Devi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan

3. After the birth of the child, she came back to her matrimonial home. A few days prior to the incident which took place on 9.5.1994 her uncle Ranveer (PW-2) visited her. She made complaints about the harassments meted out to her. Ranveer conveyed the same to her father. On 9.5.1994, his nephew, Madan Lal (PW-7) was going to some place. Hazari Ram asked him to take him to his daughters place. On reaching the house of Pushpa, he enquired about her. No response thereto was made but later on he was informed that she had died and the dead body has been cremated. Hazari Ram allegedly came back to his village. He went back to Umawali. A Panchayat was held. Appellants family accepted the purported mistake that they should have informed Hazari Ram about the death of his daughter. It was agreed that some lands would be settled in the name of the son of Pushpa.

4. On 9.5.1994, a first information report was lodged by Hazari Ram. It appears from the records that investigating agency had been helping the accused. A purported supplementary statement of Hazari Ram was recorded wherein he had allegedly accepted that he was present at the time of funeral. A final form was submitted. However, a protest petition was filed whereupon cognizance of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (Code) was taken. Charges were framed under Section 304B of the Code and in the alternative under Section 306 read with Section 498A thereof. The Trial Court convicted both the accused, namely, Devi Lal and his mother Sukh Devi.

5. An appeal having been preferred by the accused thereagainst before the High Court, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed; but that of Sukh Devi was allowed.

8. Defence of the accused before the learned Trial Judge was that as Pushpa Devi delivered a child, the societal norms by way of custom demanded that the occasion be celebrated by offering gifts and distributing sweets, meal etc. by the maternal grand-father of the child. It was pointed out that almost at the same time, elder brother Banwari Lals wife also delivered a child and there was a big celebration. Pushpa wanted his father to celebrate the function of her son in a similar manner. But the same was not done. She not only came back from her parents house but after a few days committed suicide. It was furthermore the case of the defence that Hazari Ram was informed about the death of his daughter through one Nand Ram, pursuant whereto, he attended the funeral. Prior thereto, a village panchayat was held and he was informed about his right to lodge a first information report but he declined to do so as a representation was made that some land would be transferred in the name of the child.

10. Hazari Ram examined himself as PW-1. According to him, he gave to his daughter at the time of her marriage articles beyond his capacity, but the family members of the appellant were not pleased with the amount of dowry given and, therefore, they used to harass Pushpa. According to him, Ram Swaroop, father of the appellant, was a gentleman and he had all along been assuring him that they would try to make the appellant and his mother understand but they had not been heeding his advice. He categorically stated that even after the delivery of child, Pushpa asked him to call his father-in- law so that would be pleased. She had also asked him to give some gifts to him. Ram Swaroop came to his place and took his daughter-in-law back. He stated that whenever he would go to his daughter-in-laws house, Ram Swaroop used to assure him with folded hands that he would make Devi Lal and his mother understand. Five to seven days prior to the death of his daughter, his brother Ranveer had gone to meet her. He had informed him about the beating and harassment to his daughter and that he was asked to visit his daughters place. He, in his examination-in-chief, supported the statement made by him in his first information report.

25. Evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly suggest that Pushpa had all along been subjected to harassment or cruelty only on the ground that her father had not given enough dowry at the time of marriage. For proving the said fact, it was not necessary that demand of any particular item should have been made.

30. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.