Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hukam Chand And Others vs State Of Haryana on 20 April, 2011

Author:
Jora Singh

Bench:
Jora Singh

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision:20.4.2011

(I) Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998

Hukam Chand and others

... Appellants
versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent

(II) Crl.Revision No.404 of 1998

Shiv Kumar

... Petitioner
versus
Hukam Chand and others
... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.

Present: Mrs.Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate,
for the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 &
respondent Nos.1 to 6 in Crl.Rev.No.404 of 1998
Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate, with
Mr.Deepinder Singh, Mr.S.K.Narwana
& Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocates,
for the petitioner-complainant.
Mr.Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
...

JORA SINGH, J.

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 was preferred by Hukam

Chand, Dinesh Kumar and Sudershna to impugn the judgment of conviction

dated 17.12.1997 and order of sentence dated 20.12.1997 rendered by

Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 145 of

24.12.1994, arising out of FIR No.259 dated 26.8.1994 under Sections 304-

B/498-A/120-B
IPC
, Police Station City, Kaithal.

By the said judgment, they were convicted under
Sections 498-

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 2

A and 304-B
IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine

of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 2

months each under
Section 498-A
IPC and to undergo RI for 7 years each

under
Section 304-B
IPC.

However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Co-accused Rajesh son of Hukam Chand, Sangita and Sobha

daughters of Hukam Chand were acquitted of the charge levelled against

them. Against their acquittal, no appeal by the State.

Crl.Revision No.404 of 1998 was instituted by Shiv Kumar

against the acquittal of Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha and awarding of less

sentence to Hukam Chand, Dinesh Kumar and Sudershna.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Shiv Kumar, complainant, is

the resident of Bhiwani and has 5 sisters. Suman was the youngest and was

28 years' old. She was MA, M.Phil., M.Ed and was married with Dr. Dinesh

Kumar resident of Kaithal. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was

given as per their status. Before marriage, i,e., next day of holi festival,

complainant along with Subhash Chand Jain had gone to Kaithal. Raj

Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, Kaithal, was requested to accompany them.

Then they had gone to the house of Hukam Chand. Rs.4,10,000/- in cash

was paid to Hukam Chand for purchase of dowry articles in the presence of

his family members. Raj Kumar Bindlish was the mediator and at the time

of engagement, Rs.10,000/- in cash and other articles were given. At the

time of marriage, jewellery and clothes were given. At the time of departure

of baraat, Rs.11,000/- was given in cash to Hukam Chand, Dinesh Kumar,

Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha. After marriage for the first time when Suman

came to Bhiwani, then she was tense and unhappy. On enquiry, she did not

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 3

disclose anything. Second time when she came to Bhiwani, then told that

her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law, brother-in-law and husband

misbehaved with her for want of dowry. Suman further stated that Hukam

Chand and Dinesh Kumar were pressurizing her to bring entire amount

lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates and in her saving

bank account. But she replied to her in-laws that amount was given to her

by her late father. Even her brother did not withdraw a single penny from

her FDRs, share certificates and bank account at the time of her marriage

and showed her inability to bring payment. But Hukam Chand and Dinesh

Kumar had pressurized her to bring payment for opening Nursing Home.

Then complainant had paid Rs.60,000/- to avoid harassment of Suman.

Despite receipt of Rs.60,000/-, behaviour of in-laws of Suman did not

change. On 31.7.1994, Suman came to Bhiwani and told that Dinesh Kumar

and his family members were pressurizing to bring Rs.1,00,000/- lying

deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates and saving bank account,

failing which, she was to face the consequences. On 10.8.1994, Dinesh

Kumar was to visit Bhiwani to take back Suman but he did not turn up. On

11.8.1994 on telephone, Dinesh Kumar told that he was unable to visit

Bhiwani and requested complainant party to leave Suman at Kaithal. As per

request of Dinesh Kumar, Suman was sent to Kaithal along with Sunder Lal,

brother of complainant, and his son Rajinder. Sunder Lal came back on the

same day to Bhiwani and told that behaviour of in-laws of Suman was not

good. Rajinder was requested to stay at Kaithal because in-laws of Suman

wanted a talk between Rajinder and Dinesh Kumar. Next day, Rajinder

came back to Bhiwani and informed the complainant party that Suman was

threatened in his presence by Dinesh Kumar and his family members as to

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 4

why she kept jewellery in the lock and key and why she failed to bring

payment lying deposited in her name. Then Suman started weeping.

Rajinder also told the complainant that Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar

directed him to send the payment as demanded by them, which was lying

deposited in the name of Suman. Complainant had a talk with Hukam

Chand that already he (complainant) had given sufficient amount and now

not proper for them to harass Suman. On 26.8.1994 in the morning at 6.30

AM, complainant received telephonic message from Hukam Chand that

Suman was electrocuted while ironing the clothes with electric press and

requested him to visit Kaithal. Complainant enquired from Hukam Chand

about the condition of Suman but he requested to come soon and telephone

was disconnected. After that, complainant on telephone requested Raj

Kumar Bindlish to report about the real facts after enquiry. Complainant

again tried to contact Raj Kumar Bindlish but he was not at his house. His

wife replied that Raj Kumar Bindlish had gone to the house of Hukam

Chand from where Raj Kumar Bindlish reported to the complainant that

Suman had died due to electrocution while ironing the clothes. He also

informed the complainant that Suman was totally burnt and requested to

visit Kaithal immediately. As per telephonic message, complainant along

with his family members had gone to Kaithal. Dead body of Suman was

found lying in the courtyard. Statement of Shiv Kumar was recorded by

ASI Ram Pal. Shiv Kumar had signed the same in token of its correctness.

In view of the statement of Shiv Kumar, formal FIR was recorded.

Intimation was given to the Director, FPB, DIG (Crime), Ambala, and

Kundan Lal, Inspector, who was in the field. Special report was sent to Ilaqa

Magistrate. ASI Ram Pal along with party had gone to the place of

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 5

occurrence. In the meantime, Inspector Kundan Lal came at the spot. Facts

were brought to his notice. File was handed over to him for further

investigation. Crime team also came at the spot and place of occurrence

was inspected. Photographer was arranged, who had taken photographs.

Inspector Kundal Lal had prepared inquest report. Rough site plan with

correct marginal notes was prepared. Burnt clothes were found lying

scattered in the room. Double bed and mattress were found burnt partially.

Burnt articles were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested

by the witnesses. Three plastic cans were also noticed, two were empty and

one was having two bottles of kerosene. Plastic cans were taken into police

possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Double bed sheet

cover and towel partially burnt were noticed on the roof of the house and

were smelling kerosene. Double bed sheet cover and towel were taken into

police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Dead body

was sent to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, for postmortem examination but team of

doctors referred the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem

examination. On the same day, dead body was shifted to PGIMS , Rohtak,

and on the next day, postmortem examination was conducted. After

postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to the relations of the

deceased for cremation. Jewellery and clothes worn by the deceased were

made into separate sealed parcels and were handed over to ASI Ram Pal.

Case property was handed over to Inspector Kundan Lal and was taken into

police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.

Hukam Chand and Rajesh were arrested on 31.8.1994,

Sudershna, Sobha and Sangita were arrested on 28.8.1994, whereas Dinesh

Kumar was arrested on 2.9.1994. Hukam Chand was interrogated and in

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 6

pursuance of disclosure statement, got recovered one FDR of Rs.1,00,000/-

of Union Bank of India from the specified place. FDR was taken into police

possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.

On 2.9.1994, Dinesh Kumar was interrogated and in pursuance

of disclosure statement, got recovered dowry articles. Recovered articles

were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the

witnesses. On 3.9.1994, Dinesh Kumar also got recovered 8 tablets of

Diazepam 10 mg. Same were taken into police possession vide separate

memo attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan

was presented in Court.

Accused were charged under
Sections 498-A
/
304-B
IPC, to

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number

of witnesses.

PW1 R.C.Narang, Bank Manager, stated that certificate

(Ex.PA) was issued by the bank.

PW2 R.L.Tanwar, Branch Manager, stated that certificate

(Ex.PB) dated 28.9.1994 was issued on the request of police. Certificate is

regarding FDR account of Suman. Ex.PC is the photocopy of ledger.

PW3 P.K.Jain, Branch Manager stated that FDR (Ex.PD) was

issued on 2.6.1994 in the name of Hukam Chand Gupta.

PW4 Rakesh Kumar, Draftsman, prepared scaled site plan

(Ex.PE).

PW5 Jagdish Chand, Photographer, had taken photographs

(Ex.P1 to Ex.P8). Ex.P9 to Ex.P16 are the negatives.

PW6 Constable Krishan Lal, PW9 Constable Ram Partap,

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 7

PW10 HC Rajinder Parshad and PW11 MHC Balwan Singh tendered their

affidavits, Ex.PF, Ex.PS, Ex.PT and Ex.PU respectively.

PW7 Shiv Kumar is the complainant and has reiterated his

stand before the police.

PW8 Sunder Lal is the brother of Shiv Kumar. He has also

supported the version of Shiv Kumar, complainant.

PW 12 Dr. Kulwinder Singh stated that on receipt of message

from S.P., Kaithal, on 26.8.1994, he along with his team had visited the

place of occurrence and after inspection, observed as under:-

"Found a burnt dead body of the female, named, Smt. Suman

wife of Dinesh, aged about 28 years lying in the house situated

in Gali No.9, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal. The dead body was

lying in the verandah. The dead body was lying in the

verandah at point `A' shown in my site plan, with her head

towards North and feet towards South. Inside the room, there

were two partially burnt pillows lying on the floor in the room

marked by me as R-1 in the site plan. Partial burning of the

back rest of the double bed was also observed by me. This bed

was lying in the room marked R-1 in the site plan. Partial

burning of the mattress near one corner was also observed

which was found lying at point `C', outside the room marked

R-1. Smoke was found deposited on ceiling, walls, doors,

windows and other articles kept in the room, marked R-1.

Smoke could not be observed on one wooden central table and

one electric iron which were found in wet condition. Inside

and outside bolts of the doors (wooden) marked D-1 and D-2

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 8

of the room marked R-1 were not found tampered. Smoke was

found deposited on the roof of the verandah where body of the

deceased was found lying. Few burnt match sticks were found

lying in the verandah. One empty metallic kerosene can with

cap and two half filled, one filled kerosene plastic can with cap

were detected at the spot marked-B in the verandah. Smell of

kerosene was detected at the spot. One wet double bed sheet

and one wet towel were found in partially burnt condition on

the roof of the house."

PW14 Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, Kaithal, has also

supported the version of complainant.

PW15 ASI Ram Pal stated that in view of the statement of Shiv

Kumar, FIR was recorded at 12.30 noon on 26.8.1994. After that, he had

gone to the spot and in his presence, Inspector Kundan Lal had taken into

possession different articles vide different memos. After preparing inquest

report, dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination.

PW16 Inspector Kuldeep Singh had partly investigated the

case.

After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused

were recorded under
Section 313
Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution

allegations and pleaded to be innocent.

Defence version of Dinesh Kumar was that his wife Suman

caught fire accidentally from burning stove in the kitchen. On 26.8.1994 at

6.30 AM, he was to go to Indri, where he was posted. Suman got up in the

morning and after answering call of nature started preparing break fast for

him on the stove because gas cylinder was out of stock. At that time, his

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 9

father and mother were sleeping on the roof top of the house. His mother

was not keeping good health. She lost eye sight during operation. His

sisters Sobha and Sangita were away to the house of his maternal uncle at

Mandi Dabwali. His younger brother Rajesh was at Kurukshetra where he

was posted as Taxation Inspector. He had gone to bathroom and returned

after 30-35 minutes after taking bath. Then he heard cries of his wife

`bachao bachao'. He had gone to kitchen. Suman was on fire. Stove was

on the floor of the kitchen. He shouted for help and brought bed sheet etc.

from the bed room to extinguish the fire. In the meantime, Suman came

running to the bed room. Bed sheet was put on the person of Suman. Some

of the articles lying in the bed room came in contact with the body of Suman

and they were also partially burnt. Suman was very much restless and came

in verandah. He had thrown water. Inspector Kundan Lal came. He along

with his father and mother was taken away to PS City, Kaithal, at 9.30 AM.

Condition of his mother became critical. Then she was shifted to Civil

Hospital, Kaithal. He had also gone to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, with his

mother. His mother was got admitted in the hospital. He was in the custody

of police and at 1.30 PM, he was brought back to the police station. At 3.00

PM, his brother Rajesh was also brought to PS City, Kaithal. His sisters

were brought to police station on the next day, who came back from Mandi

Dabwali after knowing about this incident. He was detained illegally by the

police for about 8-9 days. Other family members were also kept under

illegal detention. He along with his father and brother was paraded in the

street after shaving their heads and blackening of their faces on 28.8.1994.

There was a news in the news paper. There was no demand of dowry

articles. Marriage was simple. They were financially sound than the

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 10

complainant party. He was in service and never thought of opening a

Nursing Home. He got appointment letter from the Government of

Haryana. Suman visited Bhiwani 4 times. First time, she was taken by her

brother Sunder Lal, second time, by Shiv Kumar and his wife, third time, by

Rajinder and fourth time, she had gone with him and his father on

31.7.1994 because her mother was admitted in the hospital. Suman wrote

letter on 30.7.1994. Suman was very happy at her matrimonial home. She

was having cordial relations with all the members.

Defence version of Hukam Chand was that Suman caught fire

accidentally while working in kitchen on stove. He and his wife were

sleeping on the roof of their house. His wife was not keeping good health

because she lost vision of her left eye during operation. Sobha and Sangita

were away to the house of their maternal uncle. Rajesh was at Kurukshetra,

where he was serving as Taxation Inspector. At about 5.15-5.30 AM on

26.8.1994, they heard cries of Dinesh Kumar `bachao bachao'. After that,

he along with his wife rushed to down stairs. Sudershna fell down and

became unconscious. He and his son Dinesh Kumar made an effort to

extinguish the fire and in that process, he got burn injuries. Neighbours also

came at the spot and helped in extinguishing the fire. There was a heavy

smoke and fire in the kitchen. Stove was lying on the floor. On telephone,

he gave message to Shiv Kumar and Raj Kumar Bindlish that Suman caught

fire accidentally and they were requested to come soon. After some time,

Raj Kumar Bindlish came and told not to take Suman anywhere. By the

time, Suman had already died at 9.30 AM. Inspector Kundan Lal along with

police officials came. Incident was brought to his notice. But he along with

his wife and Dinesh Kumar was brought to police station at 9.30-9.45 AM.

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 11

Condition of his wife Sudershna was deteriorating. Then she and Dinesh

Kumar were shifted to the hospital. Sudershna was admitted in the hospital.

Dinesh Kumar was brought back to police station at about 1.30-2.00 PM,

whereas Sudershna remained admitted in the hospital. Rajesh was also

brought to police station at 3.00 PM. Sobha and Sangita were brought to

police station on the next day. He was kept confined for about 7 days.

Other members were also kept under illegal detention. He along with his

sons was paraded in the street after shaving their heads and blackening their

faces on 28.8.1994 by Inspector Kuldeep Singh. There was a news in the

news paper. There was no demand of dowry at any stage. Marriage of

Dinesh Kumar with the deceased was simple one. They were financially

sound than the complainant party. Dinesh Kumar was in Government

service and they never thought of opening any Nursing Home. Suman was

happy at her in-laws house. During stay, Suman used to write letters to her

parents. She wrote letter dated 30.7.1994 but it could not be posted because

Suman had gone to Bhiwani on 31.7.1994 along with him and Dinesh

Kumar as mother of Suman was lying admitted in the hospital. On

18.8.1994, there was a telephonic message from Sunder Lal, brother of

Suman, to visit Kaithal along with Anita on 20.8.1994 because Anita was to

appear in NET test at Kurukshetra. Sunder Lal came to Kaithal and

Rajinder stayed there. Suman was to appear in interview on 31.8.1994 for

the post of Lecturer in Psychology Department in Kurukshetra University.

Similar is the defence version of Sudershna wife of Hukam

Chand.

Defence version of Rajesh, Sobha and Sangita was that they

were not present in the house at the time of occurrence. They were falsely

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 12

implicated.

In defence DW1 Dr.Prithi Mehta stated that Sudershna was

admitted in the hospital on 26.8.1994 at 11.00 AM and was discharged at

7.05 PM on the same day.

DW2 Gurmit Kaur brought record of Civil Hospital, Kaithal,

and stated that Sudershna was admitted in the hospital at 11.00 AM on

26.8.1994.

DW3 Zile Singh, Branch Manager, brought record and stated

that FDRs (Ex.PJ and Ex.PJ/1) were issued by the bank and the same were

renewed on 18.7.1994. Account No. 4870 in the name of Suman was

opened on 10.3.1983.

DW4 Dinesh Rastogi, Deputy Manager, stated that Account

No.29305 was opened on 22.7.1988 in the name of Suman.

DW5 Suresh Vashisth, Assistant, Office of Commissioner &

Secretary to Government Haryana, Health Department, brought record

regarding recruitment of Dr. Dinesh Kumar as Dental Surgeon. Ex.DX/A is

the order.

DW6 Subhash Sharma stated that Ex.DV/6 to Ex.DV/10 were

scribed by him.

DW7 Jaldhir Singh stated that Ex.DV/11 is the copy of sale

deed dated 1.6.1994.

DW8 Ajmer Singh, Steno to SP, Kaithal, stated that telephone

No.24254 was at the residence of SP, Kaithal.

DW9 Balbir Singh stated that on 11.6.1993, Rs.65,000/- was

borrowed by him from Hukam Chand as per pronote (Ex.DV/9) and receipt

(Ex.DV/10). Payment was returned on 30.5.1994.

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 13

DW10 S.K.Bansal, SDO, Telephones, Kaithal, stated that

Telephone Connection No. KHO/DK/69319 was released in the name of Dr.

Dinesh Kumar.

After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel

for the appellants and from the perusal of evidence on file, appellants were

convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid, whereas other co-accused,

namely, Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha were acquitted of the charge levelled

against them.

I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellants, learned

State counsel, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner and have gone

through the evidence on file.

Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that Suman

(deceased), sister of Shiv Kumar, complainant, resident of Bhiwani, was

married with Dinesh Kumar. Marriage was solemnized on 21.4.1994.

Marriage was simple. Suman was MA/M.Phil./M.Ed and was happily

enjoying married life. Appellant party was financially sound than the

complainant party. Unnatural death at the in-laws house on 26.8.1994.

Dinesh Kumar was Dental Surgeon and to attend his duty, woke up in the

morning at 6.30 AM. Suman also woke up at 6.30 AM and after answering

call of nature, started preparing breakfast for Dinesh Kumar on the stove.

While preparing breakfast on the stove, then she caught fire accidentally.

Dinesh Kumar came out of bathroom after taking bath, then raised an alarm.

Hukam Chand, father, and Sudershna, mother of Dinesh Kumar were

sleeping on the roof of the house and on hearing raula, they came to the

ground floor. Sudershna while coming down from the roof, then fell down

and became unconscious. Dinesh Kumar and Hukam Chand made an effort

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 14

to extinguish the fire. Hukam Chand also received burn injuries.

Immediately after the occurrence, intimation was sent to Raj Kumar

Bindlish, Advocate, and Shiv Kumar, complainant. Raj Kumar Bindlish,

Advocate, who was the mediator, came and directed the appellants not to

shift Suman anywhere. At 9.30 AM, Inspector Kundal Lal came.

Appellants were arrested at 9.30 AM. Rajesh, brother of Dinesh Kumar,

was arrested at 3.00 PM. Appellants were kept confined illegally for about

7-8 days and were paraded in the streets by shaving their heads and

blackening their faces. According to the story, if Suman was set on fire,

then Raj Kumar Bindlish should have reported the matter to the police.

There was no idea to wait. House of Raj Kumar Bindlish was at a distance

of 2.00 km from the house of the appellants. Police was in the house of the

appellants at 8.30 AM, whereas statement of the complainant was recorded

at 12.30 noon. Complainant was politically sound. Before recording FIR,

DDR No.8 was recorded but at that time, no detail to the police. PW 12

Dr. Kulwinder Singh stated that at about 11.00 AM, message was received

regarding the present occurrence, whereas statement of the complainant was

recorded at 12.30 noon. Before recording the FIR, question is how Dr.

Kulwinder Singh came to know about the incident at 11.00 AM. Dr.

Kulwinder Singh stated that dead body was lying in the verandah. Two

partially burnt pillows were found in the bed room. Double bed was also

found partially burnt. Evidence shows that one washed towel and bed sheet

were recovered from the roof. Immediately after the occurrence, Raj

Kumar Bindlish came to the house of the appellants. So, there was no time

to wash the towel and bed sheet and keep the same on the roof. According

to the story, can of kerosene was recovered from the spot but Dr. S.K.Jain

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 15

did not state a word regarding smell of kerosene. Dr. S.K.Jain stated that

dead body was brought to General Hospital, Kaithal, on 26.8.1994. Board

was constituted but the Board was not in a position to opine as to what was

the cause of death. Then dead body was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. In

fact, doctors were under the pressure of Shiv Kumar, complainant, who was

politically sound. When dead body was brought to the hospital with burn

injuries, then it is very easy to conduct postmortem examination. There was

no idea to send dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak. Dr. D.R.Yadav had

conducted the postmortem examination. Then for the first time stated that

smell of kerosene was noticed. 80% burn injuries were noticed. Kerosene

was noticed only in case of scalp hair. In fact, on the day of occurrence, gas

cylinder was out of order. Gas cylinder was brought by the employee of

agency but taken back after seeing the occurrence. In the absence of gas

cylinder, deceased was preparing breakfast on the stove. Suman caught fire

accidentally in the kitchen and when Dinesh Kumar came to know about the

incident, then he had gone to bed room to bring clothes etc. to extinguish

the fire. In the meantime, Suman had gone to the bed room. Some of the

articles lying in the bed room came into contact of the deceased and were

partially burnt. From the bed room, Suman came in the verandah. In the

verandah, she had a fall. Smoke was in the bed room, kitchen and verandah,

but no photograph of the kitchen or bed room. Hukam Chand was a

practicing lawyer at Kaithal. Dinesh Kumar was serving as a doctor. When

they were financially sound and marriage was simple, then there was no

idea to demand cash to open clinic. If cash is demanded to open clinic, then

demand does not fall within the definition of dowry. Rs.1,00,000/- is not

sufficient to open Nursing Home. Appellants are liable for punishment

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 16

under
Section 304-B
IPC if unnatural death at the in-laws house within 7

years from the date of marriage. Secondly, deceased was subjected to

cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry soon before death,

but in the present case, unnatural death at the in-laws house due to

accidental fire. Before present occurrence, no complaint to any authority

regarding demand of dowry. If there was a demand of dowry, then entire

story should have been brought to the notice of the police when DDR No.8

was recorded. All the family members were got implicated. On the same set

of evidence, three were acquitted by the trial Court. That means, allegation

of the complainant party is not correct one. When accidental death at the

house of in-laws, then tendency of the parents is to implicate all the

members. On 11.8.1994, as per story, Suman was sent to her in-laws house

with Sunder Lal and Rajinder. Sunder Lal went back. Rajinder had stayed

with the deceased. In the presence of Rajinder, appellants threatened the

deceased as to why jewellery was kept in the locker and was not brought

with cash. Rajinder was not examined for the reasons best known to the

prosecution. While staying in the in-laws house, deceased wrote number of

letters. In the letters on file, not a word that appellants had ever misbehaved

or maltreated the deceased for want of dowry. Deceased was well educated

and was to get job in near future. After joining service, deceased was

expected to get salary. Salary was to be used by the appellants. When

deceased was well educated and was to get employment, then there was no

idea to set the deceased on fire with this allegation that she failed to bring

cash and jewellery. Argued that as per story, Hukam Chand and Dinesh

Kumar were pressurizing the deceased to bring cash lying deposited in the

shape of FDRs, share certificates etc. to open Nursing Home but regarding

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 17

payment of Rs.60,000/-, no proof on the file. No allegation that Sudershna

ever demanded cash and jewellery or misbehaved or maltreated the

deceased for want of dowry. Sudershna was also named without any reason.

She was not keeping good health. Her eye sight was also weak. But

general allegation against all the family members that deceased was

subjected to cruelty or harassment for want of dowry.

Learned State counsel argued that marriage of the deceased

with Dinesh Kumar was solemnized on 21.4.1994. Unnatural death at the

in-laws house on 26.8.1994. Deceased was issueless. If the deceased had

no problem and was residing peacefully at the in-laws house, then there was

no idea to commit suicide by pouring kerosene as per report of the

laboratory. According to defence version, at 6.30 AM, deceased caught fire

accidentally while preparing breakfast but on telephone, intimation was

given to the complainant that unnatural death due to electrocution while

ironing the clothes. Distance of Bhiwani from Kaithal was about 130 kms.

Shiv Kumar on receipt of information had telephoned Raj Kumar Bindlesh

to visit the house of the appellants and report whether news was correct one

or not. Again, Shiv Kumar had telephoned at the residence of Raj Kumar

Bindlish but he was not present. Wife of Raj Kumar Bindlesh reported that

he had gone to the house of the appellants. Then complainant had

telephoned at the house of the appellants, then Raj Kumar Bindlesh on

telephone reported to the complainant to come soon. On receipt of message

at about 6.30 AM, complainant party had gone to Kaithal. Intimation was

given to the police about the incident. DDR was recorded and only after

reaching the house of the appellants and seeing the dead body, statement of

Shiv Kumar was recorded. Hukam Chand was a practicing lawyer at

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 18

Kaithal. Dinesh Kumar was Dentist. Rajesh was serving as Taxation

Inspector. That means, appellants were financially sound. Then nothing to

presume that there was only one gas cylinder in the house of the appellants

and in the absence of gas cylinder, appellants were preparing breakfast etc.

on stove. When gas connection is released, then minimum two gas cylinders

are supplied. No explanation where was the second gas cylinder. If the

deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast on stove, then

appellants were expected to report to the complainant and Raj Kumar

Bindlesh that deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast.

In fact, message was sent to the complainant party that deceased caught fire

accidentally while ironing the clothes. Raj Kumar Bindlesh, Advocate, is

from Kaithal. He was not inimical towards the appellants. Immediately

after receipt of telephone from the complainant, Raj Kumar Bindlesh had

gone to the house of the appellants. After that, on receipt of telephone from

the complainant, then Raj Kumar Bindlesh reported about the incident.

Unnatural death within 4 months. Smell of kerosene was noticed by the

doctor. In fact, Hukam Chand was influential person. He had a say in the

police department. That is why, copies of case diary were found to be in

possession of Hukam Chand and this fact is clear from the statement of

Inspector Kuldeep Singh when a note was given by the Court that copies of

case diary are with Hukam Chand. According to the defence version of

Dinesh Kumar, occurrence was at about 6.30 AM. He along with his father

made an effort to extinguish the fire but no burn injury was noticed on the

person of Dinesh Kumar. Defence version of Hukam Chand was that at

about 5.15/5.30 AM, he had heard cries, then came from the roof to the

ground floor. Then he along with Dinesh Kumar made an effort to

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 19

extinguish the fire. Death was at 9.30 AM. If the deceased caught fire

accidentally while preparing breakfast, then immediately after the

occurrence, appellants should have shifted the deceased to the nearest

hospital for medical aid. There was no idea to keep the burnt lady in the

same condition in the house till her death. Deceased had an account in the

bank. Payment was lying deposited in the shape of FDRs. Deceased was

not in Government job. To open Nursing Home, appellants were harassing

the deceased to bring jewellery and cash. After marriage, when for the first

time, deceased had gone to her parental house, then on enquiry by the

parents, deceased did not disclose anything but she was not happy. Second

time, deceased had disclosed about the demand of dowry by her father-in-

law and husband. Rs.10,000/- was paid at the time of engagement and

Rs.4,10,000/- before marriage to purchase dowry articles to the appellants.

Allegation of the appellants was that marriage was simple but dowry articles

were recovered in pursuance of disclosure statements suffered by the

appellants. That means, prosecution story is correct one. Rs.60,000/- was

paid by the complainant when there was demand of cash to open Nursing

Home. When there is a demand by the in-laws, then to settle the girl at her

in-laws house, no receipt is obtained. Report is also not lodged with the

police immediately after the marriage when there is a demand of dowry.

Panchayat is convened and report is lodged with the police or panchayat

when situation goes out of control of the complainant party. No doubt, Shiv

Kumar had contested election twice but he lost the election. If complainant

had a telephonic talk with the SP, then nothing to presume that he had a say

in the police department. Before lodging the FIR, complainant did not

contact the SP or the higher authorities. Complainant can have a say in his

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 20

own area but not in the area of the appellants. After the occurrence, dead

body was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, but dead body was referred to

PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem examination. If the doctors had referred

the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem examination, then doctors

cannot be expected to be under the control of the complainant. If the doctors

were to oblige the complainant, then they could easily give report in favour

of the complainant party after postmortem examination. There was no

reason to refer the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak. Dr. D.R.Yadav was Head

of the Department. He is well qualified. Without enmity with the

appellants, when Shiv Kumar had no say in the police department or health

department, then Head of the Department had no reason to annoy the

appellants. When unnatural death at the in-laws house, then presumption

under
Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act is that death was dowry death. As

per bail order dated 15.4.1995, bail application was personally argued by

Hukam Chand, appellant, and at that time, allegation of the appellants was

that Suman committed suicide but during trial, defence version of the

appellants was that Suman caught fire accidentally while preparing

breakfast. If Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar had made an effort to

extinguish the fire, then burn injuries should have been on their person but

no medical evidence on the file that burn injuries were noticed on the person

of Hukam Chand or Dinesh Kumar. As per defence version, appellants were

kept confined illegally for about 7-8 days but no complaint to any authority.

Relations of the appellants could easily approach the Hon'ble High Court

for appointment of Warrant Officer. When unnatural death at the in-laws

house within few months after the marriage, then it is very easy to plead that

deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing food etc. Failure to shift

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 21

the deceased to the nearest hospital for medical aid till her death shows that,

in fact, deceased was set on fire. Appellants were present in the house at the

time of occurrence. Trial Court has rightly opined that appellants had set

the deceased on fire.

Suman (deceased) was married with Dinesh Kumar on

21.4.1994. Unnatural death at the house of the appellants on 26.8.1994.

According to prosecution story, deceased was set on fire for want of dowry.

Defence version of the appellants was that deceased caught fire accidentally

while preparing breakfast on the stove. Now the question is whether

deceased caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast or she was set

on fire.

To convict the appellants under
Section 304-B
IPC, prosecution

was required to prove that death of the deceased was caused by any burns

or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within

seven years of her marriage; deceased was subjected to cruelty or

harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in

connection with, any demand for dowry, and cruelty or harassment was

soon before her death.

Admittedly, Suman (deceased) MA/M.Phil/M.Ed., aged about

28 years, was married with Dinesh Kumar. Marriage was solemnised on

21.4.1994. No suggestion to any witness that marriage was not solemnised

on 21.4.1994. In view of the statements of Shiv Kumar, Sunder Lal and Raj

Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, death was within 7 years from the date of

marriage.

According to the prosecution, on 26.8.1994 in the morning,

Suman was set on fire. Defence version of the appellants was that Suman

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 22

caught fire accidentally while preparing breakfast on the stove in the

kitchen. After the occurrence, dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Kaithal.

Dr. S.K.Jain, Medical Officer, stated that on 26.8.1994, dead body was

brought to the hospital. Application (Ex.PX) was moved. Board was

constituted but dead body was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem

examination.

Dr.D.R.Yadav (PW17) stated that on 27.8.1994, he was Head

of Department. Postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of

Suman. 80% burn injuries were noticed. Burn injuries were ante mortem in

nature. No external injury was noticed on the person of Suman. No case of

the prosecution or the appellants that deceased had committed suicide. No

suggestion to the doctors or the prosecution witnesses that death was

natural. That means, death was unnatural at the in-laws house. Only dispute

is whether deceased was set on fire or she caught fire accidentally. So,

second ingredient to convict the appellants under
Section 304-B
IPC is also

clear.

Third ingredient to convict the appellants under
Section 304-B

IPC was that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for want

of dowry and such cruelty or harassment was soon before the death.

Shiv Kumar, brother of the deceased, is the complainant and

lodged report with the police that before marriage, i,e., next day of holi

festival, he along with Subhash Chand Jain and Raj Kumar Bindlish,

Advocate, Kaithal, had gone to the house of Hukam Chand. Rs.4,10,000/- in

cash was paid to Hukam Chand for purchase of dowry articles in the

presence of his family members. Rs.10,000/- in cash was paid at the time

of engagement. At the time of marriage, gold, clothes etc. were given. At

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 23

the time of departure of barat, Rs.11,000/- in cash was paid to Hukam

Chand, Dinesh Kumar, Rajesh, Sangita and Sobha. After marriage for the

first time when Suman came to Bhiwani, then she was tense and unhappy.

On enquiry, she did not disclose anything. Second time when she came to

Bhiwani, then told that her father-in-law Hukam Chand and husband Dinesh

Kumar were pressurizing her to bring the amount lying deposited in the

shape of FDRs, share certificates and in her saving bank account.

Rs.60,000/- was paid to them to avoid harassment of Suman. On 31.7.1994,

Suman came to Bhiwani and told that Dinesh Kumar and his family

members were pressurizing to bring Rs.1,00,000/- lying deposited in the

shape of FDRs, share certificates and saving bank account. On 10.8.1994,

Dinesh Kumar was to visit his in-laws house to take back Suman but he did

not turn up. On 11.8.1994 on telephone, Dinesh Kumar told that he was

unable to visit Bhiwani and requested complainant party to leave Suman at

Kaithal. Then, Suman was sent to Kaithal along with Sunder Lal, brother of

complainant, and his son Rajinder. Sunder Lal came back on the same day

to Bhiwani In the presence of Rajinder, in-laws of Suman had threatened

her as to why she kept jewellery in the lock and key and why she failed to

bring payment lying deposited in her name. Hukam Chand and Dinesh

Kumar directed to send the payment. He further stated that in the morning

on 26.8.1994, telephonic message was received at about 6.30 AM from

Hukam Chand that Suman was electrocuted while ironing clothes. He was

requested to visit Kaithal immediately. Then he had requested Raj Kumar

Bindlish, Advocate, on telephone to enquire about the incident. Again, he

had telephoned to Raj Kumar Bindlish but he was not present at his house.

Telephone was attended by his wife. After that, he had telephoned at the

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 24

house of Hukam Chand. Telephone was attended by Raj Kumar Bindlish

and told that Suman had died while ironing clothes. He was requested to

visit Kaithal immediately. Statement of Shiv Kumar, complainant, was

recorded on 26.8.1994. In view of statement of Shiv Kumar, formal FIR was

recorded. Special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.50 PM

on the same day.

Shiv Kumar appeared as PW7 and stated that appellants used to

misbehave and maltreat Suman for want of dowry. Similar is the statement

of Sunder Lal, brother of Shiv Kumar.

