Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1291 (PNJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2000-11-01

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, K.S.GAREWAL

body2000
Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The appellant has been found guilty of offences under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay fine. Aggrieved by the judgment, he has filed this appeal. 2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 4.30 P.M. on April 7. 1995. The prosecution story was in the first instance disclosed by Vijay Kumar (PW6) 10 ASI Dayal Singh (PW8) at 12.30 A.M. on the morning of April 8", 1995. On the basis of this statement, FIR was registered at 12.45 A.M. at Police Station Ambala City. After the recording of the FIR, Meena Kumari who had suffered burn injuries passed away at 2.35-A.M. Her post-mortem was performed at the Civil Hospital. Ambala at 1 1.30 P.M. 3. According to the prosecution. Meena Kumari. the deceased, was married to Pawan Kumar-the appellant about three years prior to the occurrence. They had a son who was six months old. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased had given dowry according to their capacity. About six months prior to the occurrence, the appellant had allegedly sent his wife to her house to bring a television. The father of the deceased had arranged money and given a TV set to her. About 15-20 days prior to the occurrence, the father of the deceased visited her house at Ambala. The appellant demanded Rs. 10.000/- from his father-in-law as he had logo to Delhi for the purpose of his business. The father expressed his inability to give the amount. At this, the appellant asked him to take his daughter alongwith him. The father expressed his helplessness and left for his house in Manimajra. On April 7, 1995, Vijay Kumar-the brother of the deceased had gone to see Meena. The appellant asked him as to whether or not he had brought the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. He further said that in case, he had not brought the amount then he should take his sister alongwith him. Otherwise, he would kill her. At this, the two exchanged hot words and the appellant started beating his wife. Vijay Kumar then says that his uncle (mausa) came there and told him to go away as the light was taking place on account of his presence. He went out. Otherwise, he would kill her. At this, the two exchanged hot words and the appellant started beating his wife. Vijay Kumar then says that his uncle (mausa) came there and told him to go away as the light was taking place on account of his presence. He went out. After some time, he came to know that his sister had been set on fire by sprinkling kerosene on her "for not bringing sufficient dowry and cash". She was taken to the Hospital. On hearing this, Vijay Kumar went to Manimajra (about 50 kms. away) to bring his parents. They came. He alleged that his sister had been set on fire by the appellant. On the basis of this statement, the formal FIR Ex.PM was recorded, Meena Kumari was taken lo Philadelphia Hospital in Ambala City. She passed, away at 2.35 A.M. on April 8. 1995. Thereafter, the inquest was carried out. She was taken to the Civil Hospital. The post-mortem was performed at 1.30 P.M. on the afternoon of AprilS, 1995. 4. The prosecution has produced medical and other evidence lo prove the charge. The medical evidence consists of the statements of Dr. Sant Ram Arora (PW-1) and Dr. Deepti Paul (PW5). Dr. Arora conducted the post-mortem alongwith Dr. BrijinderBud-hiraja. The deceased was 21 years of age. There was no ligature mark on her body. She was moderately built and nourished. The following injuries were found on her person :- (1) On opening the scalp, there was a diffused haematoma in the parieto occipital area 8 cm x 6 cm. On opening the skull a corresponding extradural extravasation of blood was present. Brain was found congested. (2) The whole body was covered with various degree of bums. Only a small area over scalp was spared and there was redline of demarcation between healthy and burnt area. 5. There was congestion in the various organs of the body. The death had occurred on account of burns and other complications. The burns were ante- mortem in nature and were sufficient "to cause death in the ordinary course". In cross-examination. Dr. Arora admitted that the possibility of injury No. 1 having been received "by fall on the ground in a burning process and saving from burns cannot be ruled out". He also stated that Dr. Multan Singh had examined Pawan Kumar-the present appellant. Ex.PD was the carbon copy of the medico-legal report. In cross-examination. Dr. Arora admitted that the possibility of injury No. 1 having been received "by fall on the ground in a burning process and saving from burns cannot be ruled out". He also stated that Dr. Multan Singh had examined Pawan Kumar-the present appellant. Ex.PD was the carbon copy of the medico-legal report. According to this report, there were "infected burns involving the fingers of both the hands. Pus exuding from the wound at places". 