Criminal Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 v. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy A.G., Haryana

one Smt. Gita Devi. From this wedlock, Uma Devi, since deceased, was born. After 3/4 months of the birth of Uma, Smt. Gita Devi had expired. After one year thereof, he had Crl. Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 -2- contracted second marriage with Smt. Kamal Kanta. Four children were born this wedlock. Uma, since deceased, was also being looked after by his second wife Smt. Kamal Kanta. It was submitted that on 13.3.1994 he had performed the marriage of Uma, since deceased with accused Shree Bhagwan of village Bapora and given sufficient dowry in the marriage as per his means. After few days of the marriage, his daughter had told him and his wife Kamal Kanta and her uncle Satnarain that her husband accused Shree Bhagwan, her mother-in-law Darshana and her sister-in-law Murti Devi were raising demand for fridge and cooler and used to maltreat and taunt her for having brought insufficient dowry from her parents. On 24.4.1995 when accused Shree Bhagwan had come to take her with him, even at that time he told them that fridge and cooler were not given at the time of the marriage and repeated his demand. The complainant told him that they would give fridge and cooler to them after the harvest and they should not maltreat Uma Devi. It was alleged in the complaint that about 15/20 days back when the complainant alongwith his cousin Satnarain went to meet his daughter in village Bapora at that time also the accused repeated their demand of fridge and cooler. The accused were told by the complainant and his companion that they should not maltreat his daughter and their demand would be met soon. It was further alleged that on 9.6.1995 after receiving information about the death of his daughter, complainant had come from his village to village Bapora Crl. Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 -3- where he saw the dead body of his daughter Uma Devi lying on a cot on the roof. The complainant also alleged that the accused had either killed Smt. Uma Devi for the greed of dowry or had compelled her to commit suicide. Accordingly, he requested that necessary action be taken against them. After making endorsement Ex. PE/1, ASI Suraj Bhan sent the statement Ex.PE to Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PE/2 was registered on the same day at 11.40 a.m. and the special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Bhiwani on the same day at 2.00 p.m. During the course of investigation, ASI Suraj Bhan took into possession match box Ex. P2 and container Ex. P1 containing some kerosene and ashes of burnt clothes Ex. P3 from the spot vide recovery memo. Ex.PF. On the same day, the complainant produced letter Ex.PG/1 before ASI Suraj Bhan, who took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PG. Thereafter, ASI Suraj Bhan also took into possession sealed parcels after post mortem, vide recovery memo. Ex. PO. He also prepared the rough site plan Ex. PR and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, the case was investigated by SI Amar Singh, SHO, who took into possession dowry articles on 11.6.1995 vide recovery memo. Ex. PH. On the same day, SI Amar Singh arrested accused Shree Bhagwan and also took into possession note-book Ex. P4 vide recovery memo. Ex. PJ. Crl. Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 -4- Upon completion investigation presentation of the challan, followed by its commitment to the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Sadhana Anand, PW2 complainant Jagdish Parshad, PW3 Smt. Kamal Kanta, PW4 Inspector Amar Singh, PW5 Kanwar Pal Parmar, Draftsman, PW6 Ravinder Kumar, Photographer and PW7 ASI Suraj Bhan. Affidavits Ex. PM, PM/1 and PM/2 of Constable Chheli Ram, Lady Head Constable Brij Bala and Constable Jai Bhagwan were tendered in evidence alongwith report Ex.PL of the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. They further stated that Uma Devi, deceased used to be harassed by her step mother and she remained under depression because of illness, as she could not get cured in spite of medical treatment and, having fed up with life, she committed suicide. They further stated that they never demanded any article in dowry from her. In defence, they examined DWI Jagdish son of Amar Singh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and Crl. Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 -5- going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance. Undisputedly, the marriage of Uma Devi, since deceased, was solemnized with appellant Shree Bhagwan on 13.3.1994 and she died on 9.6.1995. As per the testimony of PW1 Dr. Sadhana Anand, who had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Uma Devi, there were superficial to deep burns all over the body from head to toe. The hair were singed whereas skin was peeled off at places. In her opinion, the cause of death was shock as a result of extensive burns, which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Further, as per PW2 complainant Jagdish Parshad and PW3 Kamal Kanta, who are father and step- mother, respectively of deceased Uma Devi, they had given dowry in her marriage according to their capacity but the in-laws of their daughter were not satisfied with the same. Whenever deceased visited her parents’ place, she would inform them that the appellants as well as her nanad Murti Devi were demanding fridge and cooler and also taunting her by saying that she had not brought sufficient dowry. On 24.4.1995, appellant Shree Bhagwan came to their village in order to take Uma Devi with him. At that Crl. Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 -6- time also, he demanded cooler and fridge. Her parents, however, requested Shree Bhagwan not to harass their daughter Uma Devi and they would try to satisfy their demand after the harvest. About 15/20 days prior to the death of Uma Devi, complainant Jagdish Parshad, alongwith his brother Satnarain, went to the matrimonial home of his daughter Uma Devi and at that time also, the appellants and Murti Devi demanded fridge and cooler. The father of the deceased told them that he would satisfy their demand as early as possible. On 9.6.1995, father of Uma Devi received information in his village regarding death of his daughter. Immediately, he started for the matrimonial home of his daughter and saw her dead body lying on the roof of the house. The appellants did not give any satisfactory reply about the cause of her death. He then submitted a written complaint Ex.PE, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PE/2was registered at the police station. From the above evidence available on the record, it is made out that the death of Uma Devi had taken place within seven years of her marriage. The death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. The appellants have been harassing and treating Uma Devi with cruelty by demanding a fridge and cooler. They also used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry. As the parents of Uma Devi could not fulfill the demand of the in-laws of his daughter, they kept on maltreating her. Ultimately, on

9.6.1995, death of Uma Devi occurred on account of burns. Crl. Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 -7- Therefore, the appellants can be safely held to be responsible for causing dowry death of Uma Devi. Apart from the oral testimonies of PW2 Jagdish Parshad and PW3 Kamal Kanta, there is letter Ex.PG/1 available on the record, which was written by Uma Devi to her mother and grand-mother. The said letter was written about three months earlier to the occurrence. In the said letter Uma Devi had written that she was not happy in the matrimonial home. Despite doing all the work, her mother- in-law remained angry with her. She also stated that she could not narrate all the things in the letter and as she was feeling perturbed, she be taken to her parents’ house so that she might explain all her feelings to them. Further, while staying in her in-laws house, she was counting her days. It is true that from the letter Ex.PG/1 it is not made out that Uma Devi was being harassed by her in-laws on account of demand of dowry. However, she stated that she could not express all her feelings in the letter. Therefore, she be taken to her parents’ house where she would narrate to them her tale of woes. Accordingly, the contents of the letter when read in conjunction with the testimonies of PW2 Jagdish Parshad and PW3 Kamal Kanta it cannot be said that Uma Devi was not being harassed by her husband Shree Bhagwan and mother-in-law Darshana for and in connection with demand of dowry. Crl. Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 -8- As regards the plea of the appellants that the deceased was not being kept nicely by her step-mother and for that reason she was not keeping good health or was under depression and, therefore, she had committed suicide, it would be worthwhile to refer to the testimony of PW2 Jagdish Parshad, wherein he specifically denied the suggestion that his second wife Kamal Kanta used to harass his daughter Uma Devi or that she was fed up with her on that account. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased was not keeping good health or that despite best medical treatment, her condition did not improve and she went under depression. Therefore, the appellants cannot be absolved of the commission of crime. Even otherwise, if the relations between the deceased and her step-mother were not cordial, that would not have given any cause to Uma Devi to commit suicide and, that too, in the house of her in-laws. Further, no medical evidence was produced by the appellants to show that in fact Uma Devi suffered from any ailment for which she was getting treatment and despite the same, she remained under depression. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea taken by the appellants in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased had committed suicide on account of the act of her parents and not that of her husband and mother-in- law. Similarly, the testimony of DW1 Jagdish, who was go-between in the marriage of deceased Uma Devi and Crl. Appeal No. 725-SB of 1996 -9- appellant Shree Bhagwan in deposing that he had not heard any complaint of maltreatment or harassment of Uma Devi by her in-laws, suffice it to say that though he is related to complainant Jagdish Parshad yet he belonged to the village of the appellants and, thus, would stand by them. Therefore, the appellants cannot be absolved of the liability. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC. The sentence of imprisonment of ten imposed upon appellant Shree Bhagwan commensurate with the crime committed by him. At the same time, there is some scope for reduction of sentence of appellant Darshana, mother-in-law of the deceased, who is now about 75 years of age. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon appellant Shree Bhagwan is upheld. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon appellant Darshana is reduced from ten years to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. September 29, 2010 satish ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE Satish Kumar 2014.04.29 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh