Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1809 (PNJ)

Rajiv Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2007-10-09

MAHESH GROVER

body2007
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. Seema Rani daughter of complainant-Raj Kumar (PW1), who was married with appellant-Rajiv Kumar on 31.7.1996, died at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as `the P.G.I.) on 29.5.2002 after having suffered 72% burn injuries on 19.5.2002 at about 11.00 A.M, in her matrimonial home. 2. The F.I.R. was recorded on 22.5.2002 on the basis of the statement made to the police by PW1-Raj Kumar. 3. At the time of her death, the deceased was mother of two children, aged about 3 years and 2 years. 4. According to the allegations made in the F.I.R., an amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs was spent by the complainant in the marriage of the deceased, but the appellant and his family members started raising demands of dowry in the shape of cash and other items. The complainant, who was a man of meagre means, could not satiate the demands of the appellant and his family members, as a result of which they started torturing the deceased in order to pressurize her to bring more dowry. On 20.8.2001, Vipin Kumar, brother of the deceased, had purchased a motorcycle after raising loan from the bank, which annoyed the appellant and his family members, who wanted that the motorcycle should be given to them. On 14.11.2001, the deceaseds second brother 1.Pradeep Kumar along with his wife had gone to meet the appellant and his family members. Besides the appellant, mother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Sushila alias Sheela Devi and her Jeth-Jagdeep and Jethani-Amita Sethi were found present. They told Pradeep Kumar that he should come with the motorcycle and asked to take his sister along with him. He brought the deceased to his parental house where she stayed for about 2-1/2 months. On 24.1.2002, she was sent back to her in-laws house with an assurance that the demand of motorcycle would be met by May, 2002. 5. The marriage of complainants son Sundram was fixed on 17.4.2002. On that occasion, the appellant and his family members demanded ornaments. Accordingly, the complainant gave ornaments worth Rs. 25000/-. 6. On 17.5.2002, the deceased is said to have called up the complainant on telephone asking him to come immediately to her in-laws house. Upon this, the complainant sent his son-Sundram to seethe deceased. On that occasion, the appellant and his family members demanded ornaments. Accordingly, the complainant gave ornaments worth Rs. 25000/-. 6. On 17.5.2002, the deceased is said to have called up the complainant on telephone asking him to come immediately to her in-laws house. Upon this, the complainant sent his son-Sundram to seethe deceased. When the son of the complainant went there, he found that the appellant and the mother-in-law of the deceased were quarrelling with her over the demand of motorcycle. He assured them that their demand would be fulfilled within 10-15 days. 7. On 19.5.2002, the deceased was taken to Primary Health Centre, Bilaspur with 72% burn injuries, from where she was brought to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. Since her condition was serious, she was taken to the P.G.I. where she succumbed to her injuries on 29.5.2002. 8. The police, who conducted the investigation, submitted a challan against the appellant and his mother-Sushila alias Sheela Devi. 9. The Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (hereinafter described as `the trial Court) charge-sheeted the appellant and his mother- Shushila Devi for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the I.P.C, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. During the course of the proceedings, Jagdeep, brother-in-law of the deceased and his wife-Amita Sethi were also summoned pursuant to the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to stand trial. 11. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the appellant and others, examined as many as eleven witnesses and tendered in evidence report EX.PL of the Forensic Science Laboratory. 12. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant, his mother, brother and bhabhi pleaded false implication. 13. The appellant also stated `that the deceased was habitual in levelling allegations against him for having an extra-marital affair with a woman in the village and she also wanted that he should dispose of his share in the joint property in order to enable them to leave Bilaspur. He further stated that on 19.5.2002, the day of incident, he had gone to his fields where he came to know that the deceased had sustained burn injuries. He further stated that on 19.5.2002, the day of incident, he had gone to his fields where he came to know that the deceased had sustained burn injuries. By the time he reached the house, she had already been taken to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri and when he reached there, he came to know that she was taken to the P.G.I. He along with his mother reached the P.G.I. where his brother and Bhabhi - Jagdeep and Amita Sethi - were already present. He and his mother were arrested by the police on 25.5.2002 from the P.G.I. He never demanded any dowry either from the deceased or her parents. 14. Sushila alias Sheela Devi, the mother of the appellant, stated that on the day of occurrence, she was lying on the cot in the house when she heard that the deceased had received burn injuries. 15. Jagdeep and Amita Sethi stated that they were living separately from the family. Both of them further stated that the deceased was taken to hospital and was got treated. 16. DW1-Raja Ram and DW2-Dr. Jagdeep Singh were examined in defence evidence. 17. After analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 2.2.2005, convicted the appellant and his mother-Sushila alias Sheela Devi for having committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. and acquitted Jagdeep and Amita Sethi of the charge framed against them. Pursuant to the conviction, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, whereas Sushila alias Sheela Devi was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 18. The present appeal was directed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence by the appellant and Sushila alias Sheela Devi. 19. It is necessary to mention here that the appeal survives only qua the appellant as Sushila alias Sheela Devi has since expired and as such, the appeal qua her stands abated by virtue of the provisions of Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entire case built up by the prosecution is absolutely false because the F.I.R. was recorded on 22.5.2002, whereas Seema Rani died on 29.5.2002, i.e. after ten days of the incident and seven days of the recording of the F.I.R., but her statement was not recorded. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entire case built up by the prosecution is absolutely false because the F.I.R. was recorded on 22.5.2002, whereas Seema Rani died on 29.5.2002, i.e. after ten days of the incident and seven days of the recording of the F.I.R., but her statement was not recorded. He argued that failure of the investigating agency on that account casts a serious aspersion on the version as given by the prosecution. He further contended that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the appellant was guilty of having caused the death of the deceased. Moreover, no attempt was made by the police to record the statement of any person despite the fact that the matter was already brought to their notice and A.S.I.-Hakam Singh of Police Station, Bilaspur had reached the P.G.I. on 20.5.2002 itself to see the deceased. 21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the death had taken place within seven years of the marriage, which invited a strong presumption of law and the statements of the complainant & other witnesses are consistent that the deceased was being subjected to undue harassment on account of demand of dowry and finally, she was done to death and, therefore, the conviction and sentence are perfectly in order. 22. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 23. The strangest aspect of the case as thrown up by the evidence on record is that despite the fact that the deceased had suffered burn injuries on 19.5.2002 and was rushed to the P.G.I. on the same day, yet, the police failed to record the statement of either the deceased or any of her relatives including the complainant and his family members. The complainant, who appeared as PW1, stated that on 19.5.2002, he had reached the matrimonial house of the deceased and then went to the official residence of Amita Sethi in the hospital premises where he found the appellant in a drunken condition and his mother-Sushila Devi was also there. On enquiry about the whereabouts of his daughter, the appellant and his mother informed him that she had been taken to the P.G.I., whereupon he went there. But, strangely enough, for three days after the occurrence, he chose to remain silent and did not give his side of the story to the police. On enquiry about the whereabouts of his daughter, the appellant and his mother informed him that she had been taken to the P.G.I., whereupon he went there. But, strangely enough, for three days after the occurrence, he chose to remain silent and did not give his side of the story to the police. Equally strange is the fact that no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to show as to why the statement of the deceased was not recorded. If it was the case that the deceased was unable to make statement, even then there ought to have been some evidence to prove that fact. The bed-head ticket and the record of the treatment of the deceased and that of the condition in which she was brought to the P.G.I. have not been produced by the prosecution. 24. PW9-Dr. Chander Parkash, who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, has deposed that he is unable to state whether during the period of her admission till her death, the patient was conscious and was fit to make statement or not. He further deposed that whatever he has mentioned in the post mortem report Exhibit-PK was on the basis of the history of the case as depicted in the bed-head ticket which was not available on the judicial file. He did not rule out such type of burn injuries on account of accidental fire. He also testified that there was no smell of kerosene present over the body of the deceased, which fact assumes great significance in view of the evidence collected by the prosecution in the shape of Plastic Jar, which has been referred to as Exhibit-1 in report Exhibit-PL of the Forensic Science Laboratory, according to which residues of kerosene were found in the cluster of scalp hair of Seema Rani, implying that the deceased suffered burn injuries on account of use of kerosene. 25. That apart, PW8-Naranjan Singh, Inspector, the investigating officer, stated that he had gone to the site where the incident had taken place and had interrogated several persons of the village, who were present there. 25. That apart, PW8-Naranjan Singh, Inspector, the investigating officer, stated that he had gone to the site where the incident had taken place and had interrogated several persons of the village, who were present there. He testified as follows : "From the inquiries made from Prem Pal; Ex-Sarpanch, Sham Lal, Ghansham, Arun, Mukesh Panch, Babu Khan and Dilbag Khan it was found that no accused was present in the ghar when the deceased was burning and the fire was extinguished by Babu Khan. Babu Khan and Dilbag Khan were attracted to the spot on hearing the cries of the deceased and two children." 26. No such person was examined by the prosecution in order to ensure the culpability of the appellant. Interestingly, this witness also goes on to say that from the investigation and the interrogation of the persons referred to in his testimony, he found that the deceased had burnt herself over some family dispute. But, even this fact has not been established as none of these witnesses was examined to prove either the factum of suicide or the factum of the dispute forcing the deceased to take her own life. As a result of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellant under the provisions of Section 304-B of the I.P.C. or even if it were to be assumed that the culpability of the appellant for causing the death was suicidal, then also, there is no evidence to establish this fact and the death of the deceased or abetting her suicide for that purpose. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.