Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 159 (UTT)

Dinesh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-03-05

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : The appellant has come-up in this Appeal against the judgment dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2010 State vs. Dinesh and others, whereby the appellant has been held guilty of charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) and in case of non-payment of fine, he was to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one year. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the complainant-Mijanu (P.W.1), son of Sri Maidiya, resident of Village-Paluka, Tehsil-Barkot, District-Uttarkashi filed a Tehrir in Police Station-Barkot on 17.07.2010 against accused persons, namely Dinesh, Rakesh, Virendra and Haripa Lal to the effect that the complainant’s cousin Rajni, D/o Sri Gujru, resident of Village Paluka, Tehsil Barkot was married to Dinesh, son of Haripa Lal, R/o Village-Pauri (Gadoli), Police Station-Barkot, about 10 years ago, in which sufficient dowry was given by complainant’s Tauji but Rajni’s husband-Dinesh, her father-in-law Haripa Lal, and brothers-in-law Rakesh and Virendra were not happy. They used to beat-up his sister-Rajni every day and demand dowry. Rajni had two sons from this marriage, but there was no difference in their behavior. The complainant’s Tauji also gave money to these people many a times for the happiness of his daughter. Praveen Arora-the elder son-in-law of Tauji, who stays in Delhi, also gave Rs. 1.5 Lacs in cash to Dinesh (appellant) some time ago. Praveen used to help Rajni’s in-laws financially, but Rajni’s husband, father-in-law and two brothers-in-law were not satisfied. Out of grief, Tauji suffered a paralytic attack. The mother of the complainant was also a disabled woman. Tauji had no son so he used to treat the complainant as his own son. About one week ago, Dinesh told them over phone that if they didn’t give them money, he would kill the complainant’s sister Rajni. About five days’ ago, the complainant, his sister-Manju, Prem Lal, complainant’s friend Ramesh Khatiyal went to Rajni’s in-laws’ house and explained a lot to Rajni’s husband, father-in-law, and brothers-in-law, but these people were repeatedly saying that we need money, else we will kill your sister. On 17.07.2010, at around 11:00 AM, a call was received from Rajni’s in-laws that Rajni has been killed by her in-laws. On 17.07.2010, at around 11:00 AM, a call was received from Rajni’s in-laws that Rajni has been killed by her in-laws. When they went to Rajni’s in-laws’ house, they saw that Rajni had been strangulated to death by her husband Dinesh, father-in-law Haripa, and brothers-in-law Rakesh and Virendra, and her dead body was lying at home. Thereafter, the complainant went to register a report. 3. Based on the aforesaid Tehrir, Case Crime No. 10/2010, under Section 302 IPC, was registered and a First Information Report was lodged against Dinesh, Rakesh, Virendra and Haripa Lal at Police Station Barkot, District-Uttarkashi on 17.07.2010 at 03:00 PM. The details of the same were recorded in the G.D. The case was instituted and the investigation commenced. During the investigation, a site plan of the spot and Panchayatnama were prepared by the Investigating Officer of the police station concerned. Thereafter, post-mortem of the dead body was conducted and the accused persons were arrested. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet against all the accused persons, namely Dinesh, Virendra and Rakesh was filed under Section 302. They denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined P.W.1-Mijanu, P.W.2-Ramesh, P.W.3-Smt. Manju, P.W.4-Praveen Kumar, P.W.5-Neha, P.W.6-Dr. Pratap Rawat, P.W.7-Constable Sohan Khatri, P.W. 8-S.I. Pratibha Bhatt, P.W.9-Constable Tej Singh and P.W.10-S.I. Sanjay Chauhan as oral evidence and the Prosecution produced Tehrir Exhibit Ka-1, Post Mortem Report Exhibit Ka-2, Panchayatnama Exhibit Ka-3, Sketch of the dead body, Application Exhibits Ka-5 to Ka-6, Police Form-13 Exhibit Ka-7, Chick FIR Exhibit Ka-8, Copy of G.D. Exhibit Ka-9, Site Plan Exhibit Ka-10, Charge-Sheet Exhibit Ka-11, Information Memo Exhibit Ka-12, Arrest Memo Exhibit Ka-13 and photos of the deceased Material Exhibits 1 to 4 as documentary evidence. 6. The statements of the accused Dinesh, Rakesh and Virendra were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which they all stated that all facts were wrong and no dowry had been given as the in-laws were poor. 7. The Lower Court examined the evidence led by the prosecution in detail. As per the evidence, Rakesh and Virendra were living separately from their brother-Dinesh for the last six years before the incident and accused Dinesh used to live separately with his wife and children in Village Pauri Gandoli, and this fact was also admitted by the complainant-Mijanu in his cross-examination, Smt. Manju-P.W.3 and Neha-P.W.5., who is the real sister of the deceased. 8. 