Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 337 (UTT)

RAVINDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-06-17

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) — One Prem Singh Kaitoora lodged a first information report on 20.05.1997, at 7:15 p.m., against Ravindra Singh, Brijendra Singh, Smt. Bindra Devi, Smt. Bimla Devi and Smt. Seeta Devi, in reporting outpost Bhagirathi Puram, PS Tehri, which was registered as case crime no. 20/1997, in respect of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet against Ravindra Singh, Bijendra Singh, Smt. Bindra Devi and Bimla Devi was submitted, in respect of the selfsame offence. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2. When the trial commenced and the prosecution opened it’s case, PW1 Doctor K.K.Tamta, PW2 Gabli Devi, PW3 Avval Singh, PW 4 Prem Singh, PW 5 Khem Singh, PW 6 Chandan Singh, PW 7 HC Atar Singh, PW 8 Smt. Sushilda Devi and PW 9 Jeet Pal Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which the applicants said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Tehri Garhwal, vide order dated 03.10.2001, exonerated accused Bijendra Singh, Smt. Bimla Devi and Bindra Devi of the charges levelled against them. Main accused Ravindra Singh (husband) was however, convicted under Section 306 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of which he was required to further undergo imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, present criminal appeal was preferred. 3. PW1 Dr. K.K.Tamta, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He proved the postmortem (Ext. Ka-1) and said that the victim sustained burns. Epidermal burns were present on her whole dead body except around the waist. Pubic hair, auxiliary hair and scalp hair were burnt and singed. Red lines were present on various parts of the body. Blackening and blistering were also present on various parts of the body. The postmortem was conducted on 17.05.1997, at 11:10 a.m. According to PW1, duration of the death of the victim was between 1 to 2 days. The cause of her death was shock due to ante-mortem burn injuries caused by fire. According to PW1, the victim did not sustain any external or internal injury. The postmortem was conducted on 17.05.1997, at 11:10 a.m. According to PW1, duration of the death of the victim was between 1 to 2 days. The cause of her death was shock due to ante-mortem burn injuries caused by fire. According to PW1, the victim did not sustain any external or internal injury. The victim died as a consequence of burn injuries. 4. PW7, Head Constable Atar Singh was a formal witness and so was PW 9 Jeetpal Singh, Sub Inspector, who conducted the investigation of the case. 5. PW2 Galbi Devi was the mother of the deceased, who said that the victim was married to Ravindra Singh (appellant) about 15-16 years ago (from the date of deposition). They pulled up well for 7-8 years so long as Ravindra was not employed. Thereafter Ravindra Singh was employed in a college. The destruction of the victim was on the cards. Ravindra never stayed at his home and marital relations between Ravindra and Chaita Devi were almost vanished. The victim came back to her parental home. After 2-3 years of the employment of Ravindra, he wrote a letter to PW2. The dispute between Ravindra and Smt. Chaita Devi was resolved through the intervention of gram pradhan Khem Singh (PW 5). Ravindra had written filthy letter, which was sent to the parental home of the victim. Ravindra lived in a rented house. He along with his family members assaulted the victim. Again an out of Court settlement took place in the PS concerned. Ravindra was having illicit relationship with one Bhagwani Devi. When the victim again came back to her parental home, she told that Ravindra Singh took out a knife to kill her. She was again assaulted by the husband and the members of matrimonial home. The victim committed suicide thereafter. She was so much tortured and harassed that the victim ended her life. The accused persons abetted the commission of suicide. 6. PW3 Avval Singh supported the prosecution story and said that his sister Chaita Devi was married to Ravindra Singh. For initially 5-6 years, they lived a normal marital life, but after 5-6 years, Ravindra got an employment in Education Department. He was appointed as a class IV employee. He started beating and assaulting the victim. A complaint was given to the Principal. Some local people intervened and out of Court settlement took place between them. For initially 5-6 years, they lived a normal marital life, but after 5-6 years, Ravindra got an employment in Education Department. He was appointed as a class IV employee. He started beating and assaulting the victim. A complaint was given to the Principal. Some local people intervened and out of Court settlement took place between them. Thereafter, victim came back to her parental home and Ravindra Singh wrote a letter requesting her to come back to her matrimonial home. Filthy language was used in the letter. The victim was assaulted time and again, as a consequence of which, she committed suicide. Accused persons abetted the commission of such suicide. 7. PW4 Prem Singh, who was father of the victim, also supported the prosecution story and repeated what was told by PW2 and PW3. PW4 also said that the victim came to her parental home some one month ago from the date of her death. PW4 went to drop his daughter to her matrimonial home. She committed suicide two or three days after that. PW4 was also a signatory to the inquest report. He also set the criminal law into motion by giving a complaint (Ext. Ka-7) before the appropriate authority. 8. PW5 Khem Singh was the gram pradhan of the village Patti Patoori. He said that there were differences between Smt. Chaita Devi and Ravindra. He tried to reconcile the differences between them and held a meeting. After that Smt. Chiata Devi (victim) came back to her parental home and narrated the harassment which was meted out to her (by her in-laws). 9. PW 6 Chandan Singh was the uncle of the victim. He said that accused-appellant (Ravindra Singh) was a class IV employee in a school. Appellant resided in a rented house. Appellant assaulted the victim. Although the villagers tried to intervene, but of no consequence. Accused-appellant, did not permit their children to meet their mother. The victim came to her parental home one day before the incident. PW 6 Chandan Singh went to the victim’s matrimonial home. He came to know that Smt. Chaita Devi was set on fire by her husband and his family members. 10. PW8 Sushila Devi said that victim was the elder sister of her husband. Whenever she came to her parental home, she complained about her husband. She died an unnatural death on 15th May, 1997. He came to know that Smt. Chaita Devi was set on fire by her husband and his family members. 10. PW8 Sushila Devi said that victim was the elder sister of her husband. Whenever she came to her parental home, she complained about her husband. She died an unnatural death on 15th May, 1997. The information regarding her death was given by the elder brother of the appellant. 11. The victim committed suicide. The prosecution story was established on the strength of the testimony of PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8, duly corroborated by the testimony of PW 1 and other peripheral evidence of PWs 7 & 9. 12. PW4, as also other witnesses, attributed the circumstances under which the victim committed suicide. The fact that she died due to ante-mortem injuries caused by fire, was corroborated by PW 1. The evidence tendered by PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 8 went on to prove that the accused –appellant abetted the commission of such suicide. Although, the evidence was also tendered against other accused persons, but they were exonerated by the Court below. No State Appeal was filed against their acquittal. The offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was proved against the accused-appellant Ravindra beyond reasonable doubt. He was husband of the victim. The Court below has given elaborate reasons for holding that the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was established against the accused-appellant in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the impugned Judgment. There appears to be no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. No interference is called for in the same. As a consequence of which, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The finding arrived at by the Court below is affirmed as also the conviction awarded to him. Bail of accused-appellant Ravindra Singh is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Court below forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court and as affirmed by this Court. 13. Let a copy of this Judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the Court below for causing appearance of the accused Ravindra Singh to enable him to serve out the term of sentence.