Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 821 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Nandlal

2002-08-20

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. State of Punjab has filed the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 8.10.1993 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondents herein for an offence under Sections 302/34/304-B and 316 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of statement of Ram Lubhaya father of deceased Sunita who was married to Nand Lal on 15.1.1986. Accused No. 2 Lajwanti is the mother of Nand Lal. Ram Lubhaya is resident of Ludhiana whereas Nand Lal is resident of Patiala. 3. As per the allegations of the prosecution, on 11.7.1989 at about 8/8.15 a.m. Mukesh Kumar P.W. 4 was talking with his friend Amrit Lal. Meanwhile, they heard shrieks and raula Mar Ditta Mar Ditta. They rushed to the chobara of the accused and noticed that Sunita was crying and she stated that she had been set on fire by her husband Nand Lal and mother-in-law Lajwanti by pouring kerosene oil over her body. Amrit Lal and Mukesh Kumar extinguished the fire but accused provided no assistance. However, Mukesh Kumar and Nand Lal took Sunita to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala where Dr. Charanjit Singh and Dr. Gurpartap Singh treated her. Telephonic message at 3.40 p.m. was sent by Medical Officer, Rajindra Hospital to the police and SI Mohan Singh went to hospital at 5.30 p.m. Sunita was found unconscious at that time and the doctor did not declare her fit for making statement. At that stage, P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar went to Ludhiana to inform Ram Lubhaya father of Sunita and his real brother-in-law. They came to Patiala but before that Sunita had expired in hospital. On the basis of the statement of Ram Lubhaya, Ex.PG, FIR was recorded and investigations started by the police. 4. On completion of investigation, challan was presented. Respondents were charged under Section 302/34 IPC and in the alternative under Sections 302- B/34 and 316 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined various prosecution witnesses including Dr. Gurpartap Singh P.W. 2, Mukesh Kumar P.W. 4, Kanwaljit Singh P.W. 5 and Ram Lubhaya P.W. 6. The trial Court after considering evidence on record passed order acquitting the respondents herein; hence the present appeal. 6. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined various prosecution witnesses including Dr. Gurpartap Singh P.W. 2, Mukesh Kumar P.W. 4, Kanwaljit Singh P.W. 5 and Ram Lubhaya P.W. 6. The trial Court after considering evidence on record passed order acquitting the respondents herein; hence the present appeal. 6. We have heard Shri S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the appellant-State of Punjab and Shri Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent-accused and with their assistance perused the record of the case. 7. Realising that there is no evidence to prove the pouring of kerosene oil and that of fire upon the person of Sunita by the accused persons and that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove charge of an offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned State Counsel argued that the respondents are guilty of an offence under Section 304-B IPC as there is unnatural death of Sunita within 7 years of marriage and the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the question which requires to be examined in this appeal is whether the deceased Sunita was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry so as to raise a presumption of an offence in terms of Section 304-B IPC. 8. P.W.4 Mukesh Kumar, P.W. 5 Kanwaljit Singh and Ram Lubhaya P.W. 6 are the witnesses to prove the charge of an offence under Section 304-B IPC against the respondents. P.W.6 Ram Lubhaya, father of the deceased Sunita has stated that he had given dowry to Sunita Devi at the time of her marriage. She resided with the accused in their house at Patiala for some time but she came to his house and told that she was being maltreated and harassed by the accused on the point of dowry and they were demanding money. The deceased remained with her father for about one/one and half year. Thereafter, some persons from the side of the accused came to him including both the accused. Some persons from their side were also collected, where a compromise was effected and Sunita was sent with the accused to her matrimonial home. 9. The deceased remained with her father for about one/one and half year. Thereafter, some persons from the side of the accused came to him including both the accused. Some persons from their side were also collected, where a compromise was effected and Sunita was sent with the accused to her matrimonial home. 9. The compromise mentioned by Ram Lubhaya in his statement as P.W. 6 has been proved by Kanwaljit Singh P.W. 5 as Ex.PF. It is signed by the witnesses at Ex.PF/1. P.W. 5 Kanwaljit Singh has stated that daughter of Ram Lubhaya went to her parents house because of maltreatment and harassment by her in- laws as her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents. A panchayat by her husband and her mother-in-law and other persons was convened. Husband of Sunita gave in writing that Sunita would not be maltreated and no demand would be made. 10. On the other hand, P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar has stated that he was present at the time when Sunita was in flames and he and Amrit Lal extinguished the fire but the accused did not assist them in that respect. He has further stated that Sunita was meeting him occasionally and she used to tell him that she was being maltreated and harassed by Nand Lal and Lajwanti as the dowry brought by her was inadequate. 11. The prime document of prosecution to prove the demand of dowry is Ex.PF, writing allegedly executed before Panchayat on 16.10.1988. Said writing reads as under : "Today on 16.10.1988, it was Sunday. I, Nand Lal son of Mulakh Raj resident of Patiala, Sheranwala Gate, Twakli Maur Patiala. I had a family dispute with my wife Sunita Devi. In the presence of the whole panchayat (in the presence of Mohalla Walla) I feel sorry of the mistake. I assure that I will never beat my wife. I will perform my duties. You can proceed legally if any complaint is made. I, Ram Lal, son of Karam Chand self resident of House No. 99 in the presence of the Panchayat and people of Mohalla wala made an agreement and took guarantee of Nand Lal and his wife Sunita." 12. I will perform my duties. You can proceed legally if any complaint is made. I, Ram Lal, son of Karam Chand self resident of House No. 99 in the presence of the Panchayat and people of Mohalla wala made an agreement and took guarantee of Nand Lal and his wife Sunita." 12. The abovesaid writing is signed by Nand Lal accused herein as well as Kanwaljit Singh P.W.5, Harvinder Singh, Makhan Singh, Surnider Singh and two more witnesses Achar Ram and Amar Nath, who have signed in Urdu. 13. A perusal of the said writing would show that it talks about a family dispute with his wife Sunita. Respondent Nand Lal felt sorry for his act and further assured that he will never beat his wife and perform his duties. 14. The counsel for the State argued that said writing proves the maltreatment on the part of the husband and therefore, ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are made out as the dispute which is mentioned in the writing pertain to only dowry as deposed by Kanwaljit Singh P.W. 5 and father of deceased P.W. 6 Ram Lubhaya and therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court acquitting the respondents are not sustainable in law. 15. The dispute between the husband and wife can have many facets. The dispute could be one pertaining to dowry or even sheer uncompatibility. The writing Ex.PF on which the prosecution has placed reliance only talks about a family dispute and undertaking given by husband that he will never beat his wife. The family dispute cannot mean that it was a dispute pertaining to demand of dowry only. There is no oblique reference to any demand of dowry in the said writing. The husband has felt sorry for the mistake. The mistake can be some aberration in his conduct. It is not possible for us to conclusively hold that the family dispute mentioned in the writing Ex.PF pertained only to the demand of dowry. In the presence of written document, oral evidence regarding the contents of document is not admissible. In any case, the benefit of interpretation of document shall go to the accused. It is not possible for us to conclusively hold that the family dispute mentioned in the writing Ex.PF pertained only to the demand of dowry. In the presence of written document, oral evidence regarding the contents of document is not admissible. In any case, the benefit of interpretation of document shall go to the accused. Therefore, from a reading of document Ex.PF we are unable to hold that the dispute between the husband and wife pertain to demand of dowry or that wife was being harassed by the husband in connection with the dowry prior to her death. 16. If the document Ex.PF is excluded, the oral evidence of demand of dowry is that of father Ram Lubhaya P.W.6, P.W.4 Mukesh Kumar and that of Kanwaljit Singh P.W. 5 witness to document Ex.PF. Such statements do not give any details of demand of dowry i.e. the nature of demand of dowry or the time thereof. The allegations are bald. There is no instance of any particular demand of any material goods or money. In the absence of specifics, it will not be prudent to rely upon the bald allegations of mere demand of dowry and money. It is easier to level such bald allegations to implicate husband and his relatives. Such statements are not reliable. 17. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court against the judgment of acquittal is also well known. If two views are possible on appreciation of evidence, the view taken by the trial court cannot be reversed in appeal arising out of judgments of acquittal. The facts and the circumstances of the case particularly writing Ex.PF does not conclusively prove that family dispute between husband and wife pertains only to demand of dowry. Other allegations of demand of dowry are not sufficient in order to take a different view from the one taken by the trial court. The findings recorded by the trial Court are the possible findings in law. We find no illegality or irregularly in the findings recorded. Consequently, we dismissed the present appeal.