Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 116 (CHH)

RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF C. G.

2012-04-19

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mungeli,. District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 07/2007 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 304 (B) IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Yasomati was the wife of accused/appellant No.1 herein and their marriage was solemnized about ten months prior to the date of incident i.e. 7.3.2007 when she died after suffering 100% burn injuries. Merg intimation Ex. P-13 was given on the same day by some relative of the deceased namely Ayodhya Singh Rathore (PW-13) and after merg inquiry FIR Ex. P-14 was registered against the accused/appellants on 17.3.2007 for the offence under Section 304 (B) read with 34 IPC and after completion of investigation charge sheet was laid on 13.4.2007 for the said offence. 3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations made against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that the story put forth by the prosecution is highly improbable as no independent witness except the relatives of the deceased has stated anything regarding demand of dowry and consequent harassment and cruelty towards her at the hands of the accused/ appellants. According to him, the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution suffer from material contradictions and omissions and on the basis of such evidence conviction of the accused/appellants cannot stand. He submits that as the deceased could not conceive even ten months after her marriage, she used to remain depressed and probably this might be one of the reasons for her to take this extreme step of suicide. Counsel for the appellants further submits that the factum of deceased being under depression has been stated by none else but by her mother Gita Bai (PW-8) herself. According to him, no injury was found on her body and therefore it cannot be said that she was being subjected to beating by the accused/appellants. Counsel for the appellants further submits that the factum of deceased being under depression has been stated by none else but by her mother Gita Bai (PW-8) herself. According to him, no injury was found on her body and therefore it cannot be said that she was being subjected to beating by the accused/appellants. He further submits that at the time of marriage of the deceased there was no settlement of dowry etc. and that being so conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 304(8) IPC is bad in the eye of law. Lastly, he submits that accused/appellant No.1 has already remained in jail for 3 months and 17 days and likewise appellants 2 and 3 for about one month, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that as just within 10 months of her marriage, he deceased died in her matrimonial home after sustaining 100 per cent burn injuries, burden to prove 'not guilty' lies on the accused/appellant themselves according to the State counsel, Nandini Rathore (PW-l), Gita Bai (PW-8), Vishnu Rathore (PW-9) and Raj Kumar Rathore (PW-12) have categorically stated as to the manner in which the deceased was being treated by the accused/ appellants and when their cruel behaviour became unbearable to the deceased, ;he chose to end her life by committing suicide. As regards contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses, State counsel submits that they being rustic villagers, such minor discrepancies are bound to be there and if hey do not involve a great impact on the case in hand, they can be ignored. He further submits that looking to the heinous act attributed to the accused/appellants in forcing the deceased to end her life does not make them entitled 'or any leniency and the sentence imposed on them by the Court below is lot on the higher side. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Nandini Rathore (PW -1) has stated in her evidence that one Satnami boy came to village Jhapal and informed about the death of the deceased after suffering burn injuries and thereafter when she went to the house of the accused/appellants, her body was lying inside the house in a burnt condition with her tongue protruded. 8. Nandini Rathore (PW -1) has stated in her evidence that one Satnami boy came to village Jhapal and informed about the death of the deceased after suffering burn injuries and thereafter when she went to the house of the accused/appellants, her body was lying inside the house in a burnt condition with her tongue protruded. According to this witness, near the dead body, kerosene container was also kept there. This witness has further stated that marriage of the deceased with accused/appellant Ram Niwas had taken place about one and a half year prior to the incident and that she too had attended the same. In the marriage, parents of the deceased had given black and white TV, cycle, fan, almirah, sofa, bed, chair, utensils, clothes and ornaments as per their capacity. She has further stated that after marriage when the deceased had visited her maternal home, she had come to her house also and informed her that as her parents had not given color TV, motor cycle and land, the accused/appellants were asking her to get back her parents house and bring those items. The accused/appellants are also .said to have abused the deceased for demand of dowry. According to, this witness, on hearing this she had made the deceased to understand saying that her parents had given everything as per their capacity. She has further stated that before marriage of the deceased, she did not know the accused/appellants and that the accused/appellants did not permit the deceased to visit her maternal home. According to her, after marriage the deceased visited her parents home twice but she was not aware as to for how many days she stayed there. This witness has again stated that when the deceased had come to her house she had disclosed about the demand of colour TV, motor cycle and land being made by the accused/appellants. She has admitted the fact that the last rites of the deceased were performed by her husband and at that time the relatives of the accused/appellants were also present. She has stated that the husband of the deceased was engaged in the vegetable business at Bilaspur where he had taken the deceased also. She has further admitted the fact that the distance between two villages i.e. Semariya and Jhapal is not that much and one can reach from one end to other in a bicycle within an hour. She has stated that the husband of the deceased was engaged in the vegetable business at Bilaspur where he had taken the deceased also. She has further admitted the fact that the distance between two villages i.e. Semariya and Jhapal is not that much and one can reach from one end to other in a bicycle within an hour. According to her, while giving statement to the police she had informed that the place where the body of the deceased was lying in a burnt condition, some other articles such as food-grains, cot etc. were also lying there but they were intact. She has further admitted that after marriage the deceased had not borne a child. She has however denied the fact that she has given her statement on the instructions of someone or that no demand of colour TV, motor cycle and land was made by the accused/appellants. She has further denied that she deposed before the court in order to implicate the accused/appellants in a false case. Bharat Lal Tripathi (PW-2) - the witness to the arrest memo Ex. P-1 to P-3 has not stated anything specific and has been declared hostile. Bhagwan Singh Dhruw (PW-3) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P-4. Chandrahas Rajput (PW-4) - the witness to seizer of a kerosene container made under Ex. P-5 has admitted his signature on the same. P.R. Nirmal (PW-5) who at the relevant time was posted as Naib Tahsildar is the witness to inquest Ex.P-6. Dr. G.S. Dau (PW-6) is the witness who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and submitted his report Ex. P-7. According to this witness, cause of death was inhalation of gas as a result of burn and the burn was ante mortem. This witness has however stated that no external injury was noticed by him on the body of the deceased. Radheshyam Rathor (PW-7) is the witness who took the body of the deceased for post mortem examination vide Ex. P-8 and then handed over the same to her relatives vide Ex. P-9. Geeta Bai (PW -8)- the mother of the deceased has stated that marriage of the deceased had taken place 20 months prior thereto and at the time of marriage they had given a black and white TV, cycle, fan, almirah, sofa, bed, chair, utensils, clothes and ornaments etc. as per their capacity. P-9. Geeta Bai (PW -8)- the mother of the deceased has stated that marriage of the deceased had taken place 20 months prior thereto and at the time of marriage they had given a black and white TV, cycle, fan, almirah, sofa, bed, chair, utensils, clothes and ornaments etc. as per their capacity. According to her, on the occasion of Holi festival when her husband had gone to the house of the accused/appellants to take the deceased to his house, the accused/appellants did not send her saying that until and unless colour TV, motor cycle and land are given, they would not permit the deceased to accompany him. She has further stated that on the occasion of Teeja festival when her son went to the house of the accused/appellants to take the deceased, at that time also on the same pretext the accused/appellants refused the deceased to accompany him. According to her, once the deceased had visited village Jhapal to see her sister-in-law, she had visited her house too without disclosing the same to anyone' and on being asked the deceased told her that she had come to her house without informing anyone and if this fact went to the notice of the accused/ appellants they would do away with. According to her the deceased had also informed her that the accused/appellants used to demand colour TV, motor cycle and land and for that they also used to subject her to beating. She has further stated that a day after Holi when she had visited the accused/appellants to see the deceased she stayed there for one day and during this period she was informed by the deceased that accused/appellant No. 1 (husband of the deceased) had taken her to Bilaspur and subjected to beating. According to this witness on the next day even in her presence the accused/appellants indulged in abusing and beating the deceased. According to her, after getting back to her house she disclosed all this to her son, daughter-in-law and husband. On the next day, according to this witness some Satnami boy came to her village and gave information about the death of the deceased after sustaining burn injuries and then she along-with her husband and son went to the house of the accused/appellants. On the next day, according to this witness some Satnami boy came to her village and gave information about the death of the deceased after sustaining burn injuries and then she along-with her husband and son went to the house of the accused/appellants. This witness has further stated that due to her eyesight being weak, she was not in a position to see but on touch she found the body of the deceased to be stiff and tongue protruded and that she and her husband had a suspicion that due to non-fulfillment of demand the deceased had been stifled. Though in her lengthy cross-examination there appear to be certain improvements but being minor in nature they are required to be overlooked as on material particulars she remained very firm to what has been deposed by her in the examination-in-chief. Vishnu (Rajput) Rathore (PW-9) -the father of the deceased has stated that marriage of the deceased was solemnized about 20 months prior thereto and at the time of marriage he had given black and white TV, cycle, fan, almirah, sofa, bed, chair, utensils, clothes and ornaments etc. as per his capacity. On the occasion of Hareli festival he had gone to the house of the accused/appellants to take the deceased to his house but they had refused to send her with him. According to this witness, the deceased was weeping and had told him that the accused/appellants were harassing her demanding colour TV, motorcycle and land, on which he had asked her to bear the same and after making her understand he returned home. Even on the occasion of Teeja festival brother of the deceased had gone to take the deceased but this time also the accused/appellants did not send her and raised the same demand as stated above. Though in the evidence of this witness also there appear to be certain exaggerations but being insignificant they are required to be ignored. Rakesh Singh (PW -10) is the police constable who deposited two sealed packets in Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and acknowledgement thereof is Ex. P-10. Baldau Rathore (PW-11) is the witness to the notice of inquest Ex. P-11 and inquest as well as the spot map Ex. P-12. Though this witness has been declared hostile he has admitted his signatures on the said documents. P-10. Baldau Rathore (PW-11) is the witness to the notice of inquest Ex. P-11 and inquest as well as the spot map Ex. P-12. Though this witness has been declared hostile he has admitted his signatures on the said documents. Raj kumar Rathore (PW-12) - brother of the deceased has stated that marriage of the deceased was solemnized about 20-21 months prior thereto and at the time of marriage they had given number of items as per their capacity. In cross examination also barring minor contradictions and omissions, this witness remained firm to what he has stated in the examination-in-chief. Ayodhya Singh Rathore (PW-13) is the witness who gave merg intimation Ex. P-13, he was present on the spot and supported the seizure. Amresh Mishra (PW-14) is the witness who did part of the investigation. Anil Tiwari (PW-15) is the police inspector who has proved the signature of R.D. Tiwari - Investigating Officer who expired subsequently. 9. Before arriving at any conclusion as to the involvement of the accused/appellants in the case in hand or otherwise, it appears necessary to take note of the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC which reads as under: "304B. Dowry death. - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." A close look of the evidence of the witnesses clearly indicates that just within a year of marriage of the deceased with accused/appellant No.1 she used to be meted out harassment and cruelty at the hands of the accused/appellants demanding colour TV, motor cycle and land. Evidence clearly speaks that whenever father and brother of the deceased visited her matrimonial house, the accused/appellants did not permit her to accompany them to her maternal home. This Court does not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the appellants that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution being the relatives of the deceased should not be relied upon to convict the accused/appellants as they being the interested witnesses can not be expected to state in favour of the accused/appellants for the reason that in the cases of like nature it is only the relatives who can give the correct description of the facts disclosed to them by the deceased and simply because they being related to the deceased, their testimony can not be turned a blind eye to. This apart, there is ample evidence to show that the accused/appellants had time and again asked the deceased to go to her parental house and get the colour TV, motor cycle and land and without which she was asked not to visit there. All these things are sufficient to create a great disturbance on the mind set of a newly wedded girl ultimately forcing her to finish herself. Perhaps this is what has happened in this case' also. 11. Thus in view of what has been discussed above, this Court does not see any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Court below convicting the accused/appellants under Section 304 (B) IPC. Accordingly, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and the judgment impugned affirmed. Appeal thus fails and is dismissed as such. Judgment impugned being in consonance with the evidence of witnesses is left undisturbed. The appellants are already reported to be in jail, therefore, no order regarding their surrender etc. is required to be passed. Appeal Dismissed.