PW14 Raj Kumar Bindlish, Advocate, was the mediator. He

has also supported the version of Shiv Kumar by saying that before

marriage, he along with Shiv Kumar and Subhash Chand Jain had gone to

the house of Hukam Chand. Rs.4,10,000/- in cash was paid to Hukam

Chand for purchase of dowry articles. Rs.10,000/- in cash was paid at the

time of engagement. Sufficient dowry was given. Rs.11,000/- in cash was

paid at the time of marriage. On the day of occurrence, telephone was

received from the complainant to enquire about the incident from the house

of Hukam Chand. After that, he had gone to the house of Hukam Chand.

Again telephone was received from the complainant. Dead body of Suman

was found lying in the house of Hukam Chand.

Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that

occurrence was in the morning on 26.8.1994. On telephone, intimation was

not given to the complainant party that Suman was electrocuted while

ironing clothes. In fact, information was given to the complainant that

Suman caught fire accidentally. If Suman was set on fire by the appellants,

then there was no idea to inform the complainant party that Suman was

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 25

electrocuted while ironing clothes. House of Raj Kumar Bindlish,

Advocate, was at a distance of about 2 kms. At about 8.30 AM, police was

in the house but at 12.30 noon, story was concocted that Suman was set on

fire. Initially, DDR was recorded, but while recording DDR, detail was not

given. After going through the evidence on the file, submission of learned

defence counsel seems to be not correct one. According to defence version

of Dinesh Kumar, Suman got up at about 6.30 AM. After answering the call

of nature, she was preparing breakfast for him on the stove. At that time,

his father and mother were sleeping on the roof of the house. He had gone

to bathroom and came out after about 30-35 minutes after taking bath. Then

noticed Suman while on fire in the kitchen. He had made an effort to

extinguish the fire. Raula was raised and on hearing raula, Hukam Chand

came to the ground floor. From the kitchen, Suman came inside the bed

room and came in contact with some articles lying in the bed room. From

bed room, Suman came to the verandah. Intimation was given to Raj

Kumar Bindlish and the complainant. Raj Kumar Bindlish came and

directed them not to shift Suman anywhere. Defence version of Hukam

Chand was that at about 5.15-5.30 AM, he heard raula, then came to the

ground floor. He along with Dinesh Kumar tried to extinguish the fire.

Death was at 9.30 AM. In case, Suman caught fire accidentally while

preparing breakfast at about 6.30 AM or 5.15-5.30 AM, then Dinesh Kumar

or Hukam Chand should have made an effort to shift Suman to the nearest

hospital for medical aid. Till death at aboout 9.30 AM, no effort was made

to shift Suman to the nearest hospital. If Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar

had made an effort to extinguish the fire, then some burn injuries should

have been on their person, but no medical evidence on the file that burn

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 26

injuries were noticed on the person of Hukam Chand or Dinesh Kumar.No

suggestion to complainant that Dinesh Kumar tried to extinguish fire.

As per defence version, Suman was preparing breakfast on the

stove because there was no gas cylinder in the house. Employee of gas

agency came to the house of the appellants with cylinder but he went back.

So, this was the reason why Suman was preparing breakfast on the stove

but explanation of the appellants seems to be not correct one. Hukam

Chand was a practicing lawyer, Dinesh Kumar was Dentist and brother of

Dinesh Kumar, namely, Rajesh was serving as Inspector in Income Tax

Department. When gas connection is issued, then two cylinders are issued

by the gas agency. Appellant party was financially sound. Then nothing to

presume that there was no other gas cylinder in the house. After inspection,

half burnt towel and bed sheet were recovered from the roof. Bed sheet of

double bed was also found burnt partially. Two partially burnt pillows were

also found in the bed room. If Suman caught fire accidentally, then no

question of smell of kerosene on the scalp hair. If story regarding

accidental fire was correct, then no question of recovery of partially burnt

towel and bed sheet from the roof. Photographs on the file also show that

story of accidental fire is not correct one.

Bail application was moved by the appellants. Hukam Chand,

one of the appellants, had argued the bail application and at that time,

allegation of the appellants was that it was a case of suicide by Suman but

after challan was presented and evidence was being recorded, then defence

version of the appellants was that Suman caught fire accidentally.

Sangita and Shobha, who were acquitted by the trial Court are

the sisters of Dinesh Kumar but except the deceased, no one caught fire

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 27

accidentally while cooking on the stove or gas cylinder.

In 2009(3) RCR (Crl.) 439,
State of Haryana vs. Ram Phal and

others
, defence version of the accused was that deceased received burn

injuries in accidental fire due to burst of stove but story of bursting of stove

not believed. Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court opined that why

mother-in-law and sister-in-law do not sustain burn injuries from accidental

stove burns and why only the daughter-in-law caught fire accidentally due

to burst of stove.

First of all, defence version seems to be not correct one that

there was no gas cylinder on the day of occurrence. No explanation

regarding second gas cylinder. IO admitted that on the day of occurrence,

one employee of gas agency with cylinder came but he went back after

seeing the incident, but regarding second gas cylinder, no explanation.

When one of the appellants was practicing lawyer and second was a doctor,

then there was a possibility of more than two cylinders in the house when

family was not small. Two young unmarried girls were also in the same

house, who were acquitted by the trial Court.

Next submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants

was that appellant party was financially sound than the complainant party.

Shiv Kumar, complainant, was politically sound. Dead body was shifted to

Civil Hospital, Kaithal, but doctors were not agreeing to give favourable

report to the complainant. Then doctors were pressurized to shift the dead

body to PGIMS, Rohtak. Being politically sound, favourable report was

obtained from Dr. D.R.Yadav but submission of learned defence counsel for

the appellants is without any force. No doubt, Shiv Kumar had contested

election but he had no say in the area of Kaithal. Shiv Kumar is from

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 28

District Bhiwani and Bhiwani is at a distance of about 150 kms. from

Kaithal. Defeated candidate cannot be expected to have a say in all the

districts, particularly when Hukam Chand was a practicing lawyer at Kaithal

and one of his son was a doctor and second was Inspector in Income Tax

Department. In fact, Hukam Chand seems to be influential person because

at the time of recording of evidence, photocopies of case diary were found

with him. Photocopies of case diary are not supplied to the accused. Copies

are not attached with the challan. Only the court has the power to see the

case diary. At the time of evidence or arguments, defence counsel has no

power to inspect the case diary. If Hukam Chand can have photocopies of

case diary, then it means that he had a say in the police department. If Shiv

Kumar had a say in the police department, then police officials were not

expected to supply copies of case diary to the appellants. After the

occurrence, dead body was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. Board was

constituted but Dr. S.K.Jain stated that they were not in a position to opine

as to what was the cause of death. Suggestion was given to Dr. S.K.Jain

that they were under the pressure of complainant not to give opinion. Dead

body was sent to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. Doctors were not under the

control of Shiv Kumar. If the doctors were of the opinion that they were not

in a position to opine as to what was the cause of death, then they had power

to refer the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak, for postmortem examination.

Dr. D.R.Yadav was Head of Department. He is a well known

doctor. Nothing on the file that he was under the influence of complainant

party. 80% burn injuries were noticed. Injuries were ante mortem in nature.

