Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1697 (PNJ)

Megh Raj Goyal v. State of Punjab

2003-12-19

S.S.GREWAL

body2003
JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J. - This Criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order passed by Shri R.K. Tyagi, Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1997 decided on 17.8.2000 in case FIR No. 314 of 8.11.1996 registered under Sections 304-B/498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Barnala. The accused were acquitted of the charge by giving them benefit of doubt. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Mamta, the youngest of the three daughters of the complainant, was married to Dr. Rajesh Kumar about 3-1/4 years ago from the date of occurrence and dowry according to the capacity of the parents of the bride was given. After the marriage Mamta started doing her M.D. at Patiala and her husband Rajesh Kumar Garg joined Government service in Civil Hospital, Barnala as a Doctor. During December, 1995 after the retirement of the complainant, Dr. Mamta went to Bathinda to meet her parents, where she disclosed to the complainant in the presence of his son Harmesh Kumar that her in-laws needed Rs. 50,000/- for X ray plant. That amount was paid by Megh Raj to his son-in-law Rajesh Kumar Garg, after some days. About two months prior to the complaint, Mamta had completed her M.D. and had come back to Barnala in her in-laws house. About 15 days prior to the complaint, she visited Bathinda and told the complainant in the presence of Ramesh Kumar, his relative, that her husband Rajesh Kumar Garg, father-in-law Krishan Chand and mother-in-law Pushpa Devi demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- for starting a laboratory. She was assured by the complainant that he would try to make arrangement and would inform her at Barnala. On 3.11.1996 Megh Raj alongwith Ramesh Kumar, his relative, came at Barnala and told Dr. Rajesh Kumar, in the presence of his parents, that he could not arrange the money. At this Krishan Chand suggested that the complainant should pay the amount from his pensionary benefits. Megh Raj then demanded some more time, at which Rajesh Kumar Garg and his parents threatened that if the money was not paid, within a week, his daughter would face the consequences. At this Krishan Chand suggested that the complainant should pay the amount from his pensionary benefits. Megh Raj then demanded some more time, at which Rajesh Kumar Garg and his parents threatened that if the money was not paid, within a week, his daughter would face the consequences. On 8.11.1996, when Megh Raj, alongwith his son Harmesh Kumar, had gone to deliver sweets of Diwali festival in the house of Mamtas in-laws, they found Mamta lying dead in the Verandah and froath was coming out from her mouth and nostrils. It was further stated in the FIR that she had been killed by administering some poison by her husband and parents-in-law due to non-fulfilment of their demand of money. 3. On the basis of above statement, the case was registered under Sections 304-B/34 Indian Penal Code Investigation started. After completing the investigation, instant challan was put in the Court of concerned Magistrate. As the offence was triable by Court of Sessions, exclusively, so this case was committed to that Court. 4. The prosecution, to prove its case against the accused, examined eight witnesses. After the close of the prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused also examined ten witnesses in defence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complainant Megh Raj-PW3 has clearly deposed that accused Dr. Rajesh Kumar Garg was opening a laboratory at Barnala. Firstly, deceased Dr. Mamta came to her parents and took Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant and then again she came and said that her husband and her in-laws were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- more. Megh Raj further deposed that they came at Barnala and told Dr. Rajesh Kumar in the presence of his parents that he could not arrange the money. Kishan Chand, the father of Dr. Rajesh Kumar, told that if they did not pay the money, then his daughter would face the consequences. So, there was a clear demand of dowry. Dr. Mamta after completing her MD at Patiala came back at Barnala and died within three months. Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla, who conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Dr. Mamta found the following injuries on her body :- 1. So, there was a clear demand of dowry. Dr. Mamta after completing her MD at Patiala came back at Barnala and died within three months. Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla, who conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Dr. Mamta found the following injuries on her body :- 1. An abrasion 3/4 cm x .5 cm just behind the lobule of the left ear on the lateral aspect of the upper part of the neck. 2. Two abrasions measuring 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm each on the lateral aspect of the upper part of the neck just below injury No. 1. 7. The learned counsel further vehemently argued that these injuries could not have been caused in any manner except by way of frothily. Learned trial court has brushed aside the evidence and acquitted the accused of the charges. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents, on the other hand, has argued that the marriage of Dr. Mamta and Dr. Rajesh Kumar took place on 24.7.1993. She started doing her MD at Patiala after marriage. Youngest sister of Dr. Rajesh Kumar was also doing Dental Surgery Course at Patiala. Her mother was also living at Patiala. Dr. Mamta was maintaining separate bank account and all her expenses were being met by her in-laws. She was depositing stipend in her separate account. In-laws of Mamta never demanded money. It was only Megh Raj, her father, who was asking for money from her. He got Rs. 24000/- withdrawn from her account and purchased a scooter in her name which was then transferred in the name of her son of Megh Raj. She had also left a dying declaration Ex. DA, wherein she had clearly stated that she was a psychic and that she committed suicide. No person from her in-laws family be held responsible for the same. Definitely, it has come in evidence that Dr. Mamta was having separate bank account from which money was withdrawn for being utilized by her parents, Megh Raj and others. Her husband and her in-laws allowed her to deposit stipend in her own account. There is no evidence on record of any kind to prove the demand of dowry, except the statement of Megh Raj PW3 and his son Ramesh Kumar PW4. Her husband and her in-laws allowed her to deposit stipend in her own account. There is no evidence on record of any kind to prove the demand of dowry, except the statement of Megh Raj PW3 and his son Ramesh Kumar PW4. She had specifically narrated in her dying declaration that her husband loved her very much and there was no quarrel between her and her in-laws. She further stated that she was getting full love and affection in her in-laws house. She had also stated that her father should not make any complaint against her in-laws. Whole of the dying declaration is in her own handwriting. She had also stated in her dying declaration that she was very happy and there was no stress on her mind but still she was a psychic. A perusal of the dying declaration further shows that she had suicidal tendency as a result of which she died but not for the demand of dowry. Taking the totality of circumstances of the case into circumstances, I am of the view that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court does not call for any interference. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.