PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For more than a century, in spite of tall words of respect for women, there has been an onslaught on their liberties through 'bride burning' and 'dowry deaths'. This has caused anxiety to the legislators, judiciary and law enforcing agencies, who have attempted to resurrect them from this social choke. There have been series of legislations in this regard, without much effect. This led to the passing of Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961. In spite of this, large number of 'brides burning' and dowry deaths continued. To meet this, stringent measures were brought in the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act through amendments. It seems, sections of society are still boldly pursuing this chronic action to fulfil their greedy desires. In spite of stringent legislation, such persons are still indulging in these unlawful activities, not because of any shortcomings in law but under the protective principle of criminal jurisprudence of benefit of doubt. Often, innocent persons are also trapped or brought in with ulterior motives. This places an arduous duty on the Court to separate such individuals from the offenders. Hence the Courts have to deal such cases with circumvention, sift through the evidence with caution, scrutinise the circumstances with utmost care. The present matter is one such where similar questions have been raised, including questions of interpretation of the stringent law.

(2.) The three appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 306, 498-A and 304-B, IPC. Appellant No. 1 is the deceased' husband No. 2 the father-in-law and No. 3 the mother-in-law respectively. The trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant No. 1 for offence under Section 304-B for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 306 for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 498-A for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 200/-. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 306 for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 498-A, IPC for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 200/-. The sentences were ordered to ran concurrently. The High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years so far appellant No. 1 is concerned.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are: Urmil (deceased) and appellant No. 1 were married on 29th May, 1985. Appellant No. 1 was working at Lucknow and had later shifted to Sonepat (Haryana). According to the prosecution case, within a few days of the marriage Urmil returned home and complained regarding demands of dowry for a refrigerator, scooter etc. by appellants. These demands were reiterated on subsequent visits. On account of non-fulfilment of these demands, the deceased was allegedly tortured and harassed. These alleged actions ultimately contributed towards a suicidal death. It is not in dispute that she died of burn injuries on 18th May, 1987.