SATYA PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals against the judgment dated 16th March, 2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 334-DB/1997 and Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1997.

(2.) The facts very briefly are that a First Information Report was lodged by Sombir (the complainant) on 14th July, 1992 alleging therein, inter alia, that his sister Rajwanti was married to the appellant and after one or two months of the marriage she came home and told her mother that her in-laws were demanding dowry in the shape of a flour machine, electric motor with equipment to chop the fodder and these articles were given in December 1991, when his sister Rajwanti gave birth to male child and the in-laws of Rajwanti became happy. But thereafter Rajwanti came after sometime and told that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law and husband(appellant) were demanding a fridge, cooler and TV, but the mother and father of Rajwanti said that if this demand is met the demands will go on increasing and Rajwanti left for her in-laws' house on 19th June, 1992. Thereafter on 12th July, 1992 at about 9:00a.m. the complainant had been to the house of Rajwanti and he saw that the appellant and Subhash pushed Rajwanti into a well and as a result Rajwanti died. A case was registered and investigation was conducted by the police and a charge sheet was filed against the appellant and his other family members under Sections 302/34 IPC and under Section 304B IPC.

(3.) At the trial, amongst others, the complainant was examined as P.W. 1 and the mother of Rajwanti(deceased) was examined as P.W. 2. The trial court, however, held in its judgment dated 9th October, 2006 that there was no satisfactory explanation about the inordinate delay of 51 hours in lodging the FIR with the police and it appears that the aforesaid time was utilised for implicating certain persons after consultations and deliberations. The trial court was thus of the opinion that the offence under Section 302/34 IPC framed against the accused persons has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. On the charge under Section 304B IPC, the trial court found that there were improvements in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 over their statements made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, disbelieved Pws 1 and 2 and held that the demand of dowry as well as harassment and cruelty by the appellant or any of his relatives in connection with the demand for dowry had not been proved and hence the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was not attracted and the appellant and his family member could not be held guilty under Section 304B IPC.