Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 676 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Rajbati

2002-07-17

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The present appeal by State is against the judgment of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 18.11.1991 in a case arising out of FIR No. 290 of 12.10.1990 under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad. 2. Briefly, the prosecution story is that Nirmala aged 19 years was married to Rakesh accused No. 2 on 1.5.1987. Nirmala died on 12.10.1990 due to poisoning at Faridabad i.e. the place of her husband. First Information Report was recorded on the statement of Satish Chander, brother of Nirmala deceased, stating therein that the marriage of his sister was solemnised on 1.5.1987 with Rakesh, Dhobi by caste resident of Kharakpur District Etah, Uttar Pradesh. It was stated that his father had given dowry according to his capacity but accused No. 2 and his aunt accused No. 1 were not satisfied and used to harass her time and again for bringing more dowry. Many a times, it was stated, that his sister had told him about this but they were not in a position to give more dowry. On this issue, his brother-in-law and Checheri mother-in-law i.e. fathers younger brothers wife, accused No. 1 used to give beating to her. It was further alleged that 15 days before the occurrence Nirmala had come to her in-laws from their house and on that day at 5 p.m. he had received an information that his brother-in- law Rakesh and his aunt Rajbati had committed murder of Nirmala in the greed of more dowry. It was further stated that he along with his uncle Sohan Lal and cousin i.e. Taus son, the elder brother of fathers son Krishan Pal came to house of in-laws at Jharia Market and found the dead body of his sister. 3. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted challan before the court. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 4 Satish, brother of Smt. Nirmala and P.W.5 Sohne Lal, uncle of Nirmala apart from other witnesses. After recording of evidence of prosecution, statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC were recorded. On appreciation of evidence brought on record, the trial court found that the second important ingredient of dowry death relating to cruelty and/or harassment has not been proved. After recording of evidence of prosecution, statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC were recorded. On appreciation of evidence brought on record, the trial court found that the second important ingredient of dowry death relating to cruelty and/or harassment has not been proved. The trial Court was of the opinion that the witnesses who are family members of the lady would naturally have the tendency to exaggerate or adding facts which might not have been stated to them at all. The trial Court recorded that the statement of P.W. 4 does not show any allegation as to when specific demand of dowry was made by anyone of the accused. The trial Court found contradictions in the statement of Sohne Lal and Satish Kumar and consequently held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case to the effect that Nirmala was maltreated, harassed and beaten by the cruel behaviour on the part of the accused. 4. We have heard Shri D.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the appellant-State of Haryana and Shri R.S. Sihota, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent-accused and on perusal of the record we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. 5. The offences under which the respondents have been put to trial are 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. It will be beneficial to reproduce Section 304-B and 498-A IPC for ready reference : "304-B. Dowry death :- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation :- - For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 6. Explanation :- - For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 6. A perusal of the above provisions would show that for the above offences it is required to be proved that the death of a woman should be by any burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death should be within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) and that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry, and (v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. The cruelty or harassment is explained under Section 498-A IPC. Cruelty has been explained to mean any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of a woman. The harassment has been explained to mean to coercing 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. Section 498-A reads as follows :- 498-A : Husband or relative of husband 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 punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation :- - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means - a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing 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." 7. Smt. Nirmala has died otherwise than under normal circumstances and that too within 7 years of her marriage but the third condition of her being subjected to cruelty or harassment has not been proved by the prosecution so as to warrant conviction of the respondent-accused. Though Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code does not define cruelty or harassment which a woman may be subjected to, however, the definition of cruelty or harassment contained in Section 498-A can be taken to be reasonable instances of cruelty or harassment as defined under Section 498-A. The definition may not be exhaustive for the purposes of Section 304-B but reasonably it includes the cruelty or harassment as defined in the said section. 8. The prosecution has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that Nirmala was subjected to cruelty or harassment before her death. First Information Report Ex.PF/1 contains vague allegation that accused were not happy with the dowry given. However, no particular instance of demand of dowry has been mentioned in the FIR. It is Sohne Lal PW5 who has stated in court that the accused raised the demand of dowry demanding TV, Fans and Double-bed and cash of Rs. 10,000/-. Sohne Lal is the uncle of Nirmala and thus any demand of down made before her death was bound to be known to Satish Chander, brother of Nirmala deceased, but still not a single instance of any particular dowry was mentioned in the First Information Report. 9. The statement of Satish Chander to the effect that Nirmala was given beating by the accused about 15 days prior to her death and she was brought to Delhi is not reliable. 9. The statement of Satish Chander to the effect that Nirmala was given beating by the accused about 15 days prior to her death and she was brought to Delhi is not reliable. There is no report to the police or any medical examination report to find out the nature of injuries, if any, received by the deceased. Even Sohne Lal has not supported Satish Chander to such alleged maltreatment of Nirmala at the hands of the accused. 10. There are other discrepancies in the statements of material witnesses P.W. 5 Satish Chander and P.W.5 Sohne Lal regarding performing of Gauna ceremony of Nirmala, her going to Delhi. P.W. 4 Satish Chander, in fact, could not even give the details of dowry articles given at the time of engagement or marriage or even the profession of her brother-in-law Rakesh accused. Jamuna Parsad who is go between to perform the marriage of Nirmala with Rakesh had not been produced. The statements of Satish Chander and Sohne Lal do not inspire confidence and the learned trial Court was right in appreciating their evidence to hold that the accused are not guilty of offences under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. 11. For the reasons recorded above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason, to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents. There is no perversity or absurdity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Therefore, there is no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned trial court in the present appeal. Consequently, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.