Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1238 (PNJ)

Gopal v. State Of Haryana

2000-10-11

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2000
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. Brief facts which led to the registration of a case of dowry death are that Salochna (deceased) was married with Gopal appellant-accused on 13.2.1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A day after the marriage it is customary for the bride and the groom to return to the brides parents house for a while which is called "Phera" and, therefore, the couple visited the house of in-laws i.e. Ram Sarup, P.W.4 in village Mandvi where Gopal told that inadequate dowry has been given and had demanded Rs. 20,000/- from Ram Sarup and told that he would take Salochna only if the demanded amount was paid to him. Ram Sarup promised to pay this amount. Thereafter on the same day, the couple returned to village Dhamtan Sahib i.e. the house of the in- laws of the bride. ON 27.2.1994, Ram Sarup P.W.4, handed over four Kishan Vikas Patra Ex. P.13 to P.16 of the denomination of Rs. 5,000/- each to Gopal after having purchased the same in the name of Salochna. However, these Vikas Patras could not be got encashed and Gopal did not get the money. He had been telling that either she would be left back at her parents place or to be dealt with accordingly. It appears that the tussle between the two sides precipitated on this issue. It was within 17 days of the marriage that on 3.3.1994, it was reported that Salochna died of poisoning and Amar Nath P.W.3 the real maternal uncle of Salochna set the machinery of law into motion by making a statement Ex. P.A. before ASI Ishwar Singh, P.W.9 and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded at 3.35 P.M. on 3.3.1994. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 6.15 P.M. on 3.3.1994. 2. ASI Ishwar Singh P.W.9, went to the house of the accused in village Dhamtan Sahib. He inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.PJ of the scene of occurrence. He prepared inquest report Ex.PF/1 and sent the dead body of Salochna for post mortem. He also took into possession the viscera and sealed packet containing the ornaments of the deceased vide memo Ex.PK. Desh Raj, Gopal and Subhash accused were produced by Mohinder Singh Panch, Pala Ram Panch along with Hem Chand before SI Ajaib Singh P.W. 16 on 9.3.1994. He also took into possession the viscera and sealed packet containing the ornaments of the deceased vide memo Ex.PK. Desh Raj, Gopal and Subhash accused were produced by Mohinder Singh Panch, Pala Ram Panch along with Hem Chand before SI Ajaib Singh P.W. 16 on 9.3.1994. On that day Gopal was interrogated and suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PL and on 10.3.1994 got recovered shirt Ex.P17 and Savar Ex.P18 from the specified place which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.M. Thereafter Gopal accused produced four Kisan Vikas Patra Ex. P.15 to P.16 of the denomination of Rs. 5,000/- each which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PN. SI Ajaib Singh P.W.16 also took into possession the dowry articles given in the marriage vide memo Ex.PW. He also recorded the statements of Ram Sarup P.W.4, father of the deceased during the investigation. Before the accused were arrested they also made statements before the village Panchayat in the presence of Khem Chand P.W. 10 and Mohinder Singh, Member Panchayat P.W. 12 that they had committed a blunder in committing the order of Salochna. As per report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PH the pieces of liver, spleen, kidney and small and large intestines gave positive test for aluminum phosphide and blood gave positive test for phosphide. 3. In view of the aforesaid investigation of the case, the four accused i.e. Gopal, husband, Subhash husbands brother, Des Raj, father-in-law and Smt. Bohti mother-in-law of the deceased were tried for an offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the learned trial Judge disbelieving the version of the defence which was that of innocence and holding the appellants responsible for the said death of the deceased convicted all the four appellants under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the appellants were also convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was ordered to be paid to Ram Sarup P.W.4 as compensation. The appellants have preferred the appeal against their conviction and sentence. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants has taken us through the statements of the witnesses. The relevant witnesses in this case are, namely, Amar Nath P.W.3, maternal uncle of the deceased and Ram Sarup P.W.4, father of the deceased. Their statements have to be read along with the contents of the first information report Ex.PA/1. It needs categoric and specific mention that the allegations of demand of dowry are mainly projected against Gopal appellant i.e. the husband of the deceased as he was causing harassment to the deceased on account of demand of Rs. 20,000/- which was promised to be given as a part of dowry but the mere papers in the shape of Vikas Patra were of no use. This threat was administered by the appellant Gopal alone in the presence of the Ram Sarup P.W.4 the father of the deceased. Both Amarnath P.W.3 and Ram Sarup P.W.4 visited the house of the deceased or her in-laws when they were informed about the stage of the critical health of the deceased on the day of occurrence. The names of other persons i.e. in-laws and husbands brother (Jeth) of the deceased has merely been mentioned in the first information report that they also were causing the harassment but no specific attribution of any overt act against them was found anywhere in the first information report. Therefore, this F.I.R. is to be read along with the statement of Amar Narth P.W.3, maternal uncle of the deceased who lodged the report has stated that on 17.2.1994 he had called Salochna and Gopal and obtained, their signatures/thumb impression on certain application forms for getting a sum of Rs. 20,000/- encashed in lieu of Vikas Patra but still the cash could not be given to the husband and Vikas Patra were handed over to him and it was only on 3.3.1994 that this witness learnt that the deceased was given a tablet of Salpha on the pretext of some medicine or something like that and they tried to rescue her but she was reported to be dead. In cross- examination he made it clear when confronted with his statement Ex.P.A that Subhash brother of the appellant-husband did not accompany the couple to Mandvi on 14.2.1994. So there was no question of any demand or harassment on the part of the in-laws of the deceased, namely, Des Raj and Bohti and brother of the husband-appellant, namely, Subhash. The witness had to take shelter for certain contradictions by explaining that he was perplexed because of the death of his sisters daughter and, therefore, could not make a proper statement. Similar is the version of Ram Sarup P.W.4 father of the deceased and he claimed that Gopal had been taunting the deceased for inadequate dowry and insisted for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. So these are the main witnesses on whose testimony the case depends otherwise Khem Chand P.W.10 and Mohinder Singh P.W.12, a member Panchayat also claimed on oath that a confession was made before the Panchayat by all the accused. However, the Court has to sift the grain from the chaff. Their statements have not to be taken on the face value. Rather they are read to conclude as to what did they mean ? What the witness meant was that Gopal husband of the deceased had demanded money which was earlier promised and since he did not get the same, there was a bad blood between the husband and wife and she was found dead due to poisoning within a very short span of the marriage. So the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus would not be applicable in the case in hand. We agree with the learned Counsel for the appellants that no specific role has been assigned to Subhash, husbands brother, Des Raj father-in-law and Smt. Bohti, mother-in- law of the deceased that they either demanded Vikas Patra or asked for more dowry or the husbands brother also demanded any dowry. It is true that when the bride as such dies in abnormal circumstances in the place of her in-laws, it is for them to explain and all of them could be made liable for the offence but when the deceased did not tell anything before her relations ever earlier that her father-in-law and mother-in-law taunted her or asked for more dowry, their case has to be excluded from that of the husband. These three persons have claimed absolute innocence and they have been charged because they happened to be the in-laws otherwise they had no role to play. It can safely be pointed out that it was because of the misdeeds of the husband of the deceased that she lost her life and he alone in our view would be responsible for the death of the deceased and for causing cruelty and harassment to the deceased. 5. We are, therefore, of the firm view that for want of evidence the conviction and sentence of Des Raj, Smt. Bohti and Subhash appellants cannot be sustained and their conviction would certainly lead to miscarriage of justice. They are, therefore, acquitted of the charges framed against them. However, it is established with ample evidence on record that Gopal the husband alone had committed a grave act of cruelty that he pointedly asked the bride and her parents to make good the amount of dowry and this led to the death of the deceased. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge against Gopal appellant is upheld and appeal qua him is dismissed. 6. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.