Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 54 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Kuldeep Goyal

2019-01-11

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2011, rendered by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No.90 of 2012, whereby the respondents-accused, were tried and charged with for the offences punishable under Sections 498A 304B of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and were acquitted. 2. Briefly stated according to the prosecution, respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal enticed the daughter of the informant and married her on 01.03.2012. Soon after the marriage, respondents started maltreating and harassing the deceased Puja for the want of dowry. The deceased conveyed the same to the first informant. On 12.05.2012, first informant got a call that the deceased has consumed poison. By the time he reached hospital, Puja had already died. An FIR to this effect was given by father of the deceased Gopal Singh Mehta on 12.05.2012 at 1.00 p.m. Inquest of the deceased Puja was prepared and post mortem was conducted on 12.05.2012 at 3.55 p.m. by PW7 Dr. Ramchandra Singh Rawat. According to the post mortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved for chemical examination. Forensic Science Laboratory later found that the viscera contained Aluminium Phosphate poison. After investigation, charge sheet under Section 498A and 304 B I.P.C. was filed against the respondents. On 26.07.2012 charges under Sections 498A, 304B and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were framed against the respondents, namely, Kuldeep Goyal, Rajendra Goyal and Vimlesh Goyal to which, they denied and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined in all twelve witnesses namely PW1 Head Constable, Lalit Prasad Joshi, PW2 Gopal Singh, PW3 Kalawati, PW4 Deepak Mehta, PW5 Smt. Sangeeta Kannaujia, PW6 Sumit Panwar, PW7 Doctor Ramchandra Singh Rawat, PW8 Chandra Shekhar Joshi, PW9 Navneet Singh Bullar, PW10 Sub-Inspector Neeraj Chaudhary, PW11 Ajay Kumar and PW12 Constable Mohd. Ikrar. 4. Respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). All the respondents have stated that they have falsely been implicated in the case. Respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal, husband of the deceased has categorically stated that he was in relationship with Puja for about one and a half year. Ikrar. 4. Respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). All the respondents have stated that they have falsely been implicated in the case. Respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal, husband of the deceased has categorically stated that he was in relationship with Puja for about one and a half year. They had a court marriage but the family members of his wife Puja were not agreeable to the marriage and they started torturing Puja mentally and physically, which deceased Puja had confided with respondent no.1. In defence three witnesses were examined namely DW1 Seema Chaudhary, DW2 Ajay Karanwal and DW3 Manoj. 5. After considering the evidence and materials on record, learned court below acquitted the respondents for the charges leveled against them. Aggrieved, the State has preferred present appeal 6. Heard Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Ms. Anjali Noliyal, learned Advocate for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General would argue that respondents harassed the deceased Puja for demand of dowry. The deceased conveyed it to her father, mother and brother. The conduct of the respondents is also significant because none was present at the time of cremation. Prosecution has been able to prove the charges leveled against the respondents but learned court below committed an error in acquitting the respondents. Therefore, it is argued that impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2014 deserves to be set aside. Respondents are liable to be convicted and appeal deserves to be allowed. It has also been argued by learned Deputy Advocate General that at least charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is proved against the respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal, husband of the deceased. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal and the deceased Puja were in love and they married in court against the wishes of the family members of the deceased Puja. There was no question of demand of any dowry and it was never demanded. The statement of the witnesses on this aspect, according to learned counsel for respondents, are not believable and in fact, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the witnesses have also stated that respondents took care of deceased in their house. There was no question of demand of any dowry and it was never demanded. The statement of the witnesses on this aspect, according to learned counsel for respondents, are not believable and in fact, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the witnesses have also stated that respondents took care of deceased in their house. Therefore, it is argued that learned court below rightly acquitted the respondents and impugned judgment does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. PW1 Head Constable, Lalit Prasad Joshi has recorded the chick FIR in the case and made entries. 10. PW2 Gopal Singh is father of the deceased. He has stated that after court marriage of his daughter with respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal on 01.03.2012, respondents harassed and maltreated his daughter for dowry. According to this witness, deceased had once informed him about it and had told that respondents want money for purchasing a house, which he could not give at that time because his son was sick and resultantly, the deceased was further harassed. On 12.05.2012, he was informed that the deceased is serious and is admitted at Indresh Hospital, Dehradun. In hospital he questioned them regarding as to why he was not informed earlier by them about the condition of deceased Puja, as he would have arranged for a better treatment for her; but no satisfactory reply was given to him. 11. PW3 Smt. Kalawati, mother of the deceased and PW4 Deepak Mehta, brother of the deceased have also stated regarding the demand of dowry and harassment at the hands of the respondents. 12. PW5 Sangeet Kannaujia, PW6 Sumit Panwar and PW8 Chandra Shekhar Joshi are witnesses of inquest. 