8. Further P.W.1-Mijanu (complainant) has also stated that deceased-Rajni also had a son, namely Papil, before her marriage with Dinesh. P.W.1-Mijanu (complainant) and P.W.3-Smt. Manju also stated that accused Virendra and Rakesh never demanded dowry or money from deceased-Rajni in their presence, nor did they ever assault her. The case against them was filed only on the basis of suspicion and the allegation of suspicion was made so that accused Dinesh, who was absconded after the incident, can be arrested. 9. In the above background, the case against Rakesh and Virendra was not made out and they were acquitted for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. With regard to accused-Dinesh, Dr. Pratap Rawat (P.W.6), has stated in his examination in chief that “the face of the deceased had turned blue, on the left side of the face, on the left side of the chin, there was a lacerated wound of size 4cmX5 cm, due to which the face had turned blue. There was ligature like wound mark around the neck, which was 22.5 cm circular from front to back in the lower part of the neck, and when the neck was moved, the neck was shacking back and forth, due to which it seemed as if some bone of the neck had dislocated. On opening the neck, it was found that C-5 and C-6 of the neck were moving back and forth and were dislocated.” The death, as per the version given by Doctor Pratap Rawat (P.W. 6), was due to suffocation, which seemed to be ante-mortem injuries of the deceased. With respect to the injuries on the neck of the deceased, the counsel for the accused did not dispute the above said fact. Further, as per Dr. Pratap Rawat (P.W.6), “the injuries on the neck of the deceased, which are mentioned in the Post Mortem Report, cannot have been caused by hanging on the rope”, and he further stated that “Ligature mark will not appear by pressing with hand. Further, as per Dr. Pratap Rawat (P.W.6), “the injuries on the neck of the deceased, which are mentioned in the Post Mortem Report, cannot have been caused by hanging on the rope”, and he further stated that “Ligature mark will not appear by pressing with hand. It is possible that the deceased may have died due to suffocation because of a cloth rope.” Hence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the statement of Doctor Pratap Rawat that the deceased had died due to suffocation because of forceful strangulation of her throat with some rope or cloth and due to which, while committing such an act, she suffered injuries on the left side of her face and also on her head. The dead body was found in the upper room of the house of accused Dinesh and in such a situation, accused Dinesh absconding from home on the day of the incident shows that the alleged incident was committed by accused Dinesh. Another fact, which the Trial Court has taken into consideration, is that as per the version given by the P.W.1.-Mijanu (complainant), the deceased and Dinesh had one son i.e. Papil, who was 12 years old, who used to stay with Tauji. This fact was further stated by P.W.3 that this boy Papil lives with his parents and she does not know how old is he and he is the son of her elder sister-Neha. Witness Praveen Kumar (P.W.4) further stated that Papil was not his son. He knew Papil and could not tell as to whose son was he. 10. Since the case of demand of dowry was not made out, the allegation of demand of dowry was not accepted by the trial Court and as regards Dinesh, the fact that as per the Post Mortem Report the death was on account of suffocation of mouth by cloth rope and the fact that Dinesh had absconded on the same day when the deceased had died show that he had committed the murder of the deceased. 11. In view of the above, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant in the present case has argued that there was no direct evidence to show that it was the appellant, who had committed murder. 11. In view of the above, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant in the present case has argued that there was no direct evidence to show that it was the appellant, who had committed murder. At the same time, he was the husband of the deceased and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was the appellant who had to explain as to in what circumstances, she died. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he said that his wife had committed suicide. The medical evidence given by Dr. Pratap Rawat (P.W.6) could not be reversed. The finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the version given by Doctor Pratap Rawat (P.W. 6) with regard to the death of the deceased cannot be discarded and as per the report of Doctor Pratap Rawat (P.W. 6), “the injuries on the neck could not have been caused by hanging on the rope” and the deceased had died because of suffocation of a cloth rope. This medical evidence, plus the fact that Dinesh had absconded after the incident, was more than sufficient to hold him guilty, and no evidence was led by him to show that it was a case of suicide. 13. The judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2010 State vs. Dinesh and others does not require any interference and is affirmed. 14. Present Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.