Rajeev Kumar vs State Of Haryana

Post mortem was carried out on the body of Vandana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) by Dr. S.S. Bansal. The Police then took up the investigation and submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant.

3. On 28.08.1991, the Sessions Court framed a charge under Section 304B, IPC, against the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the prosecution examined Kedar Nath, who had prepared the scaled plan (Ext. PA) on the place of occurrence, as PW-1; Dr. R.C. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Mandi Dabwali, who had examined the deceased and found the burn injuries on her body as PW-2; S.I. Kuldeep Singh of P.S. Dabwali, who had registered the FIR as PW-3; the landlord of the house in which the deceased lived with her husband as PW-4; Niranjan Ram Gupta, the father of the deceased, as PW-5; Bhupinder Kumar, the uncle of the deceased as PW-6; Dr. S.S. Bansal, who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased as PW-7; R.S. Bagri, the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 164, Cr.P.C. as PW-8 and ASI Madan Lal, the Investigating Officer, as PW-9. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. In defence, the appellant examined Ramesh Devra as DW-1; Jagdish Kumar as DW-2; Nihal Singh, Assistant Chief Medical Officer, Sirsa, as DW-3; Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sirsa, as DW-4 and Dr. J.L. Bhutani as DW-5. After considering the evidence and the arguments on behalf of the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in his judgment dated 31.08.1992 held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant and accordingly convicted him under Section 304B, IPC. Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the accused on the quantum of sentence and ordered that the appellant be sentenced to seven years R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of six months.

4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1992 before the High Court. After hearing the appeal, the High Court in the impugned judgment held that the deceased had indicated in her dying declarations (Exts.PG and PN) before ASI Madan Lal and the Judicial Magistrate R.S. Bagri that she was being harassed by her husband with demands of dowry on account of which she had sprinkled kerosene on herself before setting herself ablaze. The High Court further held that the statement of the deceased in these two dying declarations (Exts. PG and PN) that she was being harassed for dowry stood corroborated by the evidence of the father of the deceased (PW-5) and uncle of the deceased (PW-6). The High Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the deceased was not in the medical condition to speak inasmuch as her larynx and tracheae had been charred by burns, relying on the testimony of the medical experts Dr. R.C. Chaudhary (PW-2) and Dr. J.L. Bhutani (DW-5) as well as the testimony of the ASI Madan Lal (PW-9) and the Judicial Magistrate R.S. Bagri (PW-8), who had recorded the dying declarations of the deceased. The High Court accordingly held that there was no ground to interfere with the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal of the appellant.

14. We have also examined the decision of this Court in Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana (supra), cited by Mr. Sharma, and we find that the facts in that case were that the appellant Bansi Lal was married to Sarla on 04.04.1988. She was subjected to cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry and on 25.06.1991 she died. After investigation of the case, prosecution filed a charge-sheet against Bansi Lal and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and charges were framed against them under Sections 498A, 304B and 306, IPC, and they were convicted for the said charges by the trial court. The High Court, however, acquitted Smt. Shanti Devi, but convicted Bansi Lal because of demand of dowry and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry to which the deceased was subjected to by him. Bansi Lal had made a statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that Sarla was in love with some other person but she was forced to marry Bansi Lal against her will due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note to that effect. On these facts, this Court held that once it is shown that soon before her death the deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, and if the case of the Bansi Lal was that Sarla has committed suicide, the onus was on him to establish his defence by leading sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he has not caused the dowry death, but Bansi Lal has failed to discharge that onus.

17. In this case also, we hold the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 498A and 306, IPC. Considering the particular conduct of the appellant which drove the deceased to commit suicide, we impose a sentence of one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498A, IPC and impose a sentence of three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 306, IPC, and direct that in case of failure to pay the fine for either of the two offences, the appellant shall undergo a further imprisonment for a period of six months. We make it clear that the sentences of imprisonment for the two offences will run concurrently. If the appellant has already undergone the punishment imposed by this judgment, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

18. The appeal is allowed to that extent.