Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana

3. Vipin @ Chanchal @ Rekha, the deceased and Ashok Kumar, the appellant herein, were married on 9th October, 1986. Harbans Lal, the father of the deceased had given sufficient dowry at the time of her marriage according to his means, desire and capacity. But, the appellant and his family members i.e. Mukesh Kumar, the brother of the appellant and Smt. Lajwanti, the mother of the appellant were not satisfied with the dowry. They allegedly used to harass and maltreat the deceased and used to give her beatings. They had demanded a refrigerator, a television etc. One week prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased came to the house of her father at Kaithal and narrated the story. She specifically mentioned that her husband wanted to set up a new business for which he required a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The 2 father of the deceased could not manage the same due to which the appellant and his family members particularly, Lajwanti and Mukesh alleged to have burnt the deceased by sprinkling kerosene oil on her as a result of which the deceased died in the hospital at about 4.00 p.m. on 16.05.1988. The father of the deceased received information of the incident from his sister's son Subhash Chand. Neither the appellant nor his family members informed him about the said demise.

The father of the deceased moved a complaint (Ex. PA) before SI Randhir Mohan who made endorsement (Ex. PA/1) on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PU) was recorded. This was done by SI Randhir Mohan on the basis of ruqa (Ex. PQ) received on 16.05.1988 at about 5.45 p.m. The deceased was brought to the hospital as a burnt case in gasping condition and she expired in casualty. The said officer went to the General Hospital, completed the proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short `the Cr.PC') and during those proceedings he recorded the statements of Lajwanti, mother in law of the deceased, Ram Lal, father in law of the deceased, Khem Chand, Harbans Lal and one Arjun Dass. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem which was handed 3 over to Hanbans Lal, after the post mortem. The complaint was made by Harbans Lal (PW-1) on 17th May, 1988. Site Plan (Ex. PW) as well as the photographs (Ex. P-14 to P-17) and their negatives (Ex. P-18 to P-21) were prepared by Photographer Satish Kumar (PW-10). Ex. P6 was also taken into possession which was half burnt small tin, containing 3 litres of kerosene oil under Ex. PH which was sealed. Certain other goods like hammer (Ex. PK), broken piece of a wooden door (Ex. P-11), half burnt match stick, match box etc (Ex. P-12) were also taken into possession.

25 In the postmortem report it was noticed that the cause of death was shock and dehydration which resulted from extensive burn injuries, which were ante-mortem. The postmortem report (Ex. PO) and the body sketch (Ex. PO/1) clearly demonstrate that practically the entire body had been affected by the burn injuries. The prosecution had examined Harbans Lal, the father of the deceased (PW-1), who stated that immediately after the marriage of deceased with the accused, both were living happily and he had given dowry according to his capacity, but six months after her marriage, her husband and her in-laws started teasing her and giving taunts that she had not brought T.V. and Fridge etc. in the dowry and whenever she used to come to him she mentioned about the same and 20 days prior to her death she had told him that she was being troubled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- so that her husband could change to a new business and while consoling her, he told her that he would arrange for the money in some time and took her at the house of her in-laws 7-8 days prior to her death. He also stated that Ashok Kumar, the 26 accused, Lajwanti, the mother-in-law of the deceased and Mukesh, brother-in-law of the deceased, used to give her beatings and he had filed the complaint (Ex.PA). Ex.PB and Ex. PC were the letters which he had given to the police, however, this witness was cross-examined and confronted with Ex. PA, where the allegation about T.V. and Fridge etc. had not been recorded. He voluntarily stated that his son- in-law (the accused) used to deal in vegetables but he wanted to change to Kariyana business, and that is why he wanted a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Smt. Krishna Rani, the mother of the deceased, was examined as PW-2. She admitted that a child was born from the marriage. She had also corroborated the statement of PW 1. According to her, Lajwanti told that the deceased had expired. Subhash Chand (PW-3) stated that he had informed Harbans Lal (PW-1) about the death of the deceased due to burn injuries and stated that they (the husband of the deceased and her in-laws) used to ill-treat the deceased and were demanding dowry. However, he did not refer to the demand of Rs. 5,000/-, as stated by other witnesses. To prove the case Karta Ram, SI (PW-6), Darshan Lal, H.C. (PW-7), Ranbir Mohan, SI (PW-8), the police officials, were also examined by the prosecution apart from Kharati Lal, Kariyana 27 Merchant (PW-4). Dr. Manjula Bansal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jind (PW-5), was examined to prove the death of the deceased which was caused by burn injuries.

32. Having found no infirmity in the concurrent judgments of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court, we see no reason to interfere in these judgments in law or on facts. Thus, we sustain the conviction of the accused.

33. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, there are few factors of which we must take note of. It is not even the case of the prosecution that at the time of occurrence, the accused-appellant was present at home and he failed to protect or save the deceased from burning which caused her death. Secondly, the marriage itself has survived for a short period of nearly one and a half year. The cruelty and harassment to the deceased was stated to be caused by Lajwanti, the mother in law of the deceased and Mukesh, the brother in law of the deceased. As already noticed, Lajwanti and Mukesh 33 have been acquitted by the High Court for total lack of evidence. Neither the State nor the complainant has preferred an appeal against judgment of acquittal. The accused is a young person of 48 years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met by awarding him the minimum sentence provided in law, i.e. 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. Resultantly, the appeal is partially accepted and the accused-appellant is awarded sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 304-B of the Code.

34. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.

35. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds and surety stand discharged. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.