Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1207 (PNJ)

Dod Ram v. State of Haryana

2003-08-27

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - This appeal arises out of the following facts :- Hari Singh (PW 3) had three daughters, namely Saroj Bala (deceased), Rajbala (PW 1) and Bimla, who had been married to three brothers Ram Pershad, Dharamvir and Surender accused, respectively, sons of Dod Ram accused in the year 1984. At the time of the settlement of the marriages, Hari Singh had promised to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- in cash to each of them. It appears, however, that before the marriage could be finalised, the panchayats of several villages unanimously resolved that a sum of Rs. 100/- only was to be given to each of the grooms or their parents at the time of the marriage. Hari Singh in response to the aforesaid decision accordingly gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to each of his three sons-in-law. Dod Ram accused was, however, un-happy as the amount promised had not been paid. The Muklawa ceremony of Saroj had taken place after about one year of the marriage and on that occasion Dod Ram had asked Hari Singh to pay Rs. 21,000/- to them. This demand was made in the presence of Nand Lal (PW 4). Nand Lal and the others accordingly gave an assurance to Dod Ram that this amount would be paid in instalments. The Muklawa ceremony was accordingly performed and Saroj was taken to the matrimonial home by Ram Pershad and Dod Ram from the house of her father. Saroj thereafter resided and co-habited with Ram Pershad for about 1-1/4 years, but was not allowed to visit her parents house despite numerous requests made by her and her father and Hari Singh was categorically told that she would be allowed to visit his house only after Rs. 21,000/- had been paid as promised by him. Hari Singh and his maternal uncle Sultan Singh, however, came to the house of the accused and succeeded in persuading them to allow Saroj to visit her parents house. Saroj stayed with her parents for a short while, but as no body from amongst the accused came to take her back to her matrimonial house, messages were sent several times to do so, but to no effect. Saroj stayed with her parents for a short while, but as no body from amongst the accused came to take her back to her matrimonial house, messages were sent several times to do so, but to no effect. The marriage of Raghbir Singh, the brother of Saroj, Rajbala and Bimla was to take place on 26.5.1988, on which Hari Singh accompanied by several other persons went to the house of the accused to invite them to the function. At that time, the accused again asked Hari Singh to pay Rs. 21,000/- and also to provide a television set. An assurance was again held out by Hari Singh and the others that their demands would be met in due course. Accordingly accused Ram Pershad, Dharamvir and Dod Ram along with 3-4 other persons of their village came to village Bhaira to attend Raghbir Singhs wedding but once again made a demand for the payment of Rs. 21,000/- and a television set. Ram Pershad and Dharamvir stayed on in the house of Hari Singh in village Bhaira after the wedding, whereas the others returned to village Gignau. On 29.5.1988, the Muklawa ceremony of Rajbala (PW 1) was also performed on which Saroj and Rajbala accompanied by their respective husbands returned to village Gignau in the early hours, when all the accused reprimanded them for committing a breach of trust in not giving them Rs. 21,000/- in cash and a television set. Saroj and Rajbala told the accused that their father was a poor man and not in a position to meet the demands. This further annoyed the accused. In the evening of 29.5.1988, accused Ram Rati, Man Kaur, Dod Ram and Ram Pershad dragged Saroj inside the room from the court-yard while Dharamvir dragged his wife Rajbala (PW 1) to a room upstairs. Rajbala then heard the shrieks of her sister Saroj Na maro, Na maro. Rajbala was, however, prevented by Dharamvir from coming downstairs and kept her confined with him throughout the night. On the morning of 30.5.1988, Rajbala come down-stairs and saw Sarojs dead body lying in the court-yard. In the meanwhile, Dod Ram had gone to village Bhaira on the night intervening 29/30.5.1988 and informed Hari Singh PW that Saroj was lying ill in the hospital. On the morning of 30.5.1988, Rajbala come down-stairs and saw Sarojs dead body lying in the court-yard. In the meanwhile, Dod Ram had gone to village Bhaira on the night intervening 29/30.5.1988 and informed Hari Singh PW that Saroj was lying ill in the hospital. Hari Singh along with his uncle thereupon reached village Gignau on the morning of 30.5.1988 and found the dead body lying in the court-yard. After seeing the dead body, Hari Singh returned to his village but the next morning, i.e. on 1.6.1988 accompanied by about thirty persons of his village including his wife came to the house of the accused and he overheard people openly saying that Saroj had been murdered. Rajbala PW was thereupon questioned by Hari Singh and she confirmed the information. Early the next morning, i.e. on 2.6.1988, Hari Singh PW accompanied by Rajbala and Nand Lal came to Loharu and leaving Rajbala and Nand Lal at the bus stand lodged the FIR in the police station, on which ASI Mohinder Singh (PW 5) took up the investigation of the case. Accompanied by Hari Singh he came to the bus stand where he recorded the statements of Rajbala and Nand Lal. He also visited the cremation ground in village Gignau and took into possession the remains of Saroj putting them into two separate parcels. Dod Ram, Man Kaur and Dharamvir were arrested on 5.6.1988, whereas Ram Pershad was arrested on the next day, i.e., 6.6.1988. Ram Rati was, however, found innocent during the course of investigation, but was summoned to face prosecution on an application made under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution in support of its case placed reliance primarily on the evidence of Rajbala (PW 1), Hari Singh (PW 3), Nand Lal (PW 4) and SI Mohinder Singh (PW 5). 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while admitting their inter se relationship with each other and also with Saroj, Rajbala and Bimla and the fact that the panchayats had resolved that a sum of Rs. 100/- only was to be paid by the father of the bride as dowry and that Saroj had died on the night intervening 29/30.5.1988 in her matrimonial home, denied the fact that Saroj had been done the death by them. 100/- only was to be paid by the father of the bride as dowry and that Saroj had died on the night intervening 29/30.5.1988 in her matrimonial home, denied the fact that Saroj had been done the death by them. They pleaded that Saroj had died of a sun-stroke and that the dead body had been cremated with the permission of Hari Singh and it was when Hari Singh had sought a sum of Rs. one lac which they could not pay, that they have been falsely involved in the case. They also examined certain witnesses in defence. 4. The trial Court in its judgment relied on the evidence of Hari Singh (PW 3), Rajbala (PW 1) and Nand Lal (PW 4) to hold that a demand for dowry had been made from Hari Singh on five different occasions and on each occasion, it was primarily Ram Pershad and Dod Ram, who had demanded the dowry. The Court also concluded that as the sum of Rs. 21,000/- had not been paid by Hari Singh as promised by him in consideration of the marriage of Ram Pershad with Saroj, she had been maltreated by her husband and for arriving at this conclusion relied primarily on the evidence of Rajbala, Sarojs sister, who stood married to Dharamvir accused, Ram Pershalds brother. The Court accordingly held that from the evidence of Rajbala, the maltreatment meted out not only to Saroj but also to Rajbala (PW 1) at the hands of Man Kaur, Ram Rati and Dod Ram, stood proved beyond doubt. The Court also rejected the defence version that Saroj had died on account of natural causes. The defence witnesses to prove this story were held to be untrustworthy. The Court accordingly held that in the light of provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as well the presumption raised under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, it was to be held that the accused other than Dharamvir had committed an offence under Section 304-B of the Code and having held as above, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. Dharamvir was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the convicted accused. 6. Mr. Dharamvir was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the convicted accused. 6. Mr. R.S. Ghai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the FIR in this case had been lodged belatedly and that the story had been cooked up, in the meanwhile, so as to involve the accused in a false case. It has also been urged that evidence of Hari Singh (PW 3) and Rajbala (PW 1) did not inspire confidence as these two witnesses had not complained to any one with regard to the misbehaviour of the accused with Saroj and Rajbala. It has also been urged that the evidence clearly involved only two of the accused, i.e., Dod Ram and Ram Pershad and the involvement of Man Kaur and Ram Rati was not clearly spelt out. 7. Mr. Sanjiv Dahiya, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State has, however, urged that the finding of the trial Court on the involvement of the accused are clearly spelt out from the evidence. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 9. It is the admitted case that PW 3 Hari Singhs daughters, Saroj (deceased), Rajbala (PW 1) and Bimla were married to Ram Pershad, Dharamvir and Surender accused, respectively, all sons of Dod Ram accused. It is also clear from the evidence of Hari Singh, Rajbala and Nand Lal PWs that demands for Rs. 21,000/- and a television set had repeatedly been made by Dod Ram and Ram Pershald. It is also clear from the evidence of Hari Singh that the demand for the first time had been made at the time of the marriage of the three girls, secondly at the time of the Muklawa ceremony of Saroj and on three different occasions thereafter preceding the marriage of Raghbir Singh, Sarojs brother. Clearly no demands for dowry had been made by Man Kaur and Ram Rati although they may have been a party to harassment to Saroj and Rajbala. It is also clear from the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the prosecution story stands virtually admitted by the accused themselves. The evidence of Rajbala is equally important. Admittedly she was a daughter-in-law of Dod Ram. It is also clear from the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the prosecution story stands virtually admitted by the accused themselves. The evidence of Rajbala is equally important. Admittedly she was a daughter-in-law of Dod Ram. She, however, clearly stated that she and her sister had been repeatedly harassed by the accused, in particular, Dod Ram and Ram Pershad for failing to bring the Rs. 21,000/- as promised by their father. 10. It is true that there is a delay in the lodging of the FIR in this case. It has, however, come in the evidence of Hari Singh that after receiving information about Sarojs death, he had first gone to village Gignau, seen the dead body, returned home, collected his relatives and returned to village Gignau and it was on the second occasion that he had overhead some people saying that Saroj had been murdered. It is also significant that the three daughters of Hari Singh stood married to three of Dod Rams sons. It is, therefore, obvious that Hari Singh would have been very careful before taking any step which could have serious repercussions on the marriage of the other two daughters. In this connection, the story that Hari Singh had lodged to false complaint as Dod Ram had refused to pay Rs. one lac does not appear to be correct. The defence story is also un-acceptable as there is no cogent evidence to show that Saroj had died of a sun-stroke. I, however, find that there is absolutely no evidence to show the involvement of Man Kaur and Ram Rati. Man Kaur was the wife of Dod Ram, whereas Ram Rati was his married daughter. I find that the evidence of Hari Singh (PW 3) and Nand Lal (PW 4) is silent on the involvement of these two accused, whereas Rajbalas evidence involves them to a limited extent only and does not give them any substantial role in making the demands for dowry or the circumstances leading to Sarojs death. They are accordingly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. They are accordingly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. However, in the light of the presumption raised under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and in the light of the evidence of Hari Singh, Rajbala and Nand Lal PWs., it must be held that Dod Ram and Ram Pershad were responsible for the dowry death of Saroj. The appeal qua them is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the criminal revision bearing No. 96 of 1990 (Hari Singh v. Dod Ram and others) is also dismissed. Order accordingly.