Smell of kerosene was noticed in case of scalp hair. So, if the postmortem

was by the Head of Department of PGIMS, Rohtak, then not correct to

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 29

opine that postmortem report was procured by the complainant party.

Learned defence counsel for the appellants further argued that

according to the story, payment was demanded to open Nursing Home but

allegation is not correct one because Dinesh Kumar was serving as Doctor

in a hospital. With Rs.1,00,000/- not possible to open Nursing Home. So,

story regarding demand of cash to open Nursing Home was coined. Demand

of cash to open Nursing Home cannot be said to be dowry demand. In 2004

(1) RCR (Crl.) 625,
Virender Singh vs. State of Haryana, Some
presents

demanded by husband at the time of marriage of sister of his wife- General

demands and demand of Rs.20,000/- for business- Then demand cannot said

to be dowry demand. But after going through the evidence on the file, I am

not in a position to agree with the submission of learned defence counsel for

the appellants, because before marriage, Rs.4,10,000/- was paid to Hukam

Chand to purchase dowry articles. Some of the dowry articles were

recovered by the IO. Rs.10,000/- was paid at the time of engagement.

Rs.11,000/- was paid at the time of marriage. After marriage, deceased was

pressurized to bring cash lying deposited in the shape of FDRs/share

certificates etc.

DW3 Zile Singh brought record and stated that FDRs were

issued in the name of the deceased on different dates.

DW4 Dinesh Rastogi brought record and stated that as per

record, Account No. 29305 was opened in the name of Suman (deceased) on

22.7.1988.

DW6 Subhash Sharma stated that one agreement to sell was in

favour of the appellants. Pronotes and receipts (Ex.DV7 to Ex.DV10) were

also in favour of one of the appellants. No doubt, agreement to sell and

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 30

different pronotes are in favour of the appellants but documentary evidence

also shows that amount was lying deposited in the name of the deceased.

Before marriage, deceased had account in the bank. Allegation of the

prosecution is that appellants were demanding payment to open Nursing

Home. If demand had nexus with the marriage directly or indirectly, then

demand constitutes demand for dowry as held in 2011 STPL (Web) 113 SC,

Bachni Devi and another vs. State of Haryana. In this case, learned counsel

for the appellants had argued that a demand of money on account of some

financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for

purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said

word is normally understood. Then Court observed that if demand for

property or valuable security, directly or indirectly, has a nexus with

marriage, then such demand would constitute demand for dowry. Cause or

reason for such demand is immaterial.

As per defence version of the appellants, marriage was simple.

Deceased was happily staying at her in-laws house. In case, marriage was

simple, then no question of recovery of dowry articles. Recovery of dowry

articles during investigation shows that submission of learned defence

counsel for the appellants is not correct one. If the appellants were

financially sound than the complainant party, even then no bar to demand

dowry. All depends upon the character/greed of the husband or his parents.

Number of cases where financially sound persons were noticed while

demanding dowry and harassing daughters-in-law for want of dowry.

Payment of more than Rs.4,00,000/- before marriage, Rs.10,000/- at the

time of engagement, Rs.11,000/- at the time of marriage and payment to

open Nursing Home after the marriage shows that deceased was harassed

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 31

for want of dowry soon before death. Death was within 4-5 months.

In 2009 (3) RCR (Crl.) 418,
Nepal Singh vs. State of Haryana
,

death was within 4 years of marriage by taking poison- Evidence of

intervener who had got the marriage settled- Stated that at the time of

settlement of marriage and even thereafter, no demand of dowry was made-

Demand of dowry not proved- Accused was acquitted but judgment of

Sessions Court was upset by the High Court on the allegation that

something must have happened and otherwise deceased would not have

committed suicide- Then Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this ground is

indefensible and could not have been a reason to set aside the judgment of

acquittal.

In 2010 (4) RCR (Crl.) 53, Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan,

Allegation of harassment and torture by making demand of dowry- No

evidence as to what was the exact act or conduct of accused by which the

deceased felt tortured- Conviction was set aside.

In 2007(2) RCR (Crl.) 395, Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder vs.

State of West Bengal, Bride committing suicide by taking poison at

matrimonial home- Allegations that accused were putting pressure on

deceased to bring more items of dowry- Practically no evidence to show that

there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of

dowry- Conviction was set aside. But in the present case, before marriage,

cash payment to Hukam Chand to purchase dowry articles. Dowry articles

were recovered from the house of the appellants. At the time of marriage,

besides payment of gold ornaments and clothes, there was cash payment of

Rs.11,000/-. After marriage, again payment of Rs.60,000/. Deceased had

bank account and payment in the shape of FDRs and share certificates.

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 32

Deceased was pressurized to bring cash payment. If deceased had no

problem and was residing happily in her in-laws house, then no reason to

complain that she was harassed for want of dowry.

Next submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants

was that occurrence was at about 5.30-6.30 AM on 26.8.1994. After Suman

received injuries by accidental fire, then immediately intimation was sent to

the complainant. Complainant party came to Kaithal. DDR was got

registered. Police party also came to the place of occurrence at about 9.30

AM. Dr. Kulwinder Singh came to know about the occurrence at 11.00

AM. At the time of DDR, detail was not given by the complainant but later

on, story was concocted. Then FIR was got registered in view of statement

(Ex.PG). No explanation why after DDR, again matter was reported to the

police. Delay in lodging the FIR shows that, in fact, deceased caught fire

accidentally. When death was within 4-5 months from the date of marriage,

then complainant party thought proper to take revenge by implicating all

family members of the husband. Two unmarried daughters and two sons,

including husband of the deceased, were residing in the same house with

Hukam Chand and his wife. Allegations are the same against all family

members but three were acquitted by the trial Court. No explanation

regarding delay. When story as per statement (Ex.PG) is different than the

story as per DDR, then possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.

No doubt, as per defence version, occurrence was at about 5.30-

6.30 AM in the house of the appellants. On telephone, message was sent to

the complainant party but residence of complainant was at a distance of

about 150 kms. from the place of occurrence. Minimum 2-3 hours are

required to cover the distance. On receipt of information, firstly complainant

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 33

requested Raj Kumar Bindlish to visit the house of the appellants and report

about the incident. After information to the remaining family members,

then complainant along with other family members had gone to Kaithal.

DDR was got recorded, then complainant along with other family members

had gone to the house of the appellants. After that, they came to know that

deceased was set on fire for want of dowry, then report was lodged. Special

report was delivered to Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.50 PM. At the time of DDR at

about 12.30 PM, complainant party was not sure as to what was the real

story because on telephone, intimation was given to the complainant party

that Suman received burn injuries while ironing the clothes.

In 2007(4) RCR (Crl.) 1042,
Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh vs.

State of Punjab
through Secretary (Home), Hon'ble Supreme Court in para

No.13 observed as under:-

"13. Chapter XII of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

deals with information to the police and their powers to

investigate. Investigation into allegations relating to

commission of a cognizable offence starts on information given

to an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station and recorded under

Section 154
of the Code. If from information so received or

otherwise, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, if

satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a

cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or

direct the investigation to any police officer subordinate to him,

in the manner provided by the Code. The procedure as regards

the registration of information relating to the commission of a

cognizable offence and the procedure for investigation is

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 34

structured and regulated by Chapter XII of the Code. The

procedure prescribed is required to be followed scrupulously by

the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. The Punjab Police

Rules do not in any manner override the provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure
. The said rules are meant for the

guidance of the Police Officers in the State and supplement the

provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure
but not supplant

them. In our considered opinion the truth and veracity of

contents of the FIR cannot in all cases be tested with a

reference to the entries made in the Police Station daily diary

which is maintained under the Punjab Police Rules. This

avoidable controversy need not detain us any further since it is

well settled that even a defect, if any, found in investigation,

however, serious has no direct bearing on the competence or

the procedure relating to the cognizance or the trial. A defect

or procedural irregularity, if any, in investigation itself cannot

vitiate and nullify the trial based on such erroneous

investigation."

After the occurrence, any one can inform the police about the

occurrence. FIR is not the encyclopedia of the occurrence. After the

occurrence when complainant party was sure as to what was the cause of

death, then matter was reported to the police and FIR was got registered,

then story is not to be ignored on the ground that while getting the DDR

recorded, complete story was not brought to the notice of the police. When

there is a delay and delay is not explained, then delay itself is not sufficient

for acquittal of the accused. Delay is one of the suspicious circumstance to

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 35

scrutinize evidence with great care and caution. As discussed earlier, two

unmarried daughters of Hukam Chand were also staying in the same house.

If defence version is correct one that there was no gas cylinder on the

relevant date, then question is why only the deceased caught fire

accidentally while preparing breakfast and why unmarried daughters or their

mother did not receive injuries accidentally.

Learned defence counsel for the appellants further argued that

general allegation against the entire family members that they used to

misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry and deceased was

subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry soon

before death, but on the same evidence, three were acquitted by the trial

Court. No role of Sudershna, mother-in-law of the deceased. She was very

old. Her eye sight was also damaged during operation. She was on the roof

and had a fall while coming to the ground floor. Immediately after the

occurrence, she was admitted in the hospital and this fact is clear from the

statements of DW1 Dr.Prithi Mehta and DW2 Gurmail Kaur, Nurse. As

per statement (Ex.PG), only Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar used to

misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry but Sudershna was

convicted and sentenced on the allegation that she is the mother-in-law.

After going through the evidence on the file, I am of the opinion that

submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants seems to be

reasonable.

Admittedly, unnatural death at the in-laws house within 4-5

months from the date of marriage. Ex.PG is the statement of Shiv Kumar,

on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded, but no allegation that

Sudershna at any stage harassed the deceased for want of dowry. Allegation

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 36

of Shiv Kumar was that before marriage, Rs.4,10,000/- was paid to Hukam

Chand to purchase dowry articles. Second allegation was that Rs.10,000/-

was paid at the time of engagement, but no allegation that payment was

made to Sudershna. Next allegation of the complainant was that

Rs.11,000/- in cash was given to Hukam Chand, Dinesh Kumar, Rajesh and

Sobha at the time of departure of barat. Not a word by the complainant that

cash payment was also made to Sudershna. First time after marriage when

Suman came to her parental house, then she did not disclose about the

demand of dowry or harassment. Second time when she came to her

parental house, then had disclosed that her father-in-law and husband were

harassing her for want of dowry and she was directed to bring cash lying

deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates etc. Payment was

demanded for opening of Nursing Home. Again not a word by the

complainant that cash was demanded by Sudershna to open Nursing Home.

After demand of cash, Rs.60,000/- was paid by the complainant but no

allegation that payment was made to Sudershna. Third time when Suman

came, then again told to complainant that her in-laws were demanding

Rs.1,00,000/- lying deposited in the shape of FDRs, share certificates etc.

Again, no allegation by the deceased that cash was demanded by

Sudershna. On 10.8.1994, Dinesh Kumar was to visit his in-laws house to

bring back Suman but he did not turn up. On the request of Dinesh Kumar,

Suman was sent to her in-laws house with Sunder Lal and Rajinder.

Rajinder is the son of complainant but he was not examined to state as to

whether Sudershna had misbehaved or maltreated the deceased for want of

dowry. Sunder Lal appeared as PW8 but did not state a word that in his

presence, Suman was harassed for want of dowry by Sudershna or before

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 37

that, at any stage, Suman told him that Sudershna also misbehaved and

maltreated her for want of dowry. Rajinder rather told to the complainant

that Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar directed him to send payment. Then

Hukam Chand was requested not to harass Suman.

Raj Kumar Bindlish was the mediator. He has supported the

prosecution story but did not state a word that at any stage, Suman had

contacted him and disclosed that Sudershna used to misbehave and maltreat

her for want of dowry. Before the occurrence, no complaint to any authority

that Sudershna used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of

dowry. No panchayat was convened.

In 2006(3) RCR (Crl.) 783, Kanwal Singh and others vs. State

of Haryana, Involvement of family members of accused-Where the bride

either commits suicide or is murdered by her in-laws family, the tempers run

high- So much so that attempt is made to rope in the entire family of the

husband of the victim- Almost all the family members of the husband are

attributed one role or the other so as to implicate them, although they may

not have done anything in the entire occurrence-Then duty of the Court is to

separate grain from the chaff and find out if some of the accused have been

falsely roped.

In Amar Singh's case (supra), all the accused were acquitted

except the husband- Allegation against entire family that they demanded

scooter and harassed and teased the bride- Death of bride by burning-

Conviction of mother and brother set aside- No evidence as to what was the

exact act and conduct of mother and brother by which the deceased felt

tortured- So far as husband is concerned, he used to taunt that deceased had

come from hungry house- This is evidence of exact conduct which caused

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 38

harassment to deceased.

In the present case, no evidence on the file as to what was the

exact act and conduct of mother-in-law, which caused harassment to the

deceased. Before death, whenever deceased came to her parental house,

then did not level any allegation against her mother-in-law.

In Court, Shiv Kumar or his brother Sunder Lal while

appearing as PW7 and PW8, respectively, then did not state that Sudershna

also used to misbehave or maltreat the deceased for want of dowry or at any

stage, pressurized the deceased to bring cash or jewellery etc. Evidence on

the file rather shows that Sudershna was implicated being the mother-in-

law. When no role of Sudershna, then I am of the opinion that benefit of

doubt should be given to her. Sudershna is acquitted of the charge levelled

against her.

As per evidence on the file, vague allegation against Rajesh,

Sangita and Sobha that they used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased

for want of dowry. Rajesh is the brother-in-law of the deceased, whereas

Sangita and Sobha are unmarried daughters of Hukam Chand. They were

not present at the time of occurrence. Evidence on the file was rightly

scrutinized by the trial Court while giving them benefit of doubt. No reason

to differ.

Crl.Revision No.404 of 1998 is rejected.

In the light of above discussion, appeal qua Sudershna is

accepted, whereas appeal qua Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar is rejected.

Appellants Hukam Chand and Dinesh Kumar are on bail. They

are directed to surrender before the concerned authority to undergo

imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, failing which, concerned

Crl.Appeal No.105-SB of 1998 39

authority/CJM, Kaithal, to issue re-arrest warrants to undergo the remaining

period of sentence.

20.4.2011 ( JORA SINGH )
pk JUDGE