Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1410 (PNJ)

Satish v. State of Haryana

2014-10-10

MUTTACI JEYAPAUL, SNEH PRASHAR

body2014
Sneh Prashar, J. 1. Three persons, namely, Satish his father Inder Singh and his mother Savitri were challaned and subjected to trial for commission of offence under Section 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in case bearing FIR No. 112 dated 28.04.2009, registered at Police Station Agroha District Hisar. Vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2010, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, the appellant-Satish was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/- for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas his parents, the other two accused Inder Singh and his wife Savitri, were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. In precise, the story of the prosecution was that on 24.04.2009 at about 4.00. p.m. Shri Devi Lal, Sarpanch of village Nangthala telephonically informed the police regarding the death of Manju wife of Satish of his village. ASI Kanwar Singh along with his official companions reached village Nangthala at the house of Satish and recorded the statement of Devi Lal-Sarpanch, who stated that Manju d/o. Rohtas Kumar was married to Satish about 2 years ago and a female child was born out of their wedlock. On that day i.e. 24.04.2009 at about 2:00 p.m. he received an information that Manju had died under suspicious circumstances due to some poisonous substance or injection. 2. The investigation officer carried out the inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in respect of the dead body. During the said proceedings, statement of Rohtas Kumar father of deceased Manju was recorded, who stated that after marriage of Manju with Satish, she was being harassed and maltreated by her husband, mother-in-law Savitri and father-in-law Inder Singh on account of demand of dowry. About 3 1/2 months prior to the occurrence, Manju had given birth to a daughter and thereafter her in-laws had started ill treating her all the more. On 27.04.2009 at about 9:00 a.m., he got a telephonic message from Manju that she was being beaten by her in-laws, upon which he alongwith with his brothers Dharampal and Rajender went to village Nangthala the same day and reached there at about 10.00. a.m. They noticed Satish and his parents hurling abuses and taunts upon Manju. On 27.04.2009 at about 9:00 a.m., he got a telephonic message from Manju that she was being beaten by her in-laws, upon which he alongwith with his brothers Dharampal and Rajender went to village Nangthala the same day and reached there at about 10.00. a.m. They noticed Satish and his parents hurling abuses and taunts upon Manju. When they were sitting outside the courtyard of the house of Satish, they heard cries of their daughter. They went inside and saw Manju lying on a cot being held by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and Satish giving an injection on her left arm and they watched that Manju breathed her last and died. Rohtas Kumar-Father of deceased Manju stated that his daughter had been given some poisonous injection and had been murdered by her husband and parents-in-law. 3. Appellant-Satish and his parents were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 304-B and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses to substantiate the charges. Statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. They denied the allegations and stated that deceased-Manju used to remain ill and had consumed some wrong medicine by mistake which proved fatal to her life. 5. As already indicated above, accused-Satish was convicted and sentenced, whereas the other two accused, his father Inder Singh and mother Savitri, were acquitted by learned trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred the instant appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of State, with their able assistance, have gone through the material available on record. 7. As pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant and unfortunate for the prosecution, Rohtas Kumar-father, Dharampal and Rajender Singh paternal uncles of deceased-Manju, who appeared as PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 respectively did not support the case of the prosecution on any material aspect. They unequivocally deposed that Manju was happily residing with her husband at her matrimonial home and was blessed with a daughter. After the birth of the child, she started suffering from fits and was on medication and it appears that some medicine taken by her had a fatal reaction and she died. They unequivocally deposed that Manju was happily residing with her husband at her matrimonial home and was blessed with a daughter. After the birth of the child, she started suffering from fits and was on medication and it appears that some medicine taken by her had a fatal reaction and she died. The contents of statement Ex-P2 of Rohtas Kumar-PW 3, which contained the allegations on which the prosecution rested were put to him during cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor but he not only disowned the statement but also controverted the contents. He denied that he had stated to the police that his daughter was being harassed and maltreated by her husband and parents-in-law on account of their demand for dowry. He also denied that some poisonous substance was injected to Manju which led to her death. Exactly on the same lines was the statement of PW 4 - Dharampal and PW 5 - Rajender Singh, the paternal uncles of the deceased. Both outrightly denied that Satish-husband and his parents had any role to play in the death of Manju. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that without there being any evidence of the prosecution that Satish-husband of deceased Manju, had injected a poisonous substance to her, learned trial Court in its own wisdom had recorded the verdict of conviction against him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. There was no evidence that the deceased and her husband were not enjoying cordial relationship and were not leading a happy married life. The husband, therefore, had no reason to murder his wife by injecting a poisonous substance to her. Learned counsel asserted that merely because Satish was present when Sarpanch and other persons of the village visited his house having come to know about death of Manju, it could not be presumed that he had murdered his wife. Had he done so, he would have immediately fled away and would not have waited for the people to arrive at their house. 9. Learned counsel further argued that the samples of stomach, small intestine, liver, kidneys, spleen and blood etc. of the deceased were taken into possession by the doctor at the time of post mortem examination of the dead body of Manju and were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal. 9. Learned counsel further argued that the samples of stomach, small intestine, liver, kidneys, spleen and blood etc. of the deceased were taken into possession by the doctor at the time of post mortem examination of the dead body of Manju and were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal. According to the FSL report, Ex-P9, the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen and kidneys gave positive test for aluminium phosphide and blood gave positive test for phosphine. The two glass vials, one of which was found broken with some white deposit and the other contained few drops of some colourless liquid and the empty hypodermic Syringe, allegedly recovered from the spot, were also sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal and according to its report Ex-P26 all three contained Vecuronium Bromide. Meaning thereby that the alleged chemical found in the body of deceased-Manju and the chemical in the vials and syringe recovered from the spot did not match and that was another important factor to render the story of the prosecution doubtful. It appears that recovery of vials and syringe etc. was fabricated by the police. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Deputy Advocate General, representing the State pointed out that PW-6 Dr.-Sanjiv Kumar, who alongwith two other doctors conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased-Manju after going through the report Ex-P9 of the Chemical Examiner had given the following opinion: "In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to asphyxia that may be due to many chemicals. The compounds in chemical report Ex-P9 are aluminium phosphide, phosphine and saline. These compounds may also causes asphyxial changes as mentioned in PMR" PW-6 also stated that the contents of injection, namely, Vecuronium Bromide is a poisonous substance and is sufficient to cause death. In his cross-examination, he denied that a person may consume a medicine having chemicals as named in the chemical report-Ex-P9 and Pathology report Ex-P10 when he is under fit. Therefore, the story presented by the accused that the deceased had wrongly taken some medicine which reacted, is apparently false. 11. In his cross-examination, he denied that a person may consume a medicine having chemicals as named in the chemical report-Ex-P9 and Pathology report Ex-P10 when he is under fit. Therefore, the story presented by the accused that the deceased had wrongly taken some medicine which reacted, is apparently false. 11. It has already been observed that the father and paternal uncles of deceased-Manju outrightly controverted the allegation of the prosecution that the deceased was being ill treated or was being subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband and parents-in-law because of their demand for dowry. It was not ever whispered by any witness that the deceased and the accused were not having harmonious relations and were not happy with each other. Rather, it has come in evidence that the sister of accused-Satish was married to one of the male member of complainant's family. On the said state of affairs Satish could not afford to be cruel towards his wife. No incidence of harshness towards deceased Manju by Satish and his parents was mentioned even in the alleged statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation in any case, while appearing in the Court all the three witnesses namely PW 3 - Rohtas, PW 4 - Dharampal and PW 5 - Rajender Singh had consistently stated that the husband and parents-in-law of deceased-Manju had never raised any demand for dowry nor had ever ill treated Manju. It means that Manju was living peacefully and in harmony with her husband and in-laws family. Resultantly, the allegation of the prosecution constituting commission of offence by the appellant and his parents under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code fell flat on the ground. 12. When it was established that the deceased and her husband (appellant) were having no marital dispute, it was not judicious on part of learned trial Court to assume that the poison injected or taken otherwise by the deceased was administered to her by her husband Satish. Learned trial Court appears to have been swayed by the statement of PW 2-Devi Lal, Sarpanch who in reply to a query raised by the Court had stated that only accused-Satish was present in his house during his stay there and the remaining two accused were not present. The house was of the accused-appellant and, therefore, his presence there was natural. The house was of the accused-appellant and, therefore, his presence there was natural. Infact, his absence at such critical time could have been used as adverse against him and not his presence. Had he played any role in the death of his wife, as per natural human tendency, he would have fled away from the spot. No one else was present in the house and he could have easily destroyed the vials, syringe etc. His presence was not enough to presume any foul play on his part especially when father and paternal uncles of the deceased stated that the appellant and the deceased were leading a peaceful life. 13. It is further important to note that the story presented by the prosecution was that in the morning on 27.04.2009 on receipt of a telephonic message from the deceased Manju that she was being beaten by her husband and parents in law, the father and paternal uncles of the deceased-Manju had come to village, Nangthala, i.e., the village where the deceased had her matrimonial home. They were sitting outside the house when they heard shrieks of their daughter and on going inside, they witness the occurrence during which the deceased was held by her parents-in-law and was given an injection of poison by her husband. Contrary to the said story, PW 2 - Devi Lal, Sarpanch, who informed the police about the death of Manju, deposed that in the morning i.e., on the next date of the occurrence, the parents and family members of deceased had arrived in the village, Nangthala. It means that the father and other relatives of the deceased were informed about her death and then they had reached village, Nangthala. The inconsistency proves that when the prosecution falsely manipulated a story to show the presence of the witnesses at the time of occurrence, the rest of the alleged events were also not free of doubt. In any case, the mere presence of the accused in his house was not indicative of his guilt especially when there was absolutely no evidence that he had any reason or motive to kill the deceased. It was for the said reasons that the other two accused i.e., father-in-law Inder Singh and mother-in-law/Savitri of the deceased were acquitted by learned trial Court. 14. It was for the said reasons that the other two accused i.e., father-in-law Inder Singh and mother-in-law/Savitri of the deceased were acquitted by learned trial Court. 14. As far as recovery of vials and syringe from the spot is concerned that too does not connect the appellant with the crime of murder because the poisonous chemical i.e. Vecuronium Bromide found in the vials and syringe was not detected in the samples of stomach, small intestine, liver, kidneys, spleen and blood of the deceased taken by the doctor at the time of post mortem examination. As per Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex-P9 the said parts of the dead body tested positive for aluminium phosphide and phosphine. That was another important factor which indicated fabrication in the story of the prosecution. 15. It was not the deposition of PW 3 to PW 5, father and paternal uncles of the deceased, that the medicine taken by her for fits contained poison and caused her death. They stated that because deceased was on medication she appeared to have taken some wrong medicine which reacted and proved fatal to her life. The genesis of the above discussion is that the evidence of the prosecution was not at all consistent and competent to connect the appellant-accused with the crime of murder of his wife. The prosecution failed to prove its allegations and thus for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.