Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 347 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. State Of Haryana

2001-03-14

AMAR DUTT

body2001
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 607 and 620 of 2000, in which the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment dated 23.5.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat dismissing the appeal filed before him to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat under Section 498-A IPC. 2. The case against the petitioners was the outcome of matrimonial discord which arose between Santosh Kumari and Satish Kumar after the solemnisation of their marriage on 21.10.1985. According to F.I.R. No. 695 dated 20.6.1992 that was registered in Police Station City Sonepat at the behest of Santosh Kumari, at the time of her engagement, her partens had given sufficient articles valued at Rs. 20,000/- to her husband and other members of his family. At the time of her marriage, various articles listed in the complaint were handed over to the accused and in all about Rs. 1,50,000/- were spent thereon. Despite this, the persons mentioned in the complaint were not satisfied with the articles of dowry handed over to them, with the result that her husband Satish Kumar, mother-in-law Satya, brother-in-law Sunil Kumar, father-in-law Ram Lal, his sister Ishwar Devi and Om Parkash, brother-in-law of Ram Lal had been pressing her to bring more dowry. Satish Kumar-husband had demanded Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of goods for his shop which amount was given to him. Inspite of that, the petitioners were not satisfied and had been giving beating her off and on. After the birth of the children, the petitioners turned her out of the matrimonial home so that her parents could be forced to spend money on the unbringing of the children. On the birth of each of her children her parents had spent Rs. 20,000/- but this had not satisfied her in-laws. Om Parkash, the brother-in-law of her father-in-law used other methods to torture her and she bore the atrocities attributed them to her lock (luch ?). On 1.12.1991 the petitioners had tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her but she was able to save herself by running away. The neighbours had pacified her and assured that her in-laws would behave properly in future. Despite this assurance there was no change in their attitude and on 3.3.1992 her husband gave ger severe beating and asked her to bring Rs. The neighbours had pacified her and assured that her in-laws would behave properly in future. Despite this assurance there was no change in their attitude and on 3.3.1992 her husband gave ger severe beating and asked her to bring Rs. 45,000/- for the purpose of taking Agency and they could give only Rs. 25,000/-. On account of the beating, she started bleeding and was about to leave for Delhi Police Station but was dissuaded by the members of the locality from doing so. The attitude of the in-laws did not change and on 21.5.1992 she was turned out from the house after being told that she should not return to the matrimonial home otherwise she and her children would be done to death. She was also told that if she wanted to settle with Satish Kumar then her parents should purchase a separate house for her. The Ishtridhan was kept by them. On the basis of this complaint, formal FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 120-B IPC was registered. 3. During investigation list of articles Ex.PB and letters alleged to have been written by Santosh Kumari Ex.PD, Ex.PE, Ex.PF, Ex.PG and Ex.PH were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P.5. On completion of the investigation challan was put in court under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. On going through the challan, the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and when the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, called upon the prosecution to lead evidence in support of its case. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioners of the offence under Section 406 IPC but convicted them under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. 4. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioners filed an appeal and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat on reappraisal of the evidence on record dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. 5. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. 4. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioners filed an appeal and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat on reappraisal of the evidence on record dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that a perusal of the judgments of the Courts below indicates that they have addressed themselves to the question as to whether Section 498-A IPC is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case in a very causal manner without keeping in mind explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC, which reads as under :- Section 498-A. Husband or relative of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purpose of this Section, `cruelty means - (a) xx xx xx (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coericing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." The Courts below, it was submitted, have not appreciated evidence, in the light of this explanation and while doing so, have overlooked the possibility of exaggeration by the complainant merely on account of her desire to seek revenge against her tormentors or improve her bargaining power in the legal battle that may ensue. The Courts have also not tried to determine whether the evidence against the accused pin points with any specificity the roles played by them as also the possibility of the best evidence - being available in the shape of social and other channels having been set into motion to restore normalcy having been followed. The Courts have also not tried to determine whether the evidence against the accused pin points with any specificity the roles played by them as also the possibility of the best evidence - being available in the shape of social and other channels having been set into motion to restore normalcy having been followed. The Courts have also not only lost sight of the fact that the improvements made by the witnesses during the course of their cross-examination may have to be ruled out of consideration if not properly explained as also the fact that an overall viewing the evidence led before it in its totality, it could hardly be inferred that the prosecution had been able to prove the charges framed against the petitioners. It has also been submitted that in any case, the evidence against Ishwar Devi and Om Parkash does not prove the charges against them. 6 On behalf of the State, it was submitted that in the present case though the trial Court has acquitted the petitioners of the charge framed against them under Section 406 IPC yet it was rightly held that the offence under Section 498-A IPC was proved beyond doubt. While doing so, the Courts have relied upon the testimony of Santosh Kumari PW1, Bhagwanti PW5 and Kamal Kishore PW6 and though there are some improvements in the statements made by the mother and brother of the complainant, the fact that the allegations made by the complainant regarding the harassment suffered by her at the hands of the accused go unchallenged would be sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence recorded against them. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have scanned through the records with their help. 8. The case against the petitioners was registered about six years after the marriage. According to the prosecution, the wife was being harassed by the petitioners with demands for money. While Satish Kumar, his mother Satya Devi and brother Sunil Kumar were residing in the same house, it has been brought on the record in the statements of the witnesses that Om Parkash and Ishwar Devi were living separately, Om Parkash in the same town while Ishwar Devi was living in Delhi. While Satish Kumar, his mother Satya Devi and brother Sunil Kumar were residing in the same house, it has been brought on the record in the statements of the witnesses that Om Parkash and Ishwar Devi were living separately, Om Parkash in the same town while Ishwar Devi was living in Delhi. Furthermore, in the evidence there is little indication about the periodicity of their visit to the house of Satish Kumar from which factor it might be possible for the Court to infer an influence which these petitioners could have had on the affairs of the family in relation to the daughter-in-law. Even the statement of Santosh Kumari is silent about this aspect of the case and though her testimony with regard to the role played by the other members of the family has not been challenged in the cross- examination, the absence of any direct involvement of Om Parkash and Ishwar Devi qua demands of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 45,000/- and her arranging Rs. 20,000/- for payment to her husband are singularly silent about the participation of these two petitioners. This failure on the part of the counsel for Satish Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi to challenge this part of the statement of Santosh Kumari goes a long way to enable the Court to hold that what has been stated by her should be accepted as correct inspite of the fact that the portion of the statement of her mother regarding this aspect is an improvement upon the statement made by her before the police and may have to be ruled out of consideration. The testimony of Kamal Kishore, brother, corroborates the testimony of Santosh Kumari and gives greater credence to what has been said by her qua the involvement of Satish Kumar and his immediate relations in the harassment of Santosh Kumari. It is in the light of this testimony which is available on the record that the ambit of explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC has to be seen. The evidence regarding the hold of petitioners Satish Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi squarely falls within the ambit of explanation and, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against them. The evidence regarding the hold of petitioners Satish Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi squarely falls within the ambit of explanation and, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against them. Furthermore, quite apart from what has been stated by the prosecution witnesses, even the statement of Mela Ram DW1 to some extent supports the prosecution case and enables the Court to come to the conclusion that what has been stated by Santosh Kumari and Kamal Kishore must necessarily be true. 9. For the reasons recorded above, while granting the benefit of doubt to Ishwar Devi and Om Parkash and accepting Criminal Revision No. 607 of 2000 I am of the considered view that Criminal Revision No. 620 of 2000 is devoid of merit and the same has to be dismissed. Order accordingly.