SATISH KUMAR BATRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the present appellants. Challenge in the Revision Petition was to the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, finding each of the present appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, had found the accused persons guilty and had convicted them as aforenoted. In appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the same. Six persons were arrayed as accused persons on the basis of information lodged by Santosh Kumari.

(2.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows : Marriage between Santosh Kumari and Satish Kumar (Appellant No.1) was solemnized on 21.10.1985. According to FIR No. 695, dated 20.6.1992 that was registered in Police Station City Sonepat at the behest of Santosh Kumari, at the time of her engagement, her parents had given sufficient articles valued at Rs. 20,000/- to her husband and other members of his family. At the time of her marriage, various articles listed in the complaint were handed over to the accused and in all about Rs.1,50,000/- were spent thereon. Despite this, the persons mentioned in the complaint were not satisfied with the articles of dowry handed over to them, with the result that her husband Satish Kumar, mother-in-law Satya, brother-in-law Sunil Kumar, father-in-law Ram Lal, his sister Ishwar Devi and Om Parkash, brother-in-law of Ram Lal had been pressing her to bring more dowry. Satish Kumar husband had demanded Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for purchase of goods for his shop which amount was given to him. In spite of that, the petitioners were not satisfied and had been beating her on several occasions. After the birth of the children, the petitioners turned her out of the matrimonial home, so that her parents could be forced to spend money on the upbringing of the children. On the birth of each of her children, her parents had spent Rs. 20,000/-. But this had not satisfied her in-laws. Om Prakash, the brother-in-law of her father-in-law used other methods to torture her and she bore the atrocities attributing them to her wedlock. On 01.12.1991 the appellants had tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her, but she was able to save herself by running away. The neighbours had pacified her and assured that her in-laws would behave properly in future. Despite this assurance, there was no change in their attitude and on 03.03.1992 her husband gave her severe beating and asked her to bring Rs. 45,000/- for the purpose of taking agency and they could give only Rs. 25,000/-. On account of the beating, she started bleeding and was about to leave for Delhi Police Station, but was dissuaded by the members of the locality from doing so. The attitude of the in-laws did not change and on 21.05.1992 she was turned out from the house after being told that she should not return to the matrimonial home, otherwise she and her children would be done to death. She was also told that if she wanted to settle with Satish Kumar then her parents should purchase a separate house for her. The Stridhan was kept by them. On the basis of this complaint, formal FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A read with section 120-B, IPC was registered. During investigation list of articles Ex.PB and letters alleged to have been written by Santosh Kumari Ex.PD, Ex.PE, Ex.PF, Ex.PG and Ex.PH were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P5. On completion of the investigation challan was put in Court under sections 406, 498-A, IPC. On going through the challan, the learned trial Court framed charges under sections 406 and 498-A, IPC and when the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, called upon the prosecution to lead evidence in support of its case. After completion of the trial, the learned trial court acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 406, IPC but convicted them under Section 498-A, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. Before trial was completed, Ram Lal, the father of Santosh Kumari died and the other five persons faced trial. Each one of them was convicted as in the case of the present appellants. They also filed appeals along with the present appellants and their appeals were dismissed. However, the High Court by order in a separate Criminal Revision Petition (Criminal Revision No. 607 of 2000) directed their acquittal. Conviction under Section 498-A, IPC was upheld by the High Court so far as the present appellants are concerned. Primarily the prosecution relied upon the version of the complainant (PW 1), mother (PW 5), and the brother (PW 6). The stand of the appellants all through was that the evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence. The High Court noted that there were lots of improvements and false implication of two other persons. The trial court, the First appellate court and the High Court did not accept this plea. However, finding that the evidence was inadequate, the High Court directed acquittal of the co-accused persons.

(3.) In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below did not notice the inherent improbabilities in the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6. Though the High Court noted that there were lots of inconsistencies and improvements, yet chose to direct acquittal only of two persons while upholding the conviction on the self-serve evidence qua the appellants. It is submitted that appellant No. 1 has already suffered custody for more than 13 months.