Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 299 (UTT)

SOHAN DASS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-06-10

Alok Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2009, whereby learned trial Court was pleased to hold appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; appellants Sohan Dass was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of ‘2,000/- and in default in making payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC; was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ‘500/- and in default in making payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC; appellant Jarab Dass and Smt. Tari Devi (in-laws) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years and to pay fine of ‘1,000/- each and in default in making payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months each for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months each and a fine of ‘500/- each, in default in making payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC; with the stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. It is reported at the Bar that appellant Jarab Dass has expired, therefore, appeal stands abated for the appellant Jarab Dass. 3. 2. It is reported at the Bar that appellant Jarab Dass has expired, therefore, appeal stands abated for the appellant Jarab Dass. 3. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that in the intervening night of 4-5.07.2009, Smt. Lalita Devi was found hanging on the pine tree in the nearby forest area of village Gundiya; PW1 Bhajan Dass, father of the deceased Smt. Lalita Devi, came to Gundiyagaon in the morning of 06.07.2009 and became the witness of the inquest report, wherein it was opined that Smt. Lalita Devi died due to hanging; an FIR was lodged by PW1 on 07.07.2009 with the Naib Tehsildar, District Uttarkashi, stating therein that Smt. Lalita Devi got married with appellant Sohan Dass about two years ago and she was having one son aged about 08 months and was having pregnancy of 06 months; appellants used to beat Smt. Lalita Devi for the demand of dowry; she was forced to leave her matrimonial home; Smt. Lalita Devi filed a case under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband Sohan Dass; matter was settled between Smt. Lalita Devi & Sohan Dass and Smt. Lalit Devi went with the Sohan Dass to live with him; even after the compromise in the maintenance case, appellant did not stop misbehaving with Smt. Lalita Devi; PW1 got information at about 06:00 a.m. in the morning on 05.07.2009 that Smt. Lalita Devi committed suicide; having received such information, PW1 went to the house of Sohan Dass; appellant found dead body of Smt. Lalita Devi laying in the veranda in the house of Sohan Dass, therefore, after registration of the FIR, necessary action be taken against the appellants / accused. On the report lodged by PW1, chik FIR was got registered on 07.07.2009 at about 01:00 p.m. Dead body of Smt. Lalita Devi was sent for the postmortem and as per the postmortem report, cause of death was found to be due to hanging and except the ligature mark on the neck, no other injury was observed on the person of Smt. Lalita Devi. Having investigated the matter, PW12 Shri Susbhash Chandra Kukreti, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barkot, District Uttarkashi, submitted a charge-sheet against all appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC. 4. Having investigated the matter, PW12 Shri Susbhash Chandra Kukreti, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barkot, District Uttarkashi, submitted a charge-sheet against all appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC. 4. After the committal to the court of Sessions, charges were framed against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC. Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. To prove the prosecution story, Bhajan Dass (PW1), Smt. Shyama (PW2), Pradeep (PW3), Manbahadur (PW4), Dharmendra Dass (PW5), Chandan Dass (PW6), Deepak Nautiyal (PW7), Ashish Rawat (PW8), Dr. Manish Dutt (PW9), Chandi Prasad Semwal, Tehsildar (PW10), Mamchand (PW11) and Subhash Chandra Kukreti, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW12) were examined. Thereafter, statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Learned trial court, having perused the entire material made available on the record, was pleased to convict and sentence the appellants vide judgment and order impugned in the present appeal. 7. I have heard Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Raman Sah, learned AGA for the State and have carefully perused the record. 8. Dead body of Smt. Lalita Devi was found hanging on the pine tree in the nearby forest area of village Gundiya on 05.07.2009. Undisputedly, PW1, father of the deceased could reach to the house of the appellants having received the information about the suicide, committed by his daughter Smt. Lalita Devi and inquest report was prepared in his presence; wherein all the panches opined cause of death by hanging (suicide). On 05.07.2009, PW1 did not opt to lodge a report alleging cruelty or harassment for the demand of dowry. Undisputedly, FIR was got registered on 07.07.2009, however, surprisingly, there is no whisper in the FIR that Smt. Lalita Devi was subjected to harassment and cruelty for the demand of dowry. There seems to be no satisfactory explanation to the affect if Smt. Lalita Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry as to why same was not reported at the time of preparation of inquest report and about the delay in lodging the FIR after two days on 07.07.2009. 9. There seems to be no satisfactory explanation to the affect if Smt. Lalita Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry as to why same was not reported at the time of preparation of inquest report and about the delay in lodging the FIR after two days on 07.07.2009. 9. However, for the first time, PW1 Bhajan Dass, father of the deceased, PW2 Shayama, mother of the deceased, PW3 Pradeep, brother of the deceased, while appearing in the witness box have stated that the appellant Sohan Dass and in-laws of Smt. Lalita Devi used to treat Smt. Lalita Devi with cruelty for demand of ‘50,000/- as dowry; Smt. Lalita Devi was pushed out from her matrimonial house saying she could come back only after getting ‘50,000/- as dowry; thereafter Smt. Lalita Devi filed a case seeking maintenance from Sohan Dass; maintenance case was compromised and Smt. Lalita Devi started living with Sohan Dass. Perusal of entire statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3 would reveals that alleged demand of ‘50,000/- was prior to the filing of maintenance case; none of the witnesses stated that after maintenance case was compromised and Smt. Lalita Devi went to her matrimonial house to live with her husband there was any demand of dowry. 10. This is now settled position of law that to bring home guilt punishable under Section 304-B IPC prosecution must allege and prove that : (1) the death of woman was caused by bodily or burns injuries or otherwise death was unnatural; (2) death took place within seven years of marriage; (3) deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry soon before her death. See [Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab 2001(8) SCC 633 , Shanti vs. State of Haryana 1991(1) SCC 371 , Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab, 2000(5) SCC 207 ] 11. I have carefully perused compromise dated 19.11.2008, paper no. 4 ka/17 on the lower court record, duly signed by appellant Sohan Dass and deceased Smt. Lalita Devi, submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Purola. It is specifically stated in the compromise that after filing of the maintenance case, Smt. Lalita Devi and appellant Sohan Dass were living together, peacefully and case be decided in view of the mutual settlement between the parties. It is specifically stated in the compromise that after filing of the maintenance case, Smt. Lalita Devi and appellant Sohan Dass were living together, peacefully and case be decided in view of the mutual settlement between the parties. As observed herein before, there is absolutely no statement to the effect that after compromise was filed before the Judicial Magistrate in the maintenance case Smt. Lalita Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry, soon before her death. Therefore, in my considered opinion, basic and important ingredient of Section 304-B is missing in the present case. Moreover, for any demand made prior to compromise in maintenance case, no offence under Section 498-A IPC can be said to have been made out in the light of settlement before the court. 12. Perusal of the statement of Dr. Manish Dutt (PW9) reveals that glass bangles and other articles found on the body of Smt. Lalita Devi were intact which would go to suggest that she was not subjected to any force and she herself has committed suicide by hanging with the help of pine tree. PW9 in his statement on oath specifically states that except ligature mark on the neck, no other mark was found on the person of Smt. Lalita Devi, therefore, it was not the case of strangulation, as well. 13. PW1 Bhajan Dass, father of the deceased states that in the evening of 04.07.2009, appellant came to his house and asked him as to whether deceased did come to the house of PW1, since, she had left her matrimonial home after having quarrel, therefore, if she commits suicide or consume poison, they could not be held guilty. From such statement of PW1, it can be said that deceased left the house in the evening of 04.07.2009 and appellant made search for her. 14. In view of the discussion made herein before, I am of the firm opinion that in the present case, prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B or under Section 498-A IPC, therefore, judgment and order impugned in the present appeal does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi is set aside. Appellants stand acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Appellant Sohan Dass is in jail. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi is set aside. Appellants stand acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Appellant Sohan Dass is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appellant Tari Devi is on bail. She need not to surrender. Her security bonds and personal bonds stand discharged. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned trial court for information and compliance.