Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 649 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Yashoda

2013-10-09

BARIN GHOSH, U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Taking recourse to Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., an FIR was lodged at the instance of PW1 Smt. Jamotri Devi, under the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne. Application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. was moved on 02.12.1998, on the basis of which, a chick FIR (Ex.Ka-3) was registered as case crime no.2/1998 under Sections 304-B/201 IPC against father-in-law (since dead), husband and jethani (sister-in-law) of the victim at Patti (P.S.) Bichla Badalpur, Lansdowne on 04.12.1998. The incident took place on 01.11.1998. Although an unsuccessful attempt was made by PW3 Tajbar Singh Rawat to lodge FIR on 07.11.1998, yet the fact remains that there was inordinate delay in lodging the same. 2. Investigation began on the basis of said first information report. After investigation of the case, charge-sheets (Ex.Ka-6 & Ex.Ka-7) were submitted against Chawan Singh (father-in-law of victim), Jashoda Devi alias Yashoda Devi (sister-in-law of victim) and Virendra Singh (husband of victim) for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B & 201 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B & 201 I.P.C. Accused-respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 3. PW1 Smt. Jamotri Devi, PW2 Kushendra Singh, PW3 Tajbar Singh Rawat, PW4 Ginderf Lal and PW5 Prem Raj were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in reply to which they said that the prosecution witnesses told a lie, they (accused) never demanded dowry and were falsely implicated in the case. Accused Virendra Singh (DW1) and Dr. Mahesh Chandra (DW2) were examined in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Pauri Garhwal, vide judgment and order dated 21.06.2003, exonerated the accused-respondents of the charges leveled against them. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present Criminal Government Appeal was preferred on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand. 5. The prosecution led the evidence through PW3, victim’s father. PW3 stated that his daughter was married to respondent Virendra Singh according to Hindu rites and rituals in the year 1996. She was harassed by her husband (Virendra Singh), sister-in-law (Jashoda Devi) and father-in-law (Chawan Singh) for not bringing sufficient dowry. She died on 01.11.1998. Postmortem of the deceased was not conducted. PW3 stated that his daughter was married to respondent Virendra Singh according to Hindu rites and rituals in the year 1996. She was harassed by her husband (Virendra Singh), sister-in-law (Jashoda Devi) and father-in-law (Chawan Singh) for not bringing sufficient dowry. She died on 01.11.1998. Postmortem of the deceased was not conducted. According to PW3, he was not permitted to participate in the cremation of the deceased. PW3 proved his complaint (Ex.Ka-2). 6. PW1 was the mother of the deceased. She too stated, in her examination-in-chief, that the victim was married to respondent Virendra Singh in February, 1996. PW1 said that sufficient articles were given in the marriage of the victim. When victim came to her parental home, she complained that her in-laws harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry. When she died, her dead body was surreptitiously cremated by her in-laws. She also said that her daughter’s in-laws killed her for want of bringing sufficient dowry. 7. PW2 was the brother of the victim. He supported the prosecution story. On 01.11.1998, some villagers informed him that his sister was killed by her in-laws. When PW2 alongwith PW1 went to his sister’s matrimonial home, they were not permitted to see the dead body of his sister. They were compelled to go back to their village. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was not conducted. 8. PW4 Ginderf Lal was posted as Naib Tehsildar in Lansdowne on 04.12.1998. He proved chick FIR (Ex.Ka-3) and entry of the same in G.D. (Ex.Ka-4). Upon his transfer, remaining investigation was conducted by PW5 Prem Raj (Naib Tehsildar), who prepared site-plan (Ex.Ka-5) and took the statements of the witnesses and accused persons. Upon being satisfied that the accused-respondents committed crime, PW5 submitted the charge-sheets (Ex.Ka-6 & Ex.Ka-7) against them. 9. Accused-respondent Virendra Singh (husband) entered into the witness-box as DW1 in order to prove his innocence. He stated that on 01.11.1998, when victim went to the field as usual, she was bitten by snake, as a consequence of which, she fell unconscious. She was taken to DW2 for treatment. DW2, a medical officer, declared her ‘brought dead’. DW2 Mahesh Chandra supported DW1 and said that the victim died of snakebite on 01.11.1998 in the morning. When the victim was brought to DW2, she was already dead. 10. She was taken to DW2 for treatment. DW2, a medical officer, declared her ‘brought dead’. DW2 Mahesh Chandra supported DW1 and said that the victim died of snakebite on 01.11.1998 in the morning. When the victim was brought to DW2, she was already dead. 10. It was evidenced that the victim used to write letters to the members of her parental home. It was admitted fact that the victim never made a complaint in the letters sent by her to her parental home that her in-laws harassed her for not bringing dowry. Her husband was serving in the Indian Army and he never demanded dowry from the victim or her parents. If mother, father and brother of the victim leveled allegations against the accused-respondents for harassment of victim in connection with dowry demand, the same does not inspire confidence and, is therefore, not acceptable. The allegations of dowry-demand were general and vague in nature. 11. The incident of death allegedly took place on 01.11.1998. It was said by PW1 and PW2 that they reached matrimonial home of the victim, no sooner they received the information regarding her death. Neither PW1 nor PW2 reported the offence to the (revenue) police. PW1 and PW2, in turn, informed PW3. PW1 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. to the Judicial Magistrate on 02.12.1998. Why did she not move such an application earlier? The chick FIR was finally lodged on 04.12.1998, i.e., after more than a month of death of the victim. The delay in lodging the FIR was not sufficiently explained. If PW1 had suspicion that the same was ‘dowry-death’, she should have immediately approached the (revenue) police to set the criminal law into motion, but, instead of doing so, PW1 and PW2 informed PW3, who is stated to have given an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, but to no avail. If the dead body of the victim was cremated surreptitiously by the victim’s in-laws, PW1 (mother) and PW2 (brother) could have gone immediately to the police to make a request that the cremation of the dead body be stopped and the postmortem on the dead body be conducted. But, they did not do so. Inquest was also not conducted. It was, therefore, not evidenced that the same was a homicidal death. 12. The prosecution evidence was correctly discussed and appreciated by learned trial court. But, they did not do so. Inquest was also not conducted. It was, therefore, not evidenced that the same was a homicidal death. 12. The prosecution evidence was correctly discussed and appreciated by learned trial court. The court below rightly concluded that there was no evidence of demand of dowry. The evidence tendered by PW1, PW2 and PW3 was not believed by the trial court citing cogent reasons for non-acceptance of such oral evidence. The letter written by the deceased never indicated that she was being harassed in connection with demand of dowry. There was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Delay in lodging the FIR was not properly explained. There was no inquest report. When PW1 and PW2 were informed in time about the death of the victim, they did not rush to the (revenue) police with the request to stop cremation of the dead body so that postmortem on the dead body of the deceased could be conducted. It was not evidenced that the same was a homicidal death. Learned trial court, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the prosecution was unable to prove it’s case against the accused-respondents beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. We also assessed the prosecution evidence independently to come to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove it’s case against the accused-respondents. No interference is, thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order. 13. Criminal Government Appeal thus, fails and is, dismissed.