Anand Lal v. State of U.P (Now State of Uttarakhand)

appellant, and Learned counsel for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that Maheswari Devi (deceased) got married to accused/appellant Anand Lal about eight years before the incident in question. It is alleged in the First Information Report (Ex-A9) by PW1 Kundan Lal (father of the deceased) that accused/appellant Anand Lal used to beat his wife after getting drunk. It is further alleged that fed-up with the behavior and cruelty committed by accused/appellant Anand Lal, the complaint was made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalisen, by the father of the deceased. The accused/appellant Anand Lal, who was a Patwari, on 27.05.1991, gave undertaking in writing (Ex-A4) that he would never beat his wife in future, and will not go to his house in a drunken state in future. However, the behavior of the accused/appellant Anand Lal remained 3 unchanged and he even after giving aforesaid undertaking continued to commit cruelty against his wife Maheshwari Devi. On 22.12.1991, PW1 Kundan Lal (father of the deceased) got information that his daughter (Maheshwari Devi) has suffered burn injuries. On 23.12.1991, at 9.30 a.m., PW1 Kundan Lal again went to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalisen, who told him Maheshwari Devi has died of burn injuries and her dead body has been sent for post mortem examination. On this PW1 Kundan Lal went to District Hospital, Pauri, where after dead body was said to have been kept, but there he came to know that the accused/appellant Anand Lal had taken the dead body and consigned the same to flames without informing the complainant (PW1). Thereafter, on 24.12.1991, First Information Report was given by PW1 Kundan Lal before Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, who got the matter inquired into through Sub Divisional Magistrate, and only thereafter First Information Report could be registered as Crime No. 01 of 1992, by Patwari police, Dhaijuli, of District Pauri Garhwal (In Uttarakhand Hills certain Revenue Officials are given police powers). The 4 investigation was taken up by PW5 Mohan Singh, who was the then Naib Tehsildar of the area. The said Investigating Officer after interrogating the witnesses, collected the copies of inquest report, post mortem examination report, letters etc., inspected the spot and submitted charge sheet (Ex- A7) against accused/appellant Anand Lal for his trial in respect of offences punishable under section 498A and 306 of I.P.C. (4) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, on receipt of charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge Pauri Garhwal, on 10.07.1995, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 498A and 306 of I.P.C., against the accused/appellant Anand Lal to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Kundan Lal (father of the deceased), PW2 Sangrami Devi (mother of the deceased), PW3 Gabar Singh (a neighbour of the deceased), PW4 Bhagat Singh (another neighbour of the deceased) and PW5 5 Mohan Singh (who investigated the crime). (5) Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which accused/appellant Anand Lal admitted that he was married to Maheswari Devi (deceased) but as to the rest of the evidence he pleaded that the evidence adduced against him is false, and he has been implicated due to enmity. However, he did admit that after the death of his wife Maheshwari Devi inquest report (Ex-A5) was prepared and post mortem examination was conducted. No evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has not proved charge of offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt, but with regard to offence punishable under section 498A of I.P.C., it was opined that the same was proved against the accused/appellant Anand Lal. Accordingly, the accused/appellant Anand Lal was convicted under section 498A of I.P.C, and after hearing on sentence he was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine the convict 6 was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 20.07.2000, passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1995, this appeal was preferred by the convict before Allahabad High Court from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. (6) Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries found by a team of two doctors namely Dr. M.S.Rawat and Dr. R.K.Saxena on 23.12.1991, recorded in autopsy report (Ex-A8) after post mortem examination on the dead body of Maheshwari Devi. The Medical Officer appears to have been not examined for the reason that learned defence counsel before the trial court admitted the genuineness of the document and dispensed with the formal proof of autopsy report (EX-A8). The ante mortem injury recorded in autopsy report on the dead body of Maheswari Deiv is being reproduced below:- 7 There is ante mortem superficial grade-II burn all over the body with peeling off the superficial skin at most of the places except over the soles and dorsum of left foot. Total burn about 99 %. The team of Medical Officers opined in autopsy report (Ex-A8) that deceased (Maheswari Devi) had died of shock as a result of extensive ante mortem burn. As such, the medical evidence on record shows that Maheswari Devi (wife of the accused/appellant Anand Lal) died unnatural death due to the ante mortem burn injuries on

22.12.1991. According to the medical officer as mentioned in the autopsy report, the dead body was one day old. (7) Now, this Court has to examine whether accused/appellant Anand Lal has committed cruelty with his wife which is punishable under section 498A I.P.C., or not. It is relevant to mention here that State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused from the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C., nor any appeal has been filed for enhancement of 8 sentence awarded under section 498A of I.P.C. (8) Section 498A of I.P.C, reads as under :- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “ cruelty” means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 9 (9) From clause (a) of above quoted section it is clear that if a woman is subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, such an husband is liable to the punishment for such cruelty which may extend to imprisonment for a period of three years and shall also be liable to fine. In the Explanation given to the section defining “cruelty” clause (a) and clause (b) are separated by inserting word “ or ” between the two clauses. It is relevant to mention that while clause (b) pertains to harassment on account of unlawful demand of dowry, there is no such ingredient in constituting the cruelty under clause (a) of Explanation to the section. Unlike section 304B of I.P.C., offence punishable under section 498A of I.P.C. gets attracted even to the marriage which is more than seven years old. (10) On perusal of record this Court finds that both PW1 Kundan Lal (father of the deceased) and PW2 Sangrami Devi (mother of the deceased) have stated that their daughter (Maheswari Devi) got married to accused/appellant Anand Lal about eight years before her death. The two witnesses 10 have further told before the trial court on oath that accused/appellant Anand Lal, who was a Patwari, used to beat his wife (Maheswari Devi) in a drunken state. Both these witnesses have further told that fed-up with the behavior of the accused/appellant Anand Lal, they complained about his conduct to Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area. PW1 Kundal Lal further told that after the complaint was made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, accused/appellant Anand Lal gave undertaking in writing (Ex-A4) that in future he would not beat his wife, and he would not enter in his house in a drunken state. Said document read with the oral testimony of the parents of the deceased clearly establishes on record that the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused/appellant Anand Lal. It is also relevant to mention here that the above undertaking (Ex-A4) was given by the accused in May 1991, and in the same year Maheshwari Devi died of burn injuries in the month of December. In the circumstances, the trial court rightly concluded that the harassment and the cruelty at the hands of her husband did not stop till it drove the wife to unnatural death. 11 (11) Shri Tapan Singh, Learned Amicus Curiae drew attention of this Court to the three letters collected by Investigating Officer which are paper no. 41b, 42b and 43b in the lower court record, and it is argued that the deceased had no complaint against her husband. I have gone through the said letters. The same are not proved on the record. Apart from this, these letters appear to have been written during the period when the deceased was away from her husband. As such, at that stage, there was no question of commission of cruelty by the husband with her. (12) It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that PW3 Gabar Singh and PW4 Bhagat Singh, who are residents of Village, where the deceased died, have not supported the fact that the accused/appellant Anand Lal used to beat his wife. They have simply stated that after the deceased caught fire they saw the deceased ablazed. Having gone through the statements of these two witnesses, this Court is of the view that normally the neighbours have no knowledge as to what is happening between the husband and wife inside the four walls of their house. As such, they were 12 not in a position to know as to what cruelty the deceased was suffering inside the house at the hands of her husband. (13) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.05.10.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)