PREM SINGH SHANTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal appeals are filed by the appellants- accused challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 1st September, 1997 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer RI for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default thereof to undergo RI for a period of one year. The High Court after analysing all the circumstances and the evidence on record found that the order of acquittal dated 14th October, 1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat for the aforesaid offence was unsustainable. Since the trial Court and the High Court differed in their conclusions as regards the guilt of the appellants, we have gone through both the judgments of the Courts below as well as the material on record in order to satisfy whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal in respect of both the appellants.

(2.) Prem Singh appellant in Crl. AppealNo. 1032 of 1997 (original accused No. 1) is the son of Smt. Shanti, the appellant in Crl. AppealNo. 1077 of 1997 (original accused No. 2). There is no dispute that Sumitra (since deceased) was married to A-1 on 24th June, 1988. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) is the father of Sumitra. He was serving as a teacher at the relevant time and celebrated the marriage of Sumitra befitting to his status. Within few days of marriage, Sumitra was complaining to him and Phool Devi (PW 5), mother of the deceased that the appellants were ill-treating and harassing her on the ground of insufficient dowry. They were also taunting her that she (Sumitra) belonged to a poor family of a teacher who could not celebrate the marriage by giving sufficient gifts and dowry. Suraj Bhan then met the appellants and pleaded that whatever he could give, he had given and any further demand would be beyond his means. In the meantime, Sumitra gave a birth to a baby boy and the hopes of her parents were brighten as they expected this new child would bring harmony between the daughter and the son-in-law. Since constant demand of money from the appellants was continued even after the son was born to Sumitra, Phool Devi (PW 5) suggested to Suraj Bhan (PW 4) that instead of giving any money to the appellant, they should purchase a she-buffalo which would be a source of income to them. Despite giving the she-buffalo, the appellants were not satisfied. It is alleged by the prosecution that some eight months prior to the date of incident in question which took place on 3rd August, 1990 when Sumitra had come to the house of her parents, she told about the additional demand of Rs. 5,000/- made by the appellants. Mr. Tek Chand (PW 6) who happened to be a common friend tried to mediate and asked A-1 to take back his wife and treat her properly. However, there was no change in the attitude of the appellants and consequently on 3rd August, 1990 during night Sumitra suffered burn injuries in the house of A-1. A-1 then removed Sumitra to Civil Hospital, Sonepat and sent a message to Suraj Bhan about the burn injuries sustained by her. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) and Phool Devi (PW 5) on receipt of information of burn injuries sustained by Sumitra, went to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat where Sumitra told her parents that unless Rs. 5,000/- were paid to the appellants, they will not allow her to live peacefully. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) was unable to meet the demand immediately. Unfortunately for the family of Suraj Bhan (PW 4), Sumitra died in the early hours of August 11, 1990. Om Parkash was sent to the house of Suraj Bhan (PW 4) who informed about the death of Sumitra. Suraj Bhan (PW 4), Phool Devi (PW 5) and other relatives went to the house of appellants and when they inquired from them as to how Sumitra died, none of the family members of A-1 could give satisfactory explanation. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) then proceeded to the police station. In the meantime, an information was received by ASI Ram Parkash that Sumitra died in mysterious circumstances and it was suspected that she might have consumed poisonous substance. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) who was proceeding towards the police station met ASI Ram Parkash and told him that death of Sumitra was caused by the appellants as he was unable to meet their demand of additional dowry/amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The complaint was then forwarded to the police station for registering the offence against the appellants. ASI Ram Parkash (PW 7) then proceeded towards the house of A-1 and started the investigation. After holding the inquest panchanama, the dead body was sent to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat for conducting post-mortem. The statements of various persons came to be recorded. After completing the investigation, A-1 and A-2 were put up for trial before the Sessions Court for an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC.

(3.) A-1 in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied that he had ever demanded any money from the parents of Sumitra or ill-treated her physically or mentally and caused any harassment to her on the ground of insufficient dowry. According to him when she sustained accidental burn injuries, she was taken to the hospital by him and was given every possible medical treatment to save her from agonies of burn injuries. Sumitra's death, according to him, was either suicidal or accidental. She might have consumed the poison and, therefore, there was froth in her mouth. He pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime.