Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand)

#3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Smt. Beena @ Pheonla got married to accused/appellant Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh. It is alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry by accused/appellant Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh, his mother Ratan Dei (appellant No.2) and his brother Dayal Singh (since acquitted). It is stated that after about one and half year of her marriage on

15.06.1995, Beena @ Pheonla committed suicide by hanging, in her village Dhungi within the limits of Patti Patwari Gozil (Bangarh) Tehsil Deoprayag, District Tehri Garhwal. The matter was reported to the Patwari of the area. (In certain areas of Uttarakhand hills Revenue Officials has been given police powers). The dead body was taken into possession of Patwari of the area who got prepared inquest report (Ex. A2) and got sent the dead body in a sealed condition for post mortem examination. 3 P.W.3 Dr. J.P. Chamoli with Dr. A.K. Pathak conducted post mortem examination on dead body of the Beena @ Pheonla on 16.06.1995. They prepared autopsy report (Ex. A3) in which ligature mark found around the neck was mentioned. It was opined by the team of the Doctors that the deceased had died of asphyxia due to hanging. Three days after the incident, on 18.06.1995 P.W.1 Ram Singh (grand father of the deceased) lodged information report (Ex. A1) with Patwari Gozil (Bangarh) who on its basis registered crime no. 5 of 1995, against accused Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh (husband of the deceased), Dayal Singh (brother‐in‐ law of the deceased) and Ratan Dei (mother‐in‐law of the deceased) in respect of offences punishable under section 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. P.W.5 Sheeshram Mamgai, the then Naib Tehsildar of the area investigated the crime. On completion of investigation P.W.5 Sheeshram Mamgai submitted charge sheet (Ex. A14) against accused/ appellants Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh, Ratan Dei and Dayal Singh (since acquitted) for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 304B, 498A and 306 IPC. 4

#4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, on 05.07.1996, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 498A and 304B IPC, in alternative, charge of offence punishable under section 306 IPC, against all the three accused namely Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh, Ratan Dei and Dayal Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Ram Singh (informant/ grand father of the deceased), P.W.2 Gyan Singh (a shopkeeper of village Dhungi), P.W.3 Dr. J.P. Chamoli (who conducted post mortem examination with Dr. A.K. Pathak), P.W.4 Indra Dutt (Patwari of the area) and P.W.5 Sheeshram Mamgai (the then Naib Tehsildar who investigated the crime). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which the marriage of the accused Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh with Beena @ Pheonla was admitted. Death of Beena @ Pheonla by ante mortem hanging was not disputed but rest of the evidence was denied. 5 However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under section 498A and 306 IPC, against accused/ appellants Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh and Ratan Dei and convicted accordingly. They stood acquitted from the rest of the charge. Third accused Dayal Singh was acquitted from the charge of all the offences. After hearing on sentence, each one of the convicts i.e., Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh and Ratan Dei was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and directed to pay fine of ‘ 5,000/‐ under section 306 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay fine of ‘ 2,000/‐ under section 498A IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 02.05.2001, passed learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1996, this appeal is preferred by the aforesaid two convicts.

#5. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injury recorded by the team of medical officers at the time of autopsy on the dead body of Beena @ Pheonla 6 (deceased) on 16.06.1995, which is mentioned in the autopsy report (Ex. A3). The same is being reproduced below:‐ (cid:147)External Injuries. (Ante mortem) Nil except ligature mark Ligature mark is present between the thyroid cartilage and chin in front going backwards and upwards towards the lower jaw and back of neck. Ligature mark is absent below the right mastoid process. In front the mark is deep 3cm wide whose base is pale hard, leathery, margins are congested. Colour of mark is chocolate brown. On the back mark is continuous dark brown in colour.(cid:148) The team of medical officers opined in the report (Ex. A3) that deceased had died of asphyxia due to hanging. As such, the medical report on record is suggestive of commission of suicide by the deceased. The trial court has convicted the present appellants on the charge of abetment of commission of suicide, and for cruelty against the deceased allegedly committed by the accused.

#6. Only P.W.1 Ram Singh (grand father of the deceased) has alleged that his grand daughter Beena 7 @ Pheonla was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused. He further stated that accused used to demand dowry, and the deceased died because of the cruelty committed by the accused.

#7. It is pertinent to mention here that neither mother, nor father of the deceased has come forward to support the prosecution case. It is not the case of prosecution that they are not alive. On careful reading of statement of P.W.1 Ram Singh it is clear that in the cross‐examination he has admitted that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry. He further stated that when Beena @ Pheonla came for the first time to her parental house after her marriage, from her husband(cid:146)s house she did not complain about demand of dowry. It is also admitted by P.W.1 Ram Singh that his grand daughter Beena @ Pheonla went to Delhi with her husband Gopi Singh where they lived together for eleven months. It is also admitted by this witness that his son‐in‐law Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh (appellant no. 1) used to do job in Delhi. P.W.2 Gyan Singh, who is a shopkeeper in village Dhungi has stated that only eight days before her death, Beena @ Pheonla came to her village from Delhi. If the 8 statements of these two witnesses are read together there is nothing on the record suggesting that accused/ appellant no. 2 Ratan Dei ever made any demand of dowry from the deceased or committed cruelty with her. It is not the case of prosecution that accused/appellant no. 2 Ratan Dei used to live in Delhi rather from the record it appears that accused/ appellant no. 2 used to live in her village Dhungi. Even in the statement of P.W.1 Ram Singh there is no specific allegation against the mother‐in‐law of the deceased.

#8. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that trial court has erred in law in holding accused/ appellant Ratan Dei guilty of charge of offences punishable under section 498A and 306 IPC, infact, none of the offences stood proved against her.

#9. As far as the accused Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh is concerned, in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., he has pleaded that infact after the daughter born out of the wed‐lock in Delhi, and weather was hot, and he took his wife (deceased) and daughter to his village. He has further stated in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., that his wife 9 wanted to accompany him to Delhi again, and she was not ready to live in the village. The explanation given by the accused does not appear to be doubtful and it cannot be ruled out that after the accused refused to take his wife with him to Delhi during summer, she committed suicide.

#10. It is not established on the record as to what was the demand of dowry made by the accused. Though, P.W.1 Ram Singh has stated that he was told by his grand daughter (deceased) accused/appellant no. 1 Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh wanted ‘ 60,000/‐ for construction of house in Delhi, but said fact is nowhere mentioned by said witness in the FIR (Ex. A1) lodged by him after three days of death of her grand daughter.

#11. For the reasons as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said either charge of offences punishable under section 498A IPC or 306 IPC proved against any of the accused/appellants, beyond reasonable doubt.

#12. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.2001, passed by 10 learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1996, convicting accused/appellants Gopi Singh @ Govind Singh and Ratan Dei under section 498A and 306 IPC is hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the charge giving them benefit of reasonable doubt. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Lower court record be sent back. Parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

19.12.2012