KANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sunita Kumari married on 9th July, 1985 was found dead on 23rd October, 1988 at the residence of her in-laws at Batala in Punjab. The death was found to have occurred not under the ordinary circumstances but was the result of the asphyxia. On post-mortem it was found that the deceased had injuries on her person including the ligature mark 20 cm x 2 cm on the front, right and left side of neck, reddish brown in colour starting from left side of neck, 2 cm below the left angle of jaw passing just above the thyroid cartilage and going up to a point 2 cm below the right angle of jaw. The parents of the deceased were allegedly not informed about her death. It was a shocking occasion for Ram Kishan, PW-5 when he came to deliver some customary presents to her sister on the occasion of Karva Chauth, a fast observed by married women for the safety and long life of their husbands, when he found the dead body of his sister Sunita lying at the entrance room and the respondents were making preparations for her cremation. Noticing ligature marks on the neck of her sister, Ram Kishan PW-5 tele-phonically informed his parents about the death and himself went to the police station to lodge a report Exh. PF. On the basis of the statement of PW-5 a case under Section 306, IPC was registered against the respondents. After investigation the prosecution presented the charge-sheet against Rakesh Kumar, husband of the deceased and Ram Piari, the mother-in-law of the deceased. Ramesh Kumar, brother-in-law and Bharti, sister-in-law of the deceased were originally shown in Column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After recording some evidence, Ramesh Kumar and Bharti were also summoned as accused. The appellant, the father of the deceased, filed a separate complaint under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against all the respondents. The criminal case filed by the appellant was also committed to the Sessions Court and both the appellant's complaint and the police case were heard and decided together by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who, vide his judgment dated 28th August, 1990, convicted the respondents under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years' Rigorous Imprisonment. He also found them guilty for the commission of offence under Section 306 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years besides paying a fine of Rs. 250/- each. The respondents were also found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each. All these sentences were to run concurrently. The respondents herein filed an appeal in the High Court against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial Court and the appellant, father of the deceased, filed a revision petition against the said judgment praying for enhancement of the sentence to imprisonment for life on proof of the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC. Both the appeals and the revision were heard together by a learned single Judge of the High Court who vide her judgment impugned in this appeal acquitted the respondents of all the charges. The revision petition filed by the father of the deceased was dismissed holding that the same had no merits.

(2.) Ms. Anita Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the judgment of the High Court suffers from legal infirmities which requires to be set aside and the respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the commission of heinous offence of dowry death, a social evil allegedly commonly prevalent in the society. She was contended that the judgment of the High Court is based upon conjectures and hypothesis which are devoid of any legal sanction. The High Court is alleged to have not properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution in the case which, according to the learned counsel, had proved beyond doubt that the respondents were guilty of the commission of the offences with which they were charged and convicted by the trial Court. Relying upon the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the learned counsel has contended that as the death of Ms. Sunita Kumari had occurred within 7 years of marriage and the prosecution had established her harassment on account of demand of dowry, a legal presumption was to be drawn against the respondents for holding them guilty and sentencing them for the offences committed.

(3.) Supporting the case of the respondents Shri U. R. Lalit, Senior Advocate appearing for them has submitted that there being no direct evidence regarding the cause of the death or circumstances leading to death, particularly in the absence of demand of dowry soon before the death, none of the respondents could be held guilty for the offences with which they were charged, convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. According to the learned counsel the statements made by the deceased before her death were not admissible in evidence even under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and in the absence of demand of dowry immediately before the alleged occurrence no inference or presumption could be drawn against the respondents.