6. Dr. Deepti Paul (PW5) was working as a Doctor at the Mission Hospital, Ambala (another name for Philadelphia). She stated that Meena Kumari was admitted in the Hospital at 6.15 P.M. on April 7, 1995, She had examined her and prepared the medico-legal report. The original report is Ex.PG. She had been got admitted by Mukandi Lal-her father-in-law. In the medico-legal report, it was mentioned that the patient had "suffered accidental burns at 4.30 P.M. due to the burning of kerosene stove at her residence....." She had died at 2.35 A.M. on April 8, 1995. Her body was taken by the police and her relatives for post-mortem examination from the mortuary of the Hospital. There were 100% burns of first and second degree on the person of the deceased. ASI Dayal Singh (PW8) had made an application with the purpose of finding out as to whether or not Meena Kumari was fit to make a statement. This application is Ex.PJ and was made at 7,30 P.M. on April 7,1995. Dr. C.R. David who was attending on her had opined that she was unfit to make a statement. He had signed the opinion. Information about the case was sent to the police vide Exhibits PK and PK/I. In cross-examination, Dr. Paul admitted that Meena Kumari was conscious at the time of her admission and "was responding". She had enquired from her about the cause of injuries and she had not committed (neither supported nor rebutted the version given by Mukandi Lal) as she was in severe pain. She denied the suggestion that she had given a distorted version under the influence of the police. 7. Manohar Lal-Constable Draftsman (PW2) had prepared the site plan Ex.PE. Constable Amar Singh (PW3) is a photographer who had been summoned by the Investigating Officer. He had reached the place of occurrence at about 11 P.M. He stated that there were marks of fire in the kitchen. 7. Manohar Lal-Constable Draftsman (PW2) had prepared the site plan Ex.PE. Constable Amar Singh (PW3) is a photographer who had been summoned by the Investigating Officer. He had reached the place of occurrence at about 11 P.M. He stated that there were marks of fire in the kitchen. Head Constable Dharam Pal (PW4) was another member of the investigating team. He was present at the time when burnt clothes and other articles were recovered from the kitchen of the appellants house. He had, however, chosen to state that the "kitchen was without any mark of stove". ASI Dayal Singh (PW8) was the Investigating Officer. Besides giving the sequence of events, he stated that he had inspected the kitchen of the house. He had found a "broken stove, piece of burnt sat-war, one piece of chunni and dupatta, one mala, one pair of chappals". He added that "there was no sign or mark of fire in the kitchen. There was no mark of smoke on the wall". Besides the post-mortem examination of the deceased, he also got the accused examined as he had found burn injuries on both his hands. During cross-examination, he stated that he had recorded the statement of Vijay Kumar PW at about 12.30 A.M. on April 8, 1995. Thereafter, he had taken him to the house of the appellant. He. however, admitted that he did not record the statement of any of the neighbours "to know whether the accused had maltreated the deceased prior to the aforesaid occurrence." 8. Vijay Kumar-the author of the first information report appeared as PW6. He broadly reiterated the statement that he had made at the time of the lodging of the FIR. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was working as a salesman at a monthly salary of Rs. 600/-. His father worked as a hawker to sell eggs on a rehri. His mother used to do domestic work in the houses of other persons. Besides Meena Kumari, he had two younger brothers and one unmarried sister. He further stated that his father had taken loan from his uncle (Phupha) for purchasing the TV that was given by him to Meena Kumari. However, he could not give the year in which the TV was purchased. He admitted that there was a cooler and a fridge in the house of the appellant. He further stated that his father had taken loan from his uncle (Phupha) for purchasing the TV that was given by him to Meena Kumari. However, he could not give the year in which the TV was purchased. He admitted that there was a cooler and a fridge in the house of the appellant. However, he denied the suggestion that there was a BPL washing machine or that there was an imported TV and VCR. He was asked if the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/-each in his own name and in the name of his wife viz. Meena Kumari-the deceased