PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence but no separate sentence was imposed for the second offence.

(2.) Appellant along with two others faced trial. Each was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 304-B, IPC and Section 498A, IPC. Appellant alone was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.

(3.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : Kewal Krishan (PW 4) is the complainant. He is a resident of Ambala City. He is the Director of G. G. Flour Mills. He had four daughters and two sons. Marriage of his eldest daughter Suman Rani alias Anamika (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was solemnized with appellant Pardeep Kumar alias Raju on 19.10.1996 in Laxmi Palace at Patiala. As per asking of the accused persons dowry and streedhan was given according to the capacity of the complainant on the festival of Karva Chauth, complainants daughter Anamika along with appellant and, Anamikas father-in-law and mother-in-law came to their residence. Sufficient articles were given on Karva Chauth. On that day, Anamika told the complainant that her husband Pardeep Kumar who was running a shop at Yamuna Nagar in the name and style of New Punjab Tractors, wanted to take her to Yamuna Nagar. He demanded colour T vs. , washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator. Thereafter his daughter went to her in-laws place in Village Dhanola, District Sangrur (Punjab). Ten to fifteen days thereafter, complainants daughter rang them up from Dhanola that she along with her husband were shifting to Yamuna Nagar and the articles demanded should be sent to her at Yamuna Nagar. Complainant Kewal Krishan along with Mohinder Pal son of Bachan Lal resident of Ambala City came to Yamuna Nagar. They purchased colour T vs. , washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator and handed them over to the appellant in his house. Complainants wife was operated upon at Ambala for some ailment. Anamika came to see her mother. Anamika did not look well. Complainant Kewal Krishan enquired about her health. Anamika stated that her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law Parveen Kumar were threatening that if she wanted to remain alive, she should get Rs.2 lacs from her father, as they wanted to expand their business at Yamuna Nagar. This demand was met and complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- and requested for some time so that he will pay the remaining amount after arranging for it. This amount was given about a month prior to the death of Anamika. About 15 days before her death, Anamika made a telephone call to the complainant that her father-in-law Prem Nath had told her husband Pardeep Kumar that if Anamika did not arrange for the remaining amount, she should be eliminated, he would arrange for everything and perform his second marriage. Again on 23.1.1997, complainants daughter gave a telephonic call to the complainant, that if the remaining amount was not arranged within 2/3 days, she would be eliminated. On 25.1.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., Anil Kumar (PW-3) gave a telephonic call to