13. PW7 Dr. Ramchandra Singh Rawat conducted post mortem on 12.05.2012 at 3.55 p.m. at Doon Hospital, Dehradun. According to post mortem report rigor mortis was present slightly on neck & lower limb; No external injury except an old healed scar 1.5cm X .25cm at left breast; Redish patch present mainly back, neck & hand. Since the cause of death could not ascertained, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. 14. PW11 Ajay Kumar has proved the Forensic Science Laboratory report. He is Deputy Director in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. According to him, aluminium phosphate poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. PW12 Constable, Mohd. Since the cause of death could not ascertained, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. 14. PW11 Ajay Kumar has proved the Forensic Science Laboratory report. He is Deputy Director in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. According to him, aluminium phosphate poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. PW12 Constable, Mohd. Ikrar is the person, who had carried viscera from court to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 15. PW9 Deputy Commandant, Navneet Singh Bullar is the Investigating Officer, who prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted charge sheet. PW10 Neeraj Chaudhary arrested the respondents. 16. DW1 Seema Chaudhary and DW3 Manoj have said that they know the respondents and the respondents never harassed the deceased Puja. DW2 Ajay Karanwal has said that respondent no.2 Rajendra Goyal works with him and the day his daughter-in-law died, he was at Pithoragarh. 17. Undoubtedly, deceased Puja died just after two months of her marriage. Question for determination, however, is as to whether deceased Puja was subjected to cruelty by respondents for the demand of dowry or for any other reason. Learned court below has not accepted the case of the prosecution. One thing is clear from the statements of PW2, Gopal Singh, PW3 Kalawati and PW4 Deepak Mehta, that the deceased Puja married against their wish. PW4 Deepak Mehta has said in his cross-examination that even after the marriage of his sister Puja, when once he visited the respondents’ house, he had asked his sister to leave her husband. Not only this, it is also categorically stated by these witnesses that even they were not aware that the deceased Puja was going to marry respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal. It is only when the deceased Puja informed her brother PW4 Deepak Mehta that she married with respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal, they knew about it. Respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal has stated in his examination under Section 313 of the Code that he and the deceased Puja were in relations for one and a half year before they married. 18. According to PW2 Gopal Singh only once, when deceased Puja visited his house, she told that since respondents had no house of their own, they wanted money for purchasing a house. 18. According to PW2 Gopal Singh only once, when deceased Puja visited his house, she told that since respondents had no house of their own, they wanted money for purchasing a house. PW2 Gopal Singh, father of the deceased has stated that he never visited his daughter’s matrimonial home and for the first time, he saw respondent no.2 Rajendra Goyal i.e. father-in-law of the deceased Puja on the date of incident itself. 19. PW3 Kalawati, mother of the deceased has also admitted in her examination that whenever she visited respondents’ house, no demand of dowry was made to her. She was well treated. It has also been stated by PW4 Deepak Mehta. Not only this, PW2 Kalawati mother of the deceased has, at one stage of her cross-examination, stated that even respondent no.1 had purchased jewelry for his wife deceased Puja. 20. Statements of PW2 Gopal Singh, PW3 Kalawati and PW4 Deepak Mehta with regard to dowry do not inspire our confidence. All these witnesses were against the marriage of the deceased Puja with respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal. The demand was never made to them. Whenever PW3 Kalawati and PW4 Deepak Mehta visited the house of the respondents, they were treated well. Respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal even purchased jewelry for his wife deceased Puja as said by PW3 Kalawati, the mother of the deceased. 21. There is no doubt about the fact that she died of poisoning. PW2 Gopal Singh has stated that when he questioned respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal, as to what had happened, respondent no.1 replied that on the evening of 11.05.2012, he and deceased Puja had some altercation and thereafter deceased Puja took some tablets. It is not the case that deceased was poisoned by someone. 22. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General also argued that if not under Section 304-B of I.P.C., there is enough evidence to convict respondent no.1 Kuldeep Goyal under Section 306 I.P.C. Section 306 I.P.C. provides for punishment in cases of abetment of suicide. The question is whether anyone has abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Puja. The evidence on record reveals that, in fact, the respondents had treated deceased Puja very well. Deceased Puja married respondent no.1 against the wishes of her family members. Therefore, there is no evidence, which may indicate that any of the respondents abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Puja. 23. The evidence on record reveals that, in fact, the respondents had treated deceased Puja very well. Deceased Puja married respondent no.1 against the wishes of her family members. Therefore, there is no evidence, which may indicate that any of the respondents abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Puja. 23. When deceased Puja was in hospital her parents were informed. They promptly reached the hospital. Life of the deceased could not be saved. It is argued that the conduct of respondents shows that they were guilty, because at the time of cremation, they were not present. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted at 3.55 p.m. on 12.05.2012. FIR was lodged on 12.05.2012 at 1.00 p.m. After lodging of FIR, how could it be expected of the respondents that they would be arranging for cremation. In fact, respondent no. 1 Kuldeep Goyal and respondent no.2 Rajendra Goyal were arrested on 12.05.2012 itself. It is respondents, who took deceased Puja to hospital. Their conduct cannot be doubted, for any guilt be inferred against them. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. Learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 25. The Appeal is dismissed. 26. Lower court record be sent back.