BHAGWAN DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhagwan Dass has filed this appeal against judgment dated 29-10-1980 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.1104 of 1971 whereby his conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in Sessions Case No.50 of 1978 were confirmed.

(2.) Appellant Bhagwan Dass had married Shanno Devi about eight years before the date of the incident which happened on the night between 16th and 17th July, 1978. It was alleged by the prosecution that about six months after their marriage Bhagwan Dass demanded a motor cycle and some ornaments from her parents. As this demand was not met he started ill-treating her and because of this ill-treatment she had to leave her husband's house and stay with her father. She was also required to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. Bhagwan Dass promised to treat her well and again they started living together. After about two months Bhagwan Dass again started ill-treating her as his demand for dowry was still not met. On this score. Tikkan Lal, Jagat Devi and Rajinder, father, mother and brother respectively of the appelant also started ill-treating her. The father of Shanno Devi was, therefore, required to take her back to his house. Bhagwan Dass then initiated proceedings for judicial separation. Again there was compromise but as the appellant did nothing thereafter to maintain her she was required to file a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant again entered into a compromise and as a result thereof the proceedings were withdrawn by Shanno Devi on 12th May, 1978. Bhagwan Dass then took her to his house at Bhiwani on 2nd July, 1978. It was alleged against the appellant that on the night between 16th and 17th July, 1978 he with the help of his brother Rajinder killed her by strangulation and this act of killing her was done by the two on the instigation of their parents. The appellant and his brother Rajinder were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Tikkan Lal and Jagat Devi were charged under Section 114 read with Section 302, I.P.C.

(3.) There was no eye-witness to the incident. Evidence was led to show that the appellant had demanded a motor cycle and some ornaments and as his demand was not satisfied he and his family members were ill-treating Shanno Devi, P.W.12. Krishan Bahadur, A chowkidar of that area was examined to prove that on that night at about 2.00 a.m. he had heard a female voice coming from the house of the appellant and when he saw inside the house through the window panes, he found the appellant and Rajinder talking to each other. He also deposed before the Court that the cry which he and heard was "mujhe bachavao". Believing that it was a domestic quarrel as usual he went away from that place. P.W.17, Karam Chand and P.W.18. Jiwan Singh were examined to prove the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and Rajinder before them. P.W.11, Gangu Ram cousin of deceased Shanno Devi deposed that after he was informed about the death of Shanno Devi he went to her house and when he enquired from Bhagwan Dass as to what had happened he was informed by Bhagwan Dass that she was all right till about 11.00 p.m. but was found dead in the morning P.W.19 Nand Lal was examined to prove the recovery of the towel made by Bhagwan Dass with the help of which the neck of Shanno Devi was throttled. On the basis of the medical evidence the learned Sessions Judges held that the death of Shanno Devi was homicidal and that she died because of Strangulation. The learned Sessions Judge, accepted the evidence with respect to the demand of dowry, the extra-judicial confession and the recovery of a towel at the instance of the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge also believed the testimony of P.W.11 Gangu Ram that the appellant had told him that Shanno Devi was alive till about 11.00 p.m. on that night and was found dead in the morning. According to the learned Sessions Judge, all the aforesaid links completed the chain of circumstantial evidence and was sufficient to bring guilt home to the accused Bhagwan Dass and Rajinder. He, therefore, convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The evidence against the other two accused namely, the father and mother of the appellant was not found to be sufficient and, therefore, they were acquitted.