Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 45 (PNJ)

Dhani Ram v. State of Haryana

2014-01-09

M.JEYAPAUL

body2014
M. Jeyapaul, J. All the six accused who were convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code have challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The complainant has come forward with the above revision petition praying for enhancement of sentence and also for award of compensation. 2. PW3 Baisakhi Ram, the brother of the deceased Sunita had submitted a complaint to PW12 ASI Ram Kumar as follows:-- PW3 Baisakhi Ram and the deceased Sunita were brother and sister. Sunita was married to accused Ram Chander on 5.3.1991. A cash amount of ` 51,000/-, 10 tolas of gold, fridge, television set, double-bed, steel almirah, clothes and other household articles were given to accused Ram Chander at the time of marriage. PW3 proceeded to fetch his sister on the next day of the marriage. She informed PW3 that all the accused complained of less quantity of dowry given at the time of marriage. Ram Chander came to the house of PW3. He did not behave properly with the complainant and his other family members. A sum of ` 1,100/- in cash and clothes were given to Ram Chander and his mother. The accused kept on taunting Sunita for having brought less dowry. They also complained that Sunita had not brought scooter and cooler as dowry. They started giving beating to Sunita on one pretext or the other. During Baisakhi festival, Sunita informed the complainant that the accused were demanding scooter, cooler and colour television set. The accused also refused to send Sunita during Baisakhi festival to her parental house as the dowry demanded by the accused was not given. A Panchayat was convened to persuade the accused. A sum of ` 2,000/- for purchasing cooler was given. After a child was born out of the wedlock, the accused did not take Sunita back to the matrimonial home. The accused stated that unless they were given colour television, scooter and ` 20,000/- in cash, Sunita will not be kept in the matrimonial home. However, members of the Panchayat persuaded the accused and gave a sum of ` 5,100/- in cash to the accused. Sunita thereafter lived in the matrimonial home. On 9.6.1992 around 8:00 p.m., Suresh Kumar brother-in-law of the complainant was informed that Sunita was either killed by her in-laws or she committed suicide. Sunita was found dead with burn injuries. 3. However, members of the Panchayat persuaded the accused and gave a sum of ` 5,100/- in cash to the accused. Sunita thereafter lived in the matrimonial home. On 9.6.1992 around 8:00 p.m., Suresh Kumar brother-in-law of the complainant was informed that Sunita was either killed by her in-laws or she committed suicide. Sunita was found dead with burn injuries. 3. PW3 Baisakhi Ram corroborated his original version in the First Information Report. PW4 Suresh Kumar, brother-in-law of deceased also supported the statement of PW3. 4. PW5 Pritam Singh spoke about the extra judicial confession suffered by accused Ram Chander to the effect that the accused killed Sunita by setting her on fire. PW7 ASI Risal Singh was the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation of this case. PW8 Dr. P.K. Paliwal conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Sunita on 11.6.1992. He could not ascertain the cause of death as the dead-body was in a decomposed state. However, he opined that the burn injuries were post-mortem in nature. 5. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 in the background of the medical evidence available on record returned a verdict of conviction and sentence as stated supra. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that PW3 and PW4 have come out with general allegations of demand of dowry by all the accused. PW5 Pritam Singh has deposed that accused Ram Chander suffered extra judicial confession that it was he who killed the deceased. The post-mortem examination would disclose that burn injuries were not the cause of death. At any rate, the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 304B IPC. 7. The learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. C.S. Bakhshi would support the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. It is to be noted that no one appeared for the complainant-revision petitioner to pursue Criminal Revision No. 710 of 1999. 8. I thoroughly perused the entire evidence and the documents found on record in the background of the above rival submissions made before me. 9. PW3 Baisakhi Ram the brother of the deceased and PW4 Suresh Kumar brother-n-law of the deceased have categorically deposed that there was a demand of dowry in the form of air cooler, colour television set and scooter. PW3 Baisakhi Ram has in fact corroborated the First Information Report originally suffered by him. 10. 9. PW3 Baisakhi Ram the brother of the deceased and PW4 Suresh Kumar brother-n-law of the deceased have categorically deposed that there was a demand of dowry in the form of air cooler, colour television set and scooter. PW3 Baisakhi Ram has in fact corroborated the First Information Report originally suffered by him. 10. The marriage of Sunita with accused Ram Chander had taken place on 5.3.1991 and the occurrence had taken place on 10.6.1992. In other words, within a short-while from the occasion of marriage, the occurrence had unfolded. 11. There is no reason to reject the evidence of PW3 and PW4 as regards the demand of dowry. The young married woman had died at the matrimonial home itself. No plausible explanation was offered by the accused as to how Sunita was found burnt in their house. PW3 and PW4 also had spoken about the ill-treatment meted out to Sunita at the matrimonial home. 12. The prosecution is bound to establish that all the accused were living together and made such a demand of dowry. If all the accused had not resided together, there would have been no occasion for the parents, brother, sister and sister-in-law of the accused Ram Chander to demand dowry and cause cruelty to Sunita. 13. I find that the accused through DW1 Jiwan Parkash Sharma, Salesman of Co-operative Society, Hirkey, District Mansa and DW2 Pawan Kumar, Secretary Panchayat village Hirkey, District Mansa proved that accused Dhani Ram, Angoori, Chhaju Ram, Rani and Kiran were living in Hirkey. They also had ration card operational from 1985 to June, 1992. In 1992 they had also purchased ration from the ration shop at Hirkey. The above evidence would go to establish that accused Dhani Ram, Angoori, Chhaju Ram, Rani and Kiran had resided at Hirkey at the time when the occurrence took place at Sirsa where accused Ram Chander lived with his wife Sunita. The defence could establish through the above evidence that the above accused were not living with Ram Chander at Sirsa. In other words, they had separate establishment at a far away place. Therefore, the role attributed to the above accused is found doubtful. 14. The prosecution has relied upon the extra judicial confession alleged to have been suffered by Ram Chander to PW5 Pritam Singh. In other words, they had separate establishment at a far away place. Therefore, the role attributed to the above accused is found doubtful. 14. The prosecution has relied upon the extra judicial confession alleged to have been suffered by Ram Chander to PW5 Pritam Singh. It is found that Ram Chander had confessed that it is he who caused the death of his wife. Of course, some improvement was made by PW5 during the course of evidence. Such an improvement made in the deposition cannot be relied upon by the Court of law. The evidence of PW5 also buttresses the fact that accused except Ram Chander had no role to play in the dowry death. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that it was only accused Ram Chander, who had caused dowry death punishable under Section 304B IPC, therefore the other accused are entitled to acquittal. In the result, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as against accused Ram Chander is sustained and the appeal qua Ram Chander stands dismissed. The other accused Dhani Ram, Angoori, Chhaju Ram, Rani and Kiran are acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand discharged. The appeal qua them is allowed. Accused Ram Chander shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this judgment, failing which, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa shall issue warrant of arrest and send the accused Ram Chander to jail to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. Criminal Revision No. 710 of 1999 stands dismissed for non-prosecution.