Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 40 (PNJ)

Mithu Ram v. State of Punjab

2004-01-13

NIRMAL SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This appeal has been directed against the judgment/order dated 11.9.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, convicting the appellant Mithu Ram under section 304-B Indian Penal Code. Mithu Ram was sentenced to undergo R.I for 7 years under section 304-B Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Paramjit Kaur was married with the appellant Mithu Ram. After the marriage, she resided with him for about six months. Thereafter Mithu Ram demanded Rs. 10,000/- from Paramjit Kaur for starting his own business, but she refused to pay. The appellant left Paramjit Kaur at her parents house at Bathinda. She resided there for about 4-5 months. Parkash Chand, father of Paramjit Kaur went to the house of Mithu Ram and requested him to rehabilitate his daughter Paramjit Kaur but Mithu Ram refused. Thereafter Paramjit Kaur filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Bathinda. The matter was compromised with the help of respectables. The appellant took Paramjit Kaur to his house with the assurance that he would not harass her in any manner. Paramjit Kaur lived happily for about 4/5 months with the appellant at Chhintanwala. Mithu Ram again started demanding money from Paramjit Kaur for the consideration of his house. Prakash Chand, father of Paramjit Kaur sent his wife Dwarki Devi who purchased the material for the construction of the house for Rs. 1200/-. It is further case of the prosecution that Daulat Ram alongwith another person came to the house of Parkash Chand and informed him that Paramjit Kaur had fallen from the roof and has received injuries and she was admitted at Nabha. Parkash Chand alongwith him wife Dwarki Devi came to Chhintanwala and reached at about 5 p.m. On their way from the railway station to Chhintanwala, they came to know from some passer-by that Paramjit Kaur had been cremated. On the next day, Parkash Chand alongwith his wife went to the Police Station to lodge the report, but the police did not lodged the report. He went to the police station for 2-3 days but police did not take any action. Then Parkash Chand went to the office of Deputy Commissioner Patiala alongwith some other persons and moved an application. He also sent complaints to various higher authorities. He went to the police station for 2-3 days but police did not take any action. Then Parkash Chand went to the office of Deputy Commissioner Patiala alongwith some other persons and moved an application. He also sent complaints to various higher authorities. On 24.8.1987 he went to the police station and made statement on the basis of which FIR Exh. PE was lodged. 3. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate under section 304-B Indian Penal Code and case was committed to the Court of Sessions as it was exclusively triable by the said Court. 4. On commitment, this case was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. From the perusal of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, a prima-facie case under section 304-B Indian Penal Code was made out against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5-6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses :- PW1 B.S. Sidhu, draftsman. He has prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PA in the scale of 1" equal to 15 with correct marginal notes. PW2 Parkash Chand, complainant, father of deceased Paramjit Kaur. PW3 Prem Kumar. A formal witness. He has proved that Paramjit Kaur has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, at Bhatinda. PW4 Prem Kumari, Assistant in Civil Hospital, Nabha. She is also formal witness. She has placed on record bed head ticket of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mithu Ram. PW5 Dr. Bharat Bhusan. He has medically examined Paramjit Kaur on 16.8.1987 and found the following injuries on her person : "1. 6 x 5 contusion with 3.5 x 1 cm bone deep lacerated wound on the left frontal part of the scalp. Fresh blood was present. Advised X-ray. 2. A contused swelling involving whole of the left eye with adjoining 3 cm area of the left eye with a 2 x 2.5 cm bone deep lacerated wound just 1 cm below the left eye. X-ray was advised. 3. Bleeding per ear was present. X-ray was advised." PW6 Tara Chand, maternal uncle of Paramjit Kaur and he was the mediator at the time of marriage of Mithu Ram with Paramjit Kaur. He deposed that there had been a quarrel between Paramjit Kaur and Mithu Ram but he did not know the motive of quarrel. X-ray was advised. 3. Bleeding per ear was present. X-ray was advised." PW6 Tara Chand, maternal uncle of Paramjit Kaur and he was the mediator at the time of marriage of Mithu Ram with Paramjit Kaur. He deposed that there had been a quarrel between Paramjit Kaur and Mithu Ram but he did not know the motive of quarrel. He further deposed that he was not in much visiting terms with them and Parkash Chand had told him that Mithu Ram had demanded Rs. 10,000/-. He went in the shape of Panchayat and insisted that he would get Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. PW7 Mohinder Kumar, brother of deceased Paramjit Kaur. PW8 S.I. Satpal Singh, Investigator of the case. 7. Prosecution gave up Kaka Singh, Jagdish Singh and Dwarki Devi as unnecessary. 8. When the appellant was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence he denied simplicitor and alleged false implication. He has pleaded as under :- "It is a false case. I am innocent. My father-in-law Parkash Chand and my mother-in-law were present at the time of cremation as they were called by my elder brother and at that time they did not raise a finger at me. My brother-in-law Mohinder Kumar did not turn up at the cremation. It was after the cremation that on 24.8.1987 for the first time my father-in-law has implicated me in this false case as myself and my wife often refused to accede to the demands of my father-in-law. Myself and my wife were working in a public school at Chhintanwala and were earning handsomely. My father-in-law nursed a grudge against me of my refusal. I was arrested on 25.8.1987 from my house." 9. In his defence, the appellant has not examined any witness. 10. The learned trial court agreeing with the prosecution version, convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 304-Indian Penal Code for 7 years R.I. aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred. 11. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. He further submitted that Paramjit Kaur had a fall from the roof and she received injuries on 16.8.1987. She was taken to Hospital by the appellant and she expired on 17.8.1987 in the hospital. He further submitted that Paramjit Kaur had a fall from the roof and she received injuries on 16.8.1987. She was taken to Hospital by the appellant and she expired on 17.8.1987 in the hospital. Parkash Chand, complainant with the connivance of police has registered the FIR on 24.3.1987 against the appellant and this delay has been consumed by the prosecution to concoct a false story and to introduce false witnesses. He further submitted that appellant sent his brother and another person to inform the complainant Parkash Chand that Paramjit Kaur had received injuries and she was admitted in the hospital. He pointed out that on receiving the intimation, Parkash Chand and his wife Dwarki Devi reached hospital at 5 p.m. on 17.8.1987 and Paramjit Kaur died on the same day at 9 p.m. as it is clear from the bed-head ticked Exh. PD. He contended that parents of deceased got the dead-body from the hospital without conducting the post-mortem examination and the cremation was done in their presence but subsequently at the instance of neighbour of Mithu Ram, appellant, they have registered a case. He also submitted that the delay which remained unexplained is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 12. Mr. H.S. Grewal, learned DAG submitted that the delay has been fully explained. He further submitted that appellant has cremated Paramjit Kaur even before the arrival of her parents. He contended that on the next day of the occurrence, the complainant Parkash Chand alongwith his wife went to the police station to lodge the FIR. But police did not take any action. He then approached the S.S.P. and Deputy Commissioner Patiala and then the case was registered. He contended that from the evidence of Parkash Chand corroborated by Mohinder Kumar, PW7, it has been proved that deceased was harassed on account of demand of dowry. He further contended that injuries on the person of Paramjit Kaur were not the result of fall from the roof, but the injuries have been given on the head with Ghotna. 13. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. The delay ipso facto is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. When the prosecution concocts a false story and introduce false witnesses to implicate innocent persons as an accused, then the delay is fatal to the prosecution. 15. 13. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. The delay ipso facto is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. When the prosecution concocts a false story and introduce false witnesses to implicate innocent persons as an accused, then the delay is fatal to the prosecution. 15. In the instant case, Paramjit Kaur received injuries on 16.8.1987 after falling from the roof. She was removed to the hospital by her husband Mithu Ram, appellant. In the bed-head ticket it has been recorded that the injuries have been received due to sudden fall. The learned trial court has brushed aside the delay aspect by observing that the delay stand explained. But from the facts and circumstances of the case, it shows that there is delay in this case, which has been consumed by the prosecution with the connivance of the police and Mithu Ram, appellant has been falsely implicated. The occurrence has taken place on 16.8.1987 and injured was removed to hospital by the appellant. The appellant sent his brother Daulat Ram alongwith another person to inform the parents of Paramjit Kaur. This fact itself has been mentioned by complainant Parkash Chand in the FIR. He has also deposed in his statement while appearing as PW2 that; - "About one year back, I was present at Bhatinda in my house. Daulat Ram brother of Mithu Ram and one other person of their neighbourhood came to me and told that Paramjit Kaur had falled from the kotha and she had received an injury on her head that she was admitted in the hospital at Nabha. Then, I and my wife Dwarki Devi came to the Chhintanwala and reached there at about 5 p.m. On our way from railway station Chhintanwala we came to know from the passer- by who identified us as parents of Paramjit Kaur and they told us that Paramjit Kaur has been cremated." 16. The version given by Parkash Chand that Paramjit Kaur was cremated before their arrival is belied by documentary evidence i.e. bed-head ticket. From the bed-head ticket it shows that patient i.e. Paramjit Kaur was being treated in the hospital upto 8.45 p.m. on 17.8.1987 and she had expired at 9 p.m. on the same day. 17. The version given by Parkash Chand that Paramjit Kaur was cremated before their arrival is belied by documentary evidence i.e. bed-head ticket. From the bed-head ticket it shows that patient i.e. Paramjit Kaur was being treated in the hospital upto 8.45 p.m. on 17.8.1987 and she had expired at 9 p.m. on the same day. 17. It is common knowledge that if a patient dies in the night, his/her cremation is done on the next day. 18. Admittedly Parkash Chand and Dwarki Devi reached Chhintanwala on 17.8.1987 at 5. p.m. They were very much present in the hospital, when Paramjit Kaur breathed her last. So the version of Parkash Chand that Paramjit Kaur was cremated before their arrival is falsified. 19. The learned trial court has also over-looked the evidence on record and has observed that although a message was sent to the parents of the deceased that she had received serious injuries by a fall from the roof, yet she was cremated before even the arrival of the parents of Paramjit Kaur, deceased. The least that was to be expected was that they should have waited for the arrival of the parents of the deceased before the cremation. These findings are not based on evidence. So the version of the complainant that he went to the police station 2-3 days and has made complaints to the higher authorities is totally belied. Prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show that actually Prakash Chand has made any complaints prior to the registration of the case either to the S.H.O. or the District Magistrate. To cover up the delay, Parkash Chand has deposed in his statement that he has moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and the original complaint was left with him. 20. If Parkash Chand has moved a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, then the prosecution must have collected the application from the office of the Deputy Commissioner but no such application has been produced on record. The complainant has also deposed that he presented an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala personally and he had marked it to the Thanedar and made telephone call to him. He has further deposed that he himself carried that marked application to the Thana. 21. The application marked by the S.S.P. has also not been brought on record. The complainant has also deposed that he presented an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala personally and he had marked it to the Thanedar and made telephone call to him. He has further deposed that he himself carried that marked application to the Thana. 21. The application marked by the S.S.P. has also not been brought on record. This shows that the complainant Parkash Chand for the first time has approached the police on 24.8.1987 and prior to that, he has not approached the police authorities. Otherwise in the FIR, it must have been mentioned that the complaint has been received from the S.S.P. and that complaint must have been placed on record. 22. The prosecution has placed on record two letters Exh. PK and PL. In these letters, there is no mention of demand of dowry or harassment by the appellant side. Rather a perusal of these letters show that lot of money has been spent on the treatment of Mithu Ram, appellant as he was suffering from some disease. 23. The version given by Parkash Chand that his daughter had been cremated before he and his wife reached Chhintanwala has been found to be false. 24. Once the version with regard to the cremation of Paramjit Kaur has been found to be false one, then no reliance can be placed on the complaint of Parkash Chand that Mithu Ram appellant has demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the deceased. Rather the version given by the appellant seems to be more probable that Paramjit Kaur had fallen from the stairs and received injuries. 25. If the appellant Mithu Ram has to cremate the dead-body of Paramjit Kaur before the arrival of her parents, he would have not sent his brother Daulat Ram and one other person to call Parkash Chand. This shows that complainant was present at the time of cremation but subsequently due to some reasons, which are known to the complainant, he has lodged the FIR, that too after 8 days of the occurrence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of appellant Mithu Ram cannot sustain. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted. I give benefit of doubt to Mithu Ram, appellant and acquit him of the charge. He is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Appeal accepted.