Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 38 (UTT)

Diwan Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

2014-02-14

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. In the instant case, criminal law was set into motion, at the instance of Bachi Singh, who lodged an FIR on 18.08.1991, at 10:00 A.M. in police station, Bageshwar, the then, District Almora, against three named accused persons, which was registered as case crime no. 82 of 1991, under Section 304B of IPC. After the investigation, a final report was submitted. Final report was rejected by learned Magistrate. After further investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons, namely Diwan Singh alias Durgapal Singh, Chhatrapal Singh and Smt. Ramuli Devi for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2. PW1 Narayan Singh and PW2 Jeewan Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Mohan Singh was examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted accused Diwan Singh alias Durgapal Singh, Chhatrapal Singh and Ramuli Devi under Section 304B of IPC. Each one of the convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2002, present criminal appeal was filed by the accused-appellants. 3. Prosecution led the evidence through PW2 Jeewan Singh, who stated in his examination-in-chief that deceased Hansi Devi was his sister. She was married to accused Diwan Singh on 12.03.1991. She died in August 1991. Whenever Hansi Devi came to her parental home she used to complain that her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her for want of giving sufficient dowry. Victim used to complain that the accused persons demanded T.V., gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 3,000/-. PW2’s father gave Rs. 3,000/- to the accused. Victim felt helpless when accused persons continuously harassed her. Her in-laws did not feed her properly. She was given stale food. Victim was given medical treatment at Ranikhet by the members of her parental home. Thereafter, she was sent to her matrimonial home. 3,000/-. PW2’s father gave Rs. 3,000/- to the accused. Victim felt helpless when accused persons continuously harassed her. Her in-laws did not feed her properly. She was given stale food. Victim was given medical treatment at Ranikhet by the members of her parental home. Thereafter, she was sent to her matrimonial home. In August 1991, PW2 read the news of the death of his sister in the newspaper. The family members of matrimonial home of the deceased did not inform the members of her parental home regarding her death. PW2’s father (since deceased) (not examined) wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to the District Magistrate, Almora. Diwan Singh had threatened, before said incident, that if the articles, as demanded by him, were not provided to him, the victim would be killed. Victim was continuously harassed by her in-laws or she was compelled to commit suicide. PW2 also proved letter (Ext. Ka-2) written by his father to him. He also proved letter (Ext. Ka-3) written by his wife to him. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated, among other things, that he did not come to know that Hansi Devi was ill. PW2 did not come to know of victim’s ailment, even after letter written by his wife was received by him. He came to know of the ailment of the victim only when his (PW2’s) younger brother brought the victim to Ranikhet. PW2 came to know that Diwan Singh went to Chandigarh in search of employment. Diwan Singh went to Chandigarh after one month of his marriage with the victim. The victim was given medical treatment by Dr. N.K. Pandey at Ranikhet. Accused Diwan Singh threatened the victim in presence of one Naveen Chandra Pandey (not examined). Hansi complained before Naveen Chandra Pandey that her in-laws harassed her for want of giving sufficient dowry. PW2’s wife (not examined) was present in the village at that time. PW2 denied the suggestion of the defence that the victim was suffering from mental disorder. PW2 further admitted that he remained at Ranikhet even after hearing the news of demise of his sister (victim). He also denied the suggestion that the inland letters purported to be written by his father and his wife were not written by them. He came to know through newspaper that his sister committed suicide. Ext. PW2 further admitted that he remained at Ranikhet even after hearing the news of demise of his sister (victim). He also denied the suggestion that the inland letters purported to be written by his father and his wife were not written by them. He came to know through newspaper that his sister committed suicide. Ext. Ka-2 was purportedly written by the father of PW2, who was informant of the case (since deceased), to him. In this letter dated 06.08.1991, it was written that Hansi Devi told her father that her husband was demanding Rs. 3,000/-. Hansi Devi insisted for giving the money, which money was managed by the father of victim and given to the couple (Hansi-Diwan). Nowhere in the said letter it was written that said demand was a dowry demand. 