Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1727 (RAJ)

NATWAR LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-05-31

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Abhay Chaturvedi, J. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara in Sessions Case No. 43/2009 whereby while acquitting the co accused Kanji of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, the accused-appellant Natwar Lal has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Section 304-B IPC Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one months additional Simple Imprisonment. Section 498-A IPC Simple Imprisonment of 03 years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine 15 days additional Simple Imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Soma (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) with Police Station Ghadi, district Banswara on 23.04.2009, wherein it was stated that on the same day, at 08:00 a.m., one Lal Shankar informed him that his daughter had expired, whereupon, he along with other villagers including Sarpanch Kaluramji proceeded to the house of the accused and there his daughter was found dead having injuries on her neck and ear. He had an apprehension that his daughter was killed by the accused persons by throttling. It was further alleged in the written report that his daughter Shakuntala was married to the accused Natwar Lal 3 years ago and out of their wedlock, one daughter Raveena was born. After some time of the marriage, the accused persons started ill-treating his daughter for demand of dowry. Whenever, his daughter came to their house, she told him that the accused person and his family members misbehaved with her and accused Natwar Lal used to beat her. His daughter was driven out of the house twice but he along with his relatives got the matter reconciled, thereupon his daughter started living with her husband. It was apprehended that the accused persons had killed his daughter for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. 3. His daughter was driven out of the house twice but he along with his relatives got the matter reconciled, thereupon his daughter started living with her husband. It was apprehended that the accused persons had killed his daughter for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. 3. On this report, FIR No. 110/2009 was registered for the offence under Sections 498-A and Section 304-B IPC at Police Station Ghadi, district Banswara and the police after thorough investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellant Natwar Lal and co-accused Kanji for the offences under Sections 498-A and Section 304-B IPC. 4. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC to the accused appellant Natwar Lal and co-accused Kanji who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/8 were exhibited in support of its case. 6. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial, which he denied and stated that he had engaged into a love marriage with the deceased because of which, the parents of the deceased were annoyed and he had been falsely implicated. 7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, while acquitting the co-accused Kanji from the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Natwar Lal for the offence under sections 304-B & 498-A IPC vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2010. Aggrieved of the said judgment of conviction, accused appellant Natwar Lal has preferred this appeal. 8. It is relevant to mention here that the accused -appellant was granted 30 days parole on 12.06.2015 but he did not surrender before the Superintendent of Jail, Udaipur after the completion of the period of parole and was rearrested on 15.04.2019. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the judgment of conviction is against the facts and other material available on record and that the same deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the judgment of conviction is against the facts and other material available on record and that the same deserves to be set aside. He has further argued that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC but there is no material available on record as to when and what dowry was demanded by the accused appellant from the complainant party which is alleged to be the main cause of cruelty leading to the death of the Smt. Shakuntala in unnatural circumstances. All the witnesses have improved their version and it was for the first time during the trial that the prosecution witnesses alleged that Rs. 50,000/- and a motor cycle was demanded in dowry and therefore, the evidence of demand of dowry is unreliable which cannot be made the basis for conviction of the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. It was admitted by the prosecution witnesses that in the community to which the parties belong, there is no ritual of transaction of money etc. at the time of marriage and rather the party from the side of bridegroom offers money to the bride party. In fact, there was a love affair between the accused appellant Natwar Lal and the deceased Shakuntala which resulted into their marriage and so there was no question of any dowry being demanded from the lady. It was also contended that all the prosecution witnesses are the interested witnesses as they are the close relatives of the complainant Soma and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case of demand of dowry by the accused-appellant. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment. 11. We have considered the submissions made at bar and have carefully and perused the entire evidence available on record. 12. The accused appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. 13. The essential components of the offence under Section 304- B IPC are : (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage. (ii) Soon before her death, she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. 14. 13. The essential components of the offence under Section 304- B IPC are : (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage. (ii) Soon before her death, she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. 14. While assessing the essential ingredients of the offence in light of the evidence placed on record, it transpires and is not disputed that the marriage of the deceased with the accused-appellant was solemnized 3 years before the occurrence. Thus, the first component of the offence is satisfied. 15. So far death of the deceased Shakuntala occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances is concerned, prosecution witness PW-1 Soma, PW-2 Manilal, PW-3 Manshankar, PW-4 Mahipal, PW-5 Dinesh S/o Soma, PW-6 Dinesh S/o Savji, PW-7 Smt. Pushpa and PW-8 Smt. Anita have clearly stated that when they reached at the house of the accused, the deceased Shakuntala was found dead having injuries on her neck and ear. Her neck was completely twisted. PW-10 Dr. Rajaram Bhadu, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased Shakuntala also stated that while conducting the postmortem of the deceased, he found two bruises on the left side of the neck of the deceased and in his opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Hence, the statements of PW-1 to PW-8 are supported by the statement of PW-10 Dr. Rajaram Bhadu and it is well established that the death of the deceased Shakuntala was not natural and was otherwise than under normal circumstances. Thus, the second component of the offence under Section 304-B is also present in this case. 16. Now coming to the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. 17. A perusal of the record shows that the written report Ex.P/1 was submitted by PW-1 Soma, father of the deceased Shakuntala with the police station Ghadi on 23.04.2009, on the very day, he along with his relatives reached at the house of the accused appellant and saw the deceased. 17. A perusal of the record shows that the written report Ex.P/1 was submitted by PW-1 Soma, father of the deceased Shakuntala with the police station Ghadi on 23.04.2009, on the very day, he along with his relatives reached at the house of the accused appellant and saw the deceased. In the FIR, there is a clear mention of the fact that the deceased Shakuntala was ill-treated and tortured for demand of dowry by the accused persons and the complainant had an apprehension that she was killed because the demand of dowry was not satisfied. 18. A close scrutiny of the statements of the material prosecution witnesses shows that the accused appellant and his family members ill-treated the deceased to fulfill the demand of dowry. 19. PW-1 Soma in his statement stated as under: ^^'kknh ds ckn ls 'kadqryk llqjky esa jgrh FkhA mlds llqjky esa uVoj mldk ifr] o llqj dkuth mls rax o ijs'kku djrs o >xMs djrs Fks o 50]000@&:- dh ekax djrs Fks o eksVj lkbZfdy dh ekax djrs o ,l-Vh-lhdjus dh ekax djrs FksA os dgrs fd ^^tk rsjs cki ls ysdj vkA** ,oa mlds lkFk ekjihV djrs Fks o esjs ?kj Hkh vfHk;qDr uVoj vkrk o esjh yM+dh ds lkFk gekjs lkeus >xM+k djrk FkkA esjh yM+dh dks ekjihV dj ?kj ls fudky nsrs FksA esjh yM+dh dks nks ckj ekjihV dj ?kj ls fudkyk FkkA ftl ij geus le>k cq>k dj mls okil llqjky es Hkstk FkkA vfHk;qDr uVoj dgrk Fkk fd ^^:i;s rsjs firk ugha nsaxs rks rw>s fudky nwaxk o nwljh ‘kknh d:axkA** 20. PW-2 Manilal in his statement stated as under: ^^gkftj vnkyr eqyfteku uVojyky o dkuth o mlds ifjokj okys 'kdqaryk ds lkFk ekjihV djrs Fks o rax djrs o ?kj ls fudky nsrs Fks o 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ;kruk,sa nsrs FksA esjh cgu tc Hkh ?kj ij vkrh Fkh rks crkrh Fkh fd eqyfteku ngst esa 50 gtkj :i;ksa dh o eksVj lkbZfdy dh ekax djrs FksA gekjh vkfFkZd fLFkfr fBd ugha gksus ls ge eqyfteku dh ekax dks iqjk ugha dj ldrs FksA ?kVuk ls 6 ekg iwoZ ?kVuk ls ,d ekg iwoZ esjh cgu 'kdqaryk dks vfHk;qDr uVoj o dkuth us ekjihV dj ?kj ls fudky fn;k Fkk fQj geus le>kbZ'k djds geus o gekjs ifjokj okyksa us 'kdqaryk dks mlds llqjky j[k vk;s FksA^^ 21. PW-3 Manshankar stated as under: ^^vfHk;qDr uVoj o dkuth nksuksa 'kdqaryk ds lkFk ekjihV djrs Fks o ?kj ls fudky nsrs FksA os ngst esa 50 gtkj :i;s o eksVj lkbZfdy dh ekax djrs FksA eqyfteku 'kdqaryk dks rax o ijs'kku djrs FksA 'kdqaryk dks ekjihV dj nks ckj ?kj ls fudky nh FkhA ?kVuk ls 6 ekg igys 'kdqaryk vkbZ Fkh rks ge lc ifjokjtu mls le>kcq>k dj llqjky j[k vk;s FksA ?kVuk ls ,d ekg iwoZ Hkh 'kdqaryk dks fudky fn;k Fkk rks ge ifjokj okyks mls j[kus x;s FksA ogka ij vfHk;qDr uVoj o dkuth us dgk fd ^^50 gtkj :i;s o eksVj lkbZfdy ykdj nks rks yM+dh dks j[k tkvks ojuk yM+dh dks okil ys tkvks ge uVoj dh nwljh 'kknh djk,saxsA fQj geus eqyfteku dks le>kcq>k dj 'kdqaryk dks mlds llqjky esa j[k vk;sA^^ 22. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross examination of these witnesses which can discredit their testimony on this aspect. The other witnesses who are relatives of PW-1 Soma have given evidence almost on similar lines. 23. Thus, the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated on oath that after some time of the marriage, the accused -appellant and his family members started demanding money from the deceased. Whenever, she visited her fathers house, she would complain about the demand of dowry made by the accused appellant and his family members. She was twice driven out of the matrimonial home within a span of just one month prior to the occurrence, but just to save the marriage, the girl reconciled and agreed to live with the accused. PW-1 Soma also specifically stated that the accused appellant used to demand Rs. 50,000/- and a Motor Cycle from the deceased. 24. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding improvement in the statements of the witnesses is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the details of the demands made by the accused have not been mentioned in the FIR but the factum of demand of dowry by the accused appellant and his family members is clearly mentioned in the FIR. An FIR is not an encyclopedia. All the facts in detail are not required to be given in the FIR. In fact, the fact of demand of dowry has been explained by the witnesses in their statements before the Court. An FIR is not an encyclopedia. All the facts in detail are not required to be given in the FIR. In fact, the fact of demand of dowry has been explained by the witnesses in their statements before the Court. Thus, this trivial omission in the FIR cannot be considered as prejudicial to the case of the prosecution by any stretch of imagination. 25. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that all the prosecution witnesses are relative witnesses is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that matters regarding matrimonial disputes are likely to be discussed amongst the family members only and a positive endeavour is made not to leak the details out side the family so as to protect the family image from being tarnished. Since, family members are the best persons to have knowledge of such matters, so non-examination of other persons of the society is not fatal to the prosecution. 26. The marriage of the deceased Shakuntala was solemnized just 3 years before the occurrence and there is ample evidence on record to the effect that torture of the deceased to have started after some time of the marriage by the accused appellant and his family members, which continued till her death. The prosecution witnesses have stated that one month prior to the occurrence, the accused appellant had driven the deceased out of the matrimonial home. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the allegation of the deceased Shakuntala having been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death is duly established. 27. Having proved the main components of the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon the accused and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 28. The accused appellant has not led any evidence to rebut the prosecution evidence. Admittedly, the death of the deceased Shakuntala occurred at the matrimonial home as a result of strangulation. Thus, there was an obligation on the part of the accused to have explained the circumstances in which death of the deceased Shakuntala took place, but no such explanation has been offered by the accused appellant. Admittedly, the death of the deceased Shakuntala occurred at the matrimonial home as a result of strangulation. Thus, there was an obligation on the part of the accused to have explained the circumstances in which death of the deceased Shakuntala took place, but no such explanation has been offered by the accused appellant. As such, presumption of dowry death by the accused appellant may be drawn as provided by Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 29. In view of the above, we find nothing to interfere with the finding of the trial court convicting the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara is upheld. 30. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.