MULAKHRAJ Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four appeals arise out of common incident. They are disposed of by common judgment. The complainant, the brother of the deceased Shashi Bala filed two appeals and the State filed other two appeals by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated November 25, 1981 acquitting Satish Kumar, the first respondent of the conviction and sentence under Ss. 302 and 201, I.P.C. of the charge of murder of Shashi Bala, his wife, and also in the same judgment confirmed the acquittal, by the Sessions Court, of Gulshan Kumar, brother, Ramji Das, the father and Smt. Kartaro Devi, the mother of Satish Kumar. Shashi Bala, a beautiful young lady of 20 years was married to Satish Kumar, the first respondent, on March 1, 1979 and she met with a homicidal death on August 10, 1980 in her marital home. The crucial question in this case is whether it was suicide as contended by the defence or homicide as stated by the prosecution and who is the author of the murder. The facts lie in a short compass. They are stated as under.

(2.) As stated the deceased was married to the first respondent on March 1, 1979 by her brother Harbans Lal, P.W. 15. She was given usual presentation of the gold ornaments, utencils, television set etc. She gave birth to a male child and by August 10, 1980 the boy was 3 months old. P.W. 15 gave on June 8, 1980 Rs. 5,000/-to her as against Rs. 10,000/requested for. He received a telegram on Agust 10, 1980 at Sasuna, Punjab State that Shashi Bala died. He immediately came to Uklana Mandi, Haryana State at about 9.00 p.m. on August 10, 1980 and found Shashi Bala dead. It is his case that Satish Kumar made extra judicial confession that the deceased was strangulated for not getting the dowry of their demand and that she was burnt to destroy the evidence and sought pardon of him. He sent for his people. A compromise was mooted to which he was not agreeable. The complaint was laid with the police on August 11, 1980. P.W. 1 Dr. Sher Singh held the autopsy and found that the death was due to asphyxia. The police laid the charge under S. 302 read with Ss, 34 and 201, I.P.C. against all the respondents The prosecution adduced evidence of P.Ws. 9 and 15 of the motive of demand for more dowry; extrajudicial confession and recoveries etc. The defence set up by the respondents was that the relationship between the deceased and the first respondent was cordial. No demand for dowry was ever made. The first respondent arranged marriage of Parmila, sister of the deceased with one Gopal; his cousin which later was broken down due to which the deceased became gloomy. In support thereof they produced a letter of torn pieces (Ext E). Therefore, it is their case that the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set fire to herself and committed suicide. It is their further case that while the first respondent, his brother and father were in the shop in the afternoon, they were informed of the suicide committed by the deceased. By the time they came home they saw some people bringing the dead body from the upstairs. They also participated in bringing the dead body to the ground floor and kept the body on a slab of ice and informed P.W. 15 and others by telegram and also the police. The police did not record his statement. The police took them into the custody on the same day and found that they did not commit any crime.

(3.) P.W. 1, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem in his evidence stated that the deceased died due to asphyxia, as a result of strangulation, which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The burn injuries were 95 per cent on the entire body except on the feet and that the burn injuries were post-mortem. The Sessions Judge disbelieved extra judicial confession spoken to by P.W. 15 and others. The Sessions Court accepted the evidence of P.W.1,the doctor,and other circumstantial evidence and found that Satish Kumar, husband of the deceased strangulated the deceased and the deceased was burnt to destroy the evidence. Giving the benefit of doubt to the brother and the parents of the respondent they were acquitted. The first respondent was found guilty of murder and was convicted for the offence of murder under S.302 and for screening the evidence of murder, S. 201, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and one year respectively and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the judgment dated April 23, 1981.