4. Ext. Ka-3 was purportedly written by the wife of PW2 to PW2. In Ext. Ka-3, it was written that the victim was complaining that her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her for want of giving sufficient dowry. Husband of the victim had gone to Chandigarh. Victim Hansi Devi stated to Pushpa Bisht (according to the letter) that her brothers would take her for medical treatment to any doctor at Ranikhet. It may be clarified here that Pushpa Bisht, wife of PW2, who was alive, was not examined to prove the letter written by her to her husband. 5. PW1 was only the witness of inquest report (Ext. Ka-1). In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that he belonged to the same village (in which the couple was living). The victim never made a complaint to PW1 (against her in-laws). Victim’s father used to come to her matrimonial home. PW1 was her neighbour. Victim never made a complaint that she was being harassed by her in-laws. Victim’s father came to Bageshwar on the next day of victim’s death and he too did not complain about anything. Victim further said that since victim was not keeping well, therefore, she died due to her illness. It appears that victim’s father lodged the report on someone’s tutoring. 6. DW1 was the co-villager of the victim (and her in-laws). He stated that the victim was not keeping well. DW1 attended the barat of the Diwan Singh on the occasion of his marriage with Hansi Devi. It appears that victim’s father lodged the report on someone’s tutoring. 6. DW1 was the co-villager of the victim (and her in-laws). He stated that the victim was not keeping well. DW1 attended the barat of the Diwan Singh on the occasion of his marriage with Hansi Devi. He further stated that neither Diwan Singh nor any of his family members made a demand of dowry in the barat, in his presence. Victim was taken care of by her in-laws. When Hansi died, her father came to her matrimonial home. Father of victim did not complain against anyone. DW1 was also a signatory to inquest report. 7. Even if the statements given by PW2 are presumed to be correct on their face value, no offence for which the accused-appellants were convicted, was proved. There is only oral evidence of the fact that the victim used to complain that her in-laws harassed her for dowry. PW2’s evidence too suffers from many material infirmities. In Ext. Ka-2, PW2’s father although wrote that Rs. 3,000/- were paid to the couple, but it is not established, on the basis of the contents of Ext. Ka-2, that Rs. 3,000/- were demanded by the husband of the victim on account of dowry. So far as Ext. Ka-3 is concerned, PW2’s wife did not enter into the witness box to prove the letter written by her to her husband (PW2). 8. As per postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. Postmortem report did not indicate any ante mortem injury on the person of the deceased. Even the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem, could not ascertain cause of death. No viscera report has been brought on record. Learned AGA submitted that although viscera was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination, but no report of the same could be brought on record. Medical Officer’s opinion, therefore, proved to be the death knell for the prosecution story. Prosecution was required to prove that the death of victim occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Prosecution was further required to show that soon before her death, victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Prosecution was required to prove that the death of victim occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Prosecution was further required to show that soon before her death, victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the death of victim was caused otherwise than under normal circumstances, victim’s death within seven years of her marriage notwithstanding. It was also not proved beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. Although the prosecution made an attempt to prove that the victim was harassed by her in-laws (accused-appellants) but the same could not be established beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt because of uninspiring piece of evidence of PW2. The letters, on the basis of which such allegation was attempted to be proved, were not proved. All the limbs of offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC were not proved against the accused-appellants. It is being mentioned, as a matter of passing reference, that initially a final report was submitted by the I.O. in the matter and it was only after further investigation that charge-sheet under Section 306 of IPC was submitted against the accused-appellants. The charge under Section 306 of IPC was not framed. Instead, charge under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC was framed against the accused-appellants, but the same could not be proved by the prosecution to the hilt. 9. The impugned judgment and order, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain. The criminal appeal preferred by the appellants deserves to be allowed and the same is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2002, as also the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the court below are hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the charge framed against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender. 10. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the Court below for compliance.