.6.2005, he came to know about the death of his daughter. He went to the house of her in-laws and saw the dead-body of his daughter. FIR Ex.PG/1 was recorded on 28.6.2005 at 3.00 p.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Bhiwani on the same day at 6.45 p.m. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. This itself goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. Discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are minor in nature and do not materially affect the case, regarding timing, as stated by Sube Singh PW2 and Jaibir Singh PW3 of getting the information at 6.00 A.M. or 7/8.00 A.M. Similarly both have stated, that they reached the Bus Stand; one (Jaibir Singh PW3) stating at 9.30 a.m. and other (Sube Singh PW2) staing at 10/11.00 a.m. When they went to the house of the in-laws of Promila, they did not find anybody in the house. This itself shows the guilt of the appellant, as they all had fled their house after committing the offence. 6 Criminal Appeal No. 162-DB of 2007 Both these witnesses, Sube Singh PW2 and Jaibir Singh PW3 are categorical, that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage of Promila and at the same time, they have stated, that appellant was demanding money and Rs. One lac was given. Sube Singh PW2 refused to give any more money, as he had to marry five of his daughters. Sube Singh PW2 has also stated, that he got this money by selling 400 quintals of his wheat crop. Appellant Ramesh has taken the plea of alibi. In his defence evidence, when appellant was asked to lead his evidence, he got into the witness box five witnesses. Satyawan DW1 has stated in his testimony that on 28.6.2005 at about 6.00/7.00 a.m., his wife went to fetch water from the public tap, as usual, but she did not see the wife of Ramesh. Thereafter Satyawan DW1, along with other persons, went to the house of appellant Ramesh and found Promila hanging with the cloth on a peg. They removed her from there and put her on a bed. At that time Ramesh was not present. In cross-examination, he has stated, that he did not disclose this fact to the police that they found Promila hanging. Statement of this witness does not get corroboration from the medical evidence. As per Dr. R.S. Punia PW1, who performed the post-mortem, on examination of the body, he found that there was ligature mark present around the neck and on the right side of the neck, there was an abrasion mark of thumb size. Clotted blood was present. On further examination he found thyroid cartilage was fractured. If we go by the statement of Satyawan DW1, that Promila was hanging with a cloth by a peg, there should have been ligature marks on her whole neck, but only one ligature mark and another abrasion mark of thumb size on the right side of the neck are present as per the medical evidence. One can 7 Criminal Appeal No. 162-DB of 2007 safely conclude, that appellant throttled Promila and pressed the wind pipe with his thumb so strongly that the mark was left there. Presence of the thumb mark was there, which led to the fracture of thyroid cartilage. Bhagat Singh DW5 has stated, that he had to purchase almirah and tools for his shop, for which he had held opening ceremony at Hansi. Appellant Ramesh had a pick-up vehicle and he hired it from Ramesh for going to Delhi. They started for Delhi at 4.00 a.m. They paid octroi tax at Bahadurgarh octroi and obtained the receipt. When they reached at Peeragarhi, New Delhi, they received a call on the Cell phone about the death of Promila. From there, Ramesh went back to his house. This witness has put a false story. Occurrence had taken place in this case on the night of 27/28 June, 2005, which is corroborated by the other evidence on record. By 4.00 a.m., as stated by Bhagat Singh DW5, appellant Ramesh left for Delhi. At that time, Promila died and was lying in the house and Ramesh could not have left for Delhi, as the body of Promila had been discovered in the early morning, as per statement of Satyawan DW1. FIR Ex.PG/1 also had come into existence at 3.00 p.m. Both these witnesses Satyawan DW1 and Bhagat Singh DW5 have mis-stated to the Court to help out appellant Ramesh. With the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Conviction of the appellant is maintained. Sentence of the appellant seems to be on the higher side. Sentence of the appellant is modified to 10 years R.I. under Section 304-B IPC. Under Section 498-A IPC, sentence shall remain intact. Fine shall 8 Criminal Appeal No. 162-DB of 2007 remain intact, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for the period as ordered by the trial Court. If on bail, appellant is directed to present himself before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, so that he could undergo the remaining part of his sentence. With the above modification in sentence, appeal is dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (L.N.MITTAL) February 05, 2009 JUDGE SKArora WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO