Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 307 (UTT)

NARENDRA SINGH BOHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-06-11

Alok Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Session Trial No. 16 of 2008, whereby appellant was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- , and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of one year under Section 304-B, I.P.C.; to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of six months under Section 498-A I.P.C.; to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of six months under Section 201 I.P.C.; to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of six months under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 Naveen Singh Mahra, got registered F.I.R. with Police Station Tanakpur on 28.05.2010 stating therein that he got his daughter Kiran alias Kajal married with the appellant on 13.12.2007; at the time of marriage dowry and other gifts were also given to the husband party; after the marriage, appellant Narendra Singh Bohra; his mother Basanti Devi, his father Teeka Singh Bohra and his sister Rami Devi started harassing Kiran alias Kajal for the demand of dowry; all the accused persons have given severe beating to Kiran alias Kajal on several occasions; husband and his relatives never allowed Kiran alias Kajal to visit her parental home; accused have killed Kiran alias Kajal on 26.05.2008 and falsely declared that she committed suicide by hanging. On the report so submitted, Chick F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 1226 of 2008 was registered against the appellant and his mother Basanti Devi, his father Teeka Singh Bohra and his sister Rami Devi. 3. Investigation was handed over to PW19 C.O. Harish Chandra Sati. Having investigated the matter, chargesheet was submitted against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. 3. Investigation was handed over to PW19 C.O. Harish Chandra Sati. Having investigated the matter, chargesheet was submitted against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the appellant; his mother Basanti Devi, his father Teeka Singh Bohra and his sister Rami Devi for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant and other accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. Learned Trial Court vide judgment impugned in the present appeal was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant herein while was pleased to acquit other accused, namely, Basanti Devi, Teeka Singh Bohra and Rami Devi. 6. I have heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Jyoti Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned A.G.A. for the State and have carefully perused the record. 7. Undisputedly, Smt. Kiran alias Kajal was found dead on 26.05.2008; appellant informed the police about the death of Kiran alias Kajal; family members of Kiran alias Kajal were also informed about the death of Kiran alias Kajal; inquest report was prepared by the S.D.M. on 26.05.2008 in the presence of present appellant Narendra Singh Bohra, PW1 Naveen Singh Mahra, father of the deceased and other panches; post mortem was conducted on the dead body of Kiran alias Kajal on 27.05.2008. As per post mortem report and statement of PW9 Dr. H.S. Khatayat, cause of death of Smt. Kiran alias Kajal could not be ascertained. However, he has noticed some mark of throttling around the neck of the deceased; vicera was preserved and sent for chemical examination; no vicera report was produced before the Trial Court suggesting case of poisoning. 8. Perusal of F.I.R. would reveal that there are floating allegations against the accused. There is no specific allegation what was in fact demanded by the accused. PW1 Naveen Singh Mahra, father of the deceased, however, states that appellant made request to him to purchase L.I.C. Policy and on his refusal to purchase L.I.C. Policy, he and his family members started harassing Kiran alias Kajal. PW1 Naveen Singh Mahra further states that his daughter Kiran alias Kajal phoned him several times saying that her in laws were demanding Sofa Set, Saries and copper utensils. PW1 Naveen Singh Mahra further states that his daughter Kiran alias Kajal phoned him several times saying that her in laws were demanding Sofa Set, Saries and copper utensils. He, however, during the cross examination submits that he was called by the father of the appellant and was told to speak to her daughter not to create nuisance in her matrimonial house and to behave properly with in laws. PW2 Smt. Janki Devi, mother of the deceased also states that PW1 Naveen Singh Mahra, father of the deceased, was called by Teeka Singh Bohra, father of the appellant and Teeka Singh Bohra told PW1 Naveen Singh Mahra to speak to her daughter to mend her ways and behave properly with the in laws. 9. Having perused the entire material available on record, I am unable to find out specific allegations to the effect that what was in fact demanded in dowry soon before the death of Kiran alias Kajal. In the opinion of this Court, floating statement that Kiran alias Kajal was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 10. This is now settled position of law that to prove the guilt punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C., prosecution must prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for the demand of dowry soon before her death. However, having considered the entire material available on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution was not able to prove what was in fact demanded and when such demand was raised. Floating statement pertaining to demand of dowry is not sufficient to prove the guilt. Moreover demand of purchase L.I.C. policy from the appellant cannot be said to be dowry demand. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, to invoke Section 304-B I.P.C., it should further be proved by the prosecution that wife died due to bodily or burn injuries or otherwise death was unnatural. No such bodily or burn injuries were found during the post mortem rather cause of death could not be ascertained. PW9 Dr.H.S. Khatayat, however, in his statement states that death could be due to hanging by dupata or by strangulation; however, same opinion was not given in the post mortem report. 12. No such bodily or burn injuries were found during the post mortem rather cause of death could not be ascertained. PW9 Dr.H.S. Khatayat, however, in his statement states that death could be due to hanging by dupata or by strangulation; however, same opinion was not given in the post mortem report. 12. Conduct of the appellant that he himself informed the Police about death of his wife and his presence on 6 the spot and during inquest report creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution story. 13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, in the firm opinion of the Court, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not sustain in the eyes of law. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2008 is set aside. 14. Appellant stands acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Appellant is in jail. He may be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 15. Let copy of the judgment alongwith L.C.R. be sent back to the lower court for information and compliance.