Hari Datt v. State of Uttarakhand

of the deceased) got lodged first information report (Ex. A1) with Naib Tehsildar Bhikiyasen on

12.07.1995, in which it was alleged that the accused Hari Datt, and his parents have killed his sister (Rekha) on 06.07.1995, after setting her on fire. It is further alleged in the first information report (for short FIR) that time and again accused Hari Datt @ Harsih Chandra used to make demand of dowry. Lastly, it is stated that he demanded ‘ 20,000/‐ and threatened the deceased of dire consequences. It is also alleged in the FIR that accused did not care even to inform either to the police or to the relatives of the deceased of her parental side, and disposed of the body of the deceased. On the basis of said report crime no. 5 of 1995, was registered by Naib Tehsildar Bhikiyasen. (In Uttarakhand hills certain revenue officials are given police powers). Naib Tehsildar of 3 the area investigated the crime, he interrogated the witnesses, inspected the spot and submitted charge sheet (Ex. A8) against only one accused Hari Datt @ Harish Chandra (husband of the deceased) for his trial in respect of offences punishable under section 498A, 304B, 306 and 201 IPC.

On receipt of the charge sheet, Munsif/ Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Almora, on 18.09.1996, framed charge of offences punishable under section 498A, 201, 306 and 302 IPC, to which the accused Hari Datt pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. An additional charge was framed on 25.07.1997, by the then Sessions Judge, Almora, in respect of offence punishable under section 304B IPC, against accused Hari Datt @ Harish Chandra to which also he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Udli Devi (mother of the deceased) and P.W.2 Nand Kishor (brother of the deceased). Formal proof of the public documents was dispensed with by the defence counsel and genuineness of the same was admitted. Oral and 4 documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he admitted that he was married to Rekha. However, as to the rest of the evidence he alleged the same to be false. No evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under section 498A, 304B and 201 IPC, against accused Hari Datt @ Harish Chandra and convicted him accordingly. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under section 304B, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 498A IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 201 IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated

19.05.2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora, in Sessions Trial no. 21 of 1996, this appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court from where it is received through transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal. Notices were issued to the appellant after the appeal is received by transfer in this Court, and he was sufficiently served but he did not turn up to contest the appeal. In the above circumstances Mr. 5 Kuldeep Singh Rawal, Advocate, was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.

First of all it is relevant to mention here that in the present case there is no autopsy report relating to post mortem examination on dead body of the deceased, as admittedly the dead body of the deceased was disposed of by the accused, without informing about the death of his wife Rekha to the police, and before any of the relatives could reach to attend the funeral.

It is also not disputed in the present case that deceased was wife of the present accused/appellant Hari Datt @ Harish Chandra, and she died after about two years of her marriage with appellant (i.e. within seven years of her marriage). The above two facts are the answers given by accused/appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.

P.W.1 Udli Devi, mother of the deceased has stated that Rekha was her daughter who got married to accused/appellant. She further told in her statement 6 that accused used to make demand of dowry. She further told that ‘ 20,000/‐ were demanded by the accused and the accused threatened the deceased of dire consequences. She further told that her daughter (Rekha) told her that to please accused Hari Datt she had given her jewellery including (cid:145)GULBAND(cid:146) (necklace) and (cid:145)KARNPHOOL(cid:146) [(ear rings) which were sold by him]. P.W.1 Udli Devi mother of the deceased further told that accused did not even care to inform her about the death of Rekha. She further told that her daughter (Rekha) had told her that if the demand of ‘ 20,000/‐ was not met, she would be killed. She further stated that either her daughter is killed or committed suicide on account of harassment of non fulfillment of demand of dowry.

P.W.2 Nand Kishore brother of the deceased has also corroborated the prosecution story as above relating to demand of dowry made by the accused/ appellant and harassment caused for non fulfillment of demand of ‘ 20,000/‐. This witness has also proved letter dated 06.06.1995 (Ex. A2) written by the deceased before her death, to her mother. 7

Regarding the fact as to how the accused Hari Datt @ Harish Chandra made demand of dowry, and harassed his wife for non fulfillment thereof is also evident from the contents of letter dated 06.06.1995 (Ex. A2). The said letter is in Hindi, and contents of the same disclose that deceased had complained about the conduct of accused Hari Dutt @ Harish Chandra. In her letter she (deceased) says that her husband was asking for ‘ 20,000/‐ more. The deceased has further written in her letter that if the demand is not fulfilled she would be killed. Rekha (deceased) in her letter to her mother has further stated that she is getting sent the letter (Ex. A2) through some messenger and it should be attended immediately. The letter further reveals that the accused Hari Datt @ Harish Chandra is the drunkard and gambler who had already sold GULBAND (necklace) and KARNPHOOL (ear rings of his wife). Stating about her pathetic condition Rekha has further stated in her letter that each and every night has become difficult to be passed.

The statement of the two witnesses P.W.1 Udli Devi and Nand Kishore read with letter dated

06.06.1995 (Ex. A2) sent by the deceased to her mother 8 establishes on the record that the deceased was subjected to harassment, and cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry within one month of sending of said letter. In the manner in which the accused disposed of body of his wife without informing to police and parental side of the deceased, it could be presumed that she died unnatural death. The trial court has rightly believed that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty, and that the accused committed dowry death, and in order to cause disappearance of the evidence, he disposed of the body of his wife without informing the police and the parental side of the deceased.

Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, Advocate/Amicus Curiae assisting the Court argued that the trial court has erred in law in shifting the burden of proof on the accused without there being any proof of unnatural death of his wife. This Court is unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reason that section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1972, provides that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is (cid:145)shown(cid:146) that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or 9 harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. In this connection, it is further relevant to mention that word (cid:145)shown(cid:146) is used in the section does not require strict proof unlike it is so needed for word (cid:145)proved(cid:146). The prosecution has in the present case has sufficiently shown ingredients of the offence punishable under section 304B IPC. This is admitted to the accused that deceased had died within seven years of her marriage. The allegations of demand of dowry, and harassment for non fulfillment of demand of dowry is established not only from the statement of P.W.1 Udli Devi and P.W.2 Nand Kishore but also from the contents of letter dated

06.06.1995 (Ex. A2) written and sent by the deceased to her mother. The manner the body of the deceased was disposed of without informing the police and parental side of the appellant gives sufficient presumption that Rekha (deceased) wife of the accused died unnatural death. Accused Hari Datt @ Harish Chandra who is the husband of the deceased was the best person to state as to how his wife died. He has nowhere disclosed or suggested to any of the witnesses that his wife died of illness or any other natural cause. 10

It is also contended by learned Amicus Curiae that the letter dated 06.06.1995 (Ex. A2) is a forged document. However, on perusal of the letter on record read with evidence of P.W. 1 Udli Devi and P.W. 2 Nand Kishore, this Court does not find any reason to believe that the letter is forged one. Once the letter is proved by P.W.2 Nand Kishore on the record, the same can be read in evidence unless it is shown to be a doubtful document.