Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 236 (UTT)

Nari Ram & Kalawati v. State of Uttrakhand

2014-05-27

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Mr. Nari Ram (A1, husband of the deceased), Mr. Chanchal Ram (A2, father-in-law of the deceased) and Smt. Kalalwati (A3, mother-in-law of the deceased) were tried for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 53/1999. Trial culminated into the acquittal of A2, while A1 and A3 were found guilty for the said offences. They have appropriately been sentenced by the learned Trial Court on 01.03.2004. The trial pertains to the Revenue Circle Badav, Tehsil and District Pithoragarh. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as emerging out from the FIR are that the deceased Leela Devi @ Guddi Devi was wedded with A1 three years before, she lost her life in her matrimonial village. She committed suicide on 04.02.1999 at some outskirts of the village hanging her body from the branch of a tree with some rope. Her body was detected on 05.02.1999 in the morning. The report was given by one villager Mr. Ganesh Ram to the Patwari Circle. The inquest report was prepared on 05.02.1999 at 3 P.M. in presence of the concerned Patwari. The entire yellowish/silver ornaments, which were on the dead body, were entrusted to her husband in presence of all the villagers including some persons from the parental home of the deceased. Smt. Leela Devi was got married by her widow mother, a very poor lady as is reflected from the FIR. She organized the marriage somehow by disposing his movable and immovable property as the deceased had already lost her father. FIR, handed over on 06.02.1999, could be reduced into writing only on 07.02.1999 after passing through the hierarchy of the Revenue Officers. The investigation culminated into submission of the charge-sheet against all the three accused persons for the said offences. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that A1 was employed in some private job at Delhi and probably he was a domestic servant with some big man. So, he was not in a position to keep his wife along with him in Delhi and this was the reason of anguish and agony, which drove the deceased to commit the suicide. 4. So, he was not in a position to keep his wife along with him in Delhi and this was the reason of anguish and agony, which drove the deceased to commit the suicide. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of PW2 (real brother of the deceased) and PW4 (cousin brother of the deceased), who have ratified the fact that A1 was engaged in some private job in Delhi and he kept assuring his wife to keep her with him in Delhi whenever he becomes capable for the same. 5. It has also been argued by appellants’ counsel that on the same set of evidence A2 has been acquitted, while A3 has been convicted. This Court does not agree with the submission of the appellants’ counsel for the reason that in such cases, the legislature has specifically enacted the provisions of Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, which draws the presumption against the accused in the following circumstances:- (1) That the lady committed the suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage. (2) Her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected cruelty to her. Then the Court may draw presumption having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abated by her husband or by such relative of her husband. (3) Not carrying the young wife at the workplace or not keeping her with him for such a long time inasmuch as for three years after marriage is by itself amount to a cruelty. 6. Smt. Bhaga Devi (PW1) has proved in so many words that whenever her daughter used to come to her house, she always complained regarding the tormented attitude of the family members of her husband. A3 did not permit her to sleep in the night quietly as A3 having caught her feet expelled her out from house by dragging. This was in addition to taunting and teasing her. This fact has also been deposed by the PW2. So, this conduct on the part of the husband can be attributed to the ambit of cruelty, as has been envisaged under Section 498-A IPC, which is an ingredient in order to draw the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. This fact has also been deposed by the PW2. So, this conduct on the part of the husband can be attributed to the ambit of cruelty, as has been envisaged under Section 498-A IPC, which is an ingredient in order to draw the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. This way the conviction of A3 and A1 cannot be on the same set of evidence which has been made the basis of acquittal of A2. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the A1 was not present in the house on the day of occurrence. This argument of the appellant’s counsel is not sustainable for the reason that apart from proving this fact in the oral testimony by PW1, PW2 and PW4, the same has been ratified by the signature of A1 on 05.021999 at the inquest report that he received the jewellary items of the deceased by putting his signature on inquest report (Ex. Ka-3). 8. In view of what has been stated above, I have not been persuaded to take a different view than what has been taken by the learned Trial Judge. There is no force in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Thus, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has next argued that the sentence of Smt. Kalawati (A3) is too severe and he prayed for reduction of the same. He has also informed the Court that A3 is an old lady and she is running in her sixties. 10. Looking to all these circumstances, the sentence of Smt. Kalawati, under Section 306 IPC, is reduced from seven years to four years. Rest of the sentences passed against Mr. Nari Ram and Smt. Kalawati are upheld. They are on bail. They shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court. 11. Let, a copy of this judgment and order along with LCR be sent back to the concerned Court below.