on June 15,1994 in Punjab National Bank, Ambala City. He stated that he did not know. He had also denied that the appellant had "performed any Bhandara either at Ambala or at Mansa Devi". He further stated that he did not know "if the accused had donated a sum of Rs. 5100/-and that he was issued a receipt by the management of the Mata Mansa Devi Bhandara Committee". I le admitted that he had not seen the accused sprinkling any kerosene oil or setting his sister on fire. He further admitted that he had not received any letter from Meena Kumari about maltreatment or harassment or regarding the demand of dowry by the accused or his family members. He denied having stated before the police that Meena Kumari was beaten by the accused about six months prior to the occurrence. It was suggested to him that he had taken money from his sister on different occasions. He, however, denied it. 9. Smt. Kamlesh(PW7) is the mother of the deceased. She repeats the story of television and the demand of Rs. 10,000/-. In cross-examination, she stated that an amount of Rs. 3000/- had been borrowed from Ganga Saran for the purchase of the black and white television. She admitted having visited the house of the deceased but denied having seen the fridge, cooler, sofa set, television, washing machine and VCR etc. She also feigned ignorance about the appellant having given money for the Bhandara etc. 10. This is the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313. He denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was innocent. She also feigned ignorance about the appellant having given money for the Bhandara etc. 10. This is the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313. He denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was innocent. The deceased was preparing tea on the day of the occurrence with the help of a stove in the kitchen. She had caught fire accidentally. He had tried to extinguish the fire, in the process, he had burnt his fingers. He further alleged that the parents of the deceased were greedy. They were "extracting money" from him. He had never demanded any valuables from his wife or her parents. He had "brought a colour TV and VCR from Italy" himself. He had also purchased a fridge and a BPL washing machine. He had deposited Rs. 50.000/- in the name of his wife in the Punjab National Bank in her account. He further sated that he had deposited Rs. 5100/- on two occasions at Mansa Devi for organising Bhandaras. He denied having made any demand from the family of the deceased. 12. In defence, he produced five witnesses to prove the import of various articles, the deposit of different amounts of money in the Bank and the purchase of various articles. Amarjit (DW5) was produced to prove the donations made by the appellant for the Bhandaras at Mansa Devi. Counsel for the parties have been heard. The two questions that arise for consideration are :- (i) Did the appellant demand any dowry and cause any injury to the deceased ? (ii) Did the appellant set the deceased ablaze ? 13. According to the prosecution, the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry. He had made a demand for a TV. This was given. Thereafter, a demand for Rs. I0,000/- was made. The demand having not been fulfilled, the inevitable had followed. 14. On an examination of the evidence which has been noticed above, it is clear that the appellant had visited Italy. He was well-placed in life. He had enough money. He had deposited at least Rs. I lac in ihe Bank in his own and in his wifes name. He had been giving money for charity. He had got a colour TV, a VCR, a fridge and also a washing machine. He was well-placed in life. He had enough money. He had deposited at least Rs. I lac in ihe Bank in his own and in his wifes name. He had been giving money for charity. He had got a colour TV, a VCR, a fridge and also a washing machine. As against this, the condition of the family of the deceased was comparatively pathetic. The father was working as a hawker selling eggs on a rehrr. The mother was helping the neighbours in their daily household work. The brother-Vijay Kumar (PW6) was himself working as a salesman at a salary of Rs. 600/- per month. Taking the whole evidence in its totality, it is clear that the appellant was comparatively in a much happier position. In this background, it appears unlikely that he would demand or expect anything from his in-laws. Still further, it has not even been suggested that any demand was made by the appellant for a period of about two and a half years after marriage. It was only about six months prior to the occurrence that the demand for a TV was made. It is alleged that the TV was given. However, the persons from whom the money was borrowed has not been produced. The shopkeeper from whom the TV had allegedly been purchased was also not produced. Still further, no black and white television was recovered from the house of the appellant to show that in fact, it had been given. Similar is the position regarding the demand for Rs, Ten thousand. The person from whom the demand had allegedly been made viz. the father of the deceased was not produced. 15. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, we are unable to accept the story that there was a demand by the appellant and that the death had followed the failure of the complainant family to meet the demand. The whole story regarding the motive is unworthy of credence. 16. Still further, there is no evidence which may indicate that the appellant had given any injury to the deceased. No witness has appeared to state that the injury on the head was given by the appellant, Equally, no one has suggested that he had sprinkled kerosene oil or set the deceased ablaze. 16. Still further, there is no evidence which may indicate that the appellant had given any injury to the deceased. No witness has appeared to state that the injury on the head was given by the appellant, Equally, no one has suggested that he had sprinkled kerosene oil or set the deceased ablaze. Even Vijay Kumar-the brother of the deceased has categorically admitted that he had not seen the appellant either sprinkling the kerosene oil or setting Meena Kumari on tire. In the absence of any clear or cogent evidence to show that the appellant had caused the head injury or the burns, it is difficult to accept the claim of the prosecution that he was responsible for the death of Meena Kumari. 17. Mr. D.P. Singh contends that the death had taken place in the house of the appellant. That too within three years of the marriage. Thus, the onus of giving a reasonable explanation is on the appellant. 18. A perusal of the statement of Constable Amar Singh (PW3) shows that there were marks of tire in the kitchen. 1 !e had taken pictures at that time. He had been specially summoned-by the Investigating Officer. His statement is symbolic of the fact that there was some fire in the kitchen. Still further, it is the admitted position that the clothes and various other articles which were burnt were lying in the kitchen and were recovered therefrom. Both these factors make the version of the appellant that the deceased was preparing tea and that there was an accidental fire look probable. She got burn injuries in that fire. Still further. Dr. Arora (PWI) has admitted the possibility of the head injury having been caused by a fall. In these circumstances, the version given by the accused in the statement under Section 313 is plausible and worthy of being believed. 19. It also deserves mention that the appellant was not medically examined by ASI Dayal Singh (PW8). Burn injuries were found on both his hands. Pus was exuding. This was symbolic of his effort to save the deceased from death. It was not the conduct of a guilty man who may have tried to set her ablaze. 20. Another fact which deserves mention is that the evidence on record militates against the claim of the prosecution that the appellant was a greedy person. Pus was exuding. This was symbolic of his effort to save the deceased from death. It was not the conduct of a guilty man who may have tried to set her ablaze. 20. Another fact which deserves mention is that the evidence on record militates against the claim of the prosecution that the appellant was a greedy person. On the contrary, the statements made by the five defence witnesses clearly show that he had been working abroad. He had brought back a few imported articles. He had paid import duty. He had purchased a fridge and a washing machine in India. He had deposited substantial amounts of money in his own and in his wifes name. He had also given Rs. 5100/- at the temple on two occasions. It is unlikely that such a person shall be killing his wife for a paltry sum of Rs. 10,000/-. That too after about two and a half years of the marriage and the birth of a son. 21. Besides everything else, we are not even satisfied about the presence of Vijay Ku-marat Ambalaon April 7, 1995. It is the prosecutions case that he was present at the house of the deceased. He had come to know that she had been set ablaze. At that time, he was present near the police post. Yet, he did not go to the police station. Why ? There is no explanation , He did not even go to his sister to see her condition. Still further, he chose to come to Manimajra rather than go to the Hospital. The conduct is noi normal. The presence seems doubtful. 22. As a result, both the questions posed above are answered in favour of the appellant. 23. in view of the above, we are not satisfied that the occurrence had taken place as alleged. Thus, the charge cannot be said to have been proved against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.