Case: MAHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

2. The prosecution was set in motion on the statement of PW3 Sohan Lal/Complainant - father of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer Assim Khan PW9. The Complainant stated that Mahesh Kumar got married to the deceased Omwati on 26.05.1991. But soon after the marriage, she was illtreated by her husband Mahesh Kumar, father-in-law Rajpal, mother-in-law Smt. Savitri and sister-in-law Kamlesh, as they demanded dowry. Complainant further claims that he gave dowry more than his capacity, even gave the accused a gold chain after one year of marriage, but they were still not satisfied and therefore they would beat the deceased. The deceased sent a letter to the complainant informing him about the same, after which, the complainant went to the village where his daughter was residing, met her and her in- laws and informed them that he was unable to satisfy their demand of dowry as it was beyond his capacity and that his daughter should not be harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. The complainant states that the deceaseds in-laws had tendered an apology at that time and her father-in-law executed the same in writing and promised to send her to her parental home on Raksha Bandhan. Subsequently, after the festival, she was sent back to her matrimonial house with the appellant, and at that time the complainant had given them a sum of Rs.1,000/- in cash. After about ten months, the appellant left the deceased at her brother Rajbirs house and demanded Rs.5,000/-. It is further claimed that, on 03.02.1994, the Complainant paid Rs.2,000/- to the appellant when he came to take the deceased back with him and promised to pay the remaining amount soon, after arranging the same. At that time, the deceased had apparently expressed apprehension that her in-laws would not allow her to live, lest the demands are met. It was on 08.02.1994, that the complainant received information that his daughter, had expired in Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, and alleges that the same was caused by the administration of poison by the accused. An FIR was thus lodged on 09.02.1994, against the appellant, the deceaseds father-in-law Rajpal, mother-in-law Smt. Savitri and sister-in-law Kamlesh3. The investigation was conducted by Investigating Officer Assim Khan PW9 and all the four accused were arrested. After completing investigation, a report was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon who committed the case to the trial court. The charge was framed against all the four accused under Section 304- B IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in all4. The trial court held that the letters written by the deceased with oral evidence in the form of statements of Complainant PW3 – Sohan Lal and PW4- Rajbir, brother of the deceased, are sufficient to establish that deceased was continuously harassed and met with cruelty on account of dowry and as such it is a case of dowry death. The trial court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case only against Appellant/Mahesh Kumar, husband of the deceased and Savitri Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased whereas in respect of accused Rajpal and Kamlesh, the trial court held that no specific role is assigned to them and, therefore, they were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted5. Aggrieved against the order of trial court, accused Mahesh Kumar and Savitri Devi filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, while granting benefit of doubt to accused Savitri Devi, allowed her appeal and acquitted her of the charges whereas sentence of appellant Mahesh Kumar was reduced to seven years6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, appellant Mahesh Kumar is in appeal before this Court.

Reasoning:
14. In the present case, the prosecution relies upon the statement of PW3 Sohan Lal - father and PW4 Rajbir - brother of the deceased which has been made basis of conviction by courts below. However, we find that such statements are not sufficient to provethat the deceased was treated with cruelty relating to demand of dowry soon before her death in the absence of independent evidence though available but not examined. A memorandum Ex.PE/1 dt. 25.01.1992 was relied upon and said to be executed by the in-laws of the deceased in the presence of members of Panchayat. But none of the Panchayat Members have been examined to prove the settlement arrived at. Therefore, the oral statements cannot be relied upon in view of the letters produced by the prosecution15. The prosecution also relies upon letter Ex. PF/1 written by the deceased to her father. The letter is to the effect that her in-laws have started hating and suspecting the deceaseds father, therefore, he should not give them the gold chain but only cash. Such letter does not show that anything was demanded by the appellant. The date of sending such letter has not been proved by the prosecution, therefore, it cannot be said that such letter was written soon before her death. Similarly, another letter produced by the prosecution is Ex. PK/1 which is a letter of the deceased to her brother-in-law(sisters-husband) stating that she has no problem with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law but her husband beats her daily. The date of this letter has not been proved nor does such letter lead to any inference for the demand of dowry by the husband of the deceased. Further, an additional letter relied upon by the prosecution is Ex. PG/1 dated 25.05.1992, wherein the deceased has written that she is unhappy and harassed by her in-laws in as much as her mother-in-law does not like the food she cooks. Again, there is no inference of any demand of dowry in such letter as well. Therefore, the documentary evidence in the shape of letters does not support the story of the prosecution16. In view of the judgments referred to above, the prosecution has failed to prove either the demand of dowry or that any such demand was raised soon before her death. Therefore, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 304-B of IPC are not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has even failed to prove the initial presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act17. We find that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.