Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 762 (UTT)

State of Uttaranchal v. Man Singh

2012-12-13

BARIN GHOSH, U.C.DHYANI

body2012
Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. Present Government Appeal was preferred by the State of Uttaranchal against the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1998, whereby accused-respondent Man Singh was acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC. 2. A complaint (Ext. Ka-4) was written by Pooran Singh on 30.01.1998 to Patti Patwari Tripura Devi, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh, regarding killing of his niece Leela Devi by her in-laws. According to the informant, his niece Leela Devi d/o Trilok Singh was married to Man Singh s/o Dilip Singh in the year 1997. Leela Devi’s husband Man Singh along with her brother-in-law and mother-in-law ill-treated her. They harassed Leela Devi for the sake of dowry. On 13.01.1998, accused persons set her on fire. Leela Devi was admitted in military hospital. When Pooran Singh (informant) came back to home on 17.01.1998, he came to know of such gruesome killing. The report of the incident could not be submitted earlier. When Pooran Singh visited the place of incident, only then he addressed the complaint to Patti Patwari. The same was got registered in Patti Circle Tripura Devi, as case crime no. 01/1998, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 307 IPC. Investigation began on the basis of said first information report. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against accused Man Singh, who was the husband of the victim, was submitted in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charge in respect of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 304-B IPC, and in the alternative, charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Eight witnesses, viz., PW 1 Dr. H.S. Khadayat, PW 2 Smt. Heera Devi, PW 3 Pooran Singh, PW 4 Major A.A.Pradhan, PW 5 Trilok Singh, PW 6 Dipendra Singh Negi (Tehsildar), PW 7 Bhagwati Prasad Pant (Patwari) and PW 8 Constable Hansa Dutt Bhatt were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The substance of prosecution evidence was put to the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in answer to which, he said that his wife was cooking meals. Her clothes caught fire while cooking food. The stove was burst. The accused took the victim to Military Hospital. The substance of prosecution evidence was put to the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in answer to which, he said that his wife was cooking meals. Her clothes caught fire while cooking food. The stove was burst. The accused took the victim to Military Hospital. Initially she (victim) did not give the statement against the accused. Later on, when the mother and uncle of victim came, she changed her version. PW 6 Dipendra Singh (Tehsildar) was again examined as DW 1. After considering the evidence on record, learned court below did not think it proper to hold the accused guilty. Accused-respondent was, therefore, exonerated of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2004, present Government Appeal was preferred on behalf of the State. 4. PW 3 Pooran Singh lodged the complaint (Ext. Ka-4) and supported the prosecution story. PW 3 said that Leela Devi was married to Man Singh in the year 1997. She died of burn injuries on 31.01.1998 in hospital at Pithoragarh. When the victim caught fire, she was admitted in Military Hospital at Pithoragarh. When PW 3 went to meet the victim on 18.01.1998, she said that her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law set her on fire by pouring kerosene and igniting the match. When she gained consciousness, she was pressurized to give the statement that she sustained burns while cooking food on stove. Leela Devi died on 31.01.1998. 5. PW 2 Smt. Heera Devi was the mother of the victim. PW 2 also said that Leela Devi was set on fire by her in-laws. When PW 2 went to meet the victim, she was found to have sustained burns. The victim was pressurized to give the statement that she sustained injuries on account of bursting of stove. Initially, PW 2’s brother-in-law PW 3 Pooran Singh lodged a report in PS Berinag and subsequently, PW 2 also gave a report (Ext. Ka-2) in the Collectorate. PW 2 said that a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for construction of house was made by the accused Man Singh, which was beyond the capacity of PW 2 and therefore, Man Singh killed Leela Devi within ten months of marriage. Man Singh also used to suspect the chastity of Leela Devi. 6. PW 5 Trilok Singh, who was the father of the victim, said that Man Singh wrote several letters (Exts. Man Singh also used to suspect the chastity of Leela Devi. 6. PW 5 Trilok Singh, who was the father of the victim, said that Man Singh wrote several letters (Exts. Ka- 9, Ka-10 and Ka-11) to him (PW 5) complaining about Leela Devi’s conduct. When the incident took place, PW 5 was posted in Jammu. PW 5 received a telegram on 28.01.1998 that Leela Devi has sustained 70-80 % burns. On 31.01.1998, when PW 6 came to his house, he came to know that Leela Devi was killed by Man Singh. 7. Thus, from the evidence on record it was proved that the victim died within a year of her marriage (with the accused), otherwise than under normal circumstances. Two limbs of dowry death were thus proved. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry soon before her death? Learned court below discussed the evidence which was brought on record by the prosecution. The insinuation against the husband was that he demanded Rs. 50,000/- from victim’s mother PW 2 Heera Devi. There were material contradictions in this behalf in the statement of PW 2. PW 2, in the course of cross-examination said that she did not speak to her husband or to her brother-in-law regarding the demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the accused-respondent until such time the victim was dead. PW2’s statement should be taken with a pinch of salt. PW 5 Trilok Singh also admitted in cross-examination that the letters, which were written by the accused-respondent to him, nowhere disclosed anything about the dowry. In other words, there was no reference or indication of demand of dowry in Exts. Ka-9, Ka-10 and Ka-11. In such a situation, when the accused-respondent never demanded dowry from PW 5, how can it be said that Leela Devi was done away with on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Further, victim’s mother PW 2 never disclosed to her husband or brother-in-law, during the lifetime of victim, that the accused-respondent demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her. In such situation, it was difficult for a prudent person to comprehend that there was harassment on account of demand for dowry. Prosecution was unable to prove the third ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC against the accused-respondent. 8. 50,000/- from her. In such situation, it was difficult for a prudent person to comprehend that there was harassment on account of demand for dowry. Prosecution was unable to prove the third ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC against the accused-respondent. 8. PW 6 Dipendra Singh Negi (Tehsildar) recorded the statements of the victim twice- firstly, on 14.01.1998 and subsequently, on 28.01.1998. On both the occasions, the victim did not make a statement that her husband ever demanded Rs. 50,000/- (or any other sum) in dowry. In her first statement, which was taken on 14.01.1998, she did not cast aspersions on anybody. On subsequent occasion, i.e. on 28.01.1998, she only said that her husband set her on fire. No reference of Rs. 50,000/- was there. No reference of any other demand for dowry was made in either of the dying declarations. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the same Tehsildar recorded the second dying declaration and the same doctor certified that she was in a fit state of mind. In other words, the same set of Tehsildar and Doctor were present on both the occasions. 9. The dying declarations recorded in this case do not inspire confidence in their truthfulness and correctness. These dying declarations don’t have intrinsic worth. The reliability of these dying declarations could not be determined from their tone, tenor and contents. The dying declarations recorded in this case are full of doubts. Such pieces of paper do not appear to be reliable. It will be travesty of justice if the conviction is based on such dying declarations. The Tehsildar employed his own language so as to suggest that dying declarations were tutored. The victim, as per her own admission, did not appear to be in a fit state of mind to give the statements. Taking an overall view of perspective of the evidence, it is a case in which the veracity of prosecution witnesses and dying declarations appeared doubtful. Dying declarations did not show the clarity of mind of the maker. 10. The victim, in her second dying declaration said that she also gave the first dying declaration. Later on, her state of mind altered and therefore, she said that, she was giving the second dying declaration. A prudent person will never accept such a vacillating state of mind (as that of victim). 10. The victim, in her second dying declaration said that she also gave the first dying declaration. Later on, her state of mind altered and therefore, she said that, she was giving the second dying declaration. A prudent person will never accept such a vacillating state of mind (as that of victim). This Court is not inclined to accept any of the dying declarations. When we do not believe the second dying declaration, insinuation of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the respondent does not survive. Hence, it is also held that the prosecution was unable to prove the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused-respondent (husband). 11. There is no scope of interference with the judgment rendered by learned court below. Government Appeal preferred against the judgment dated 24.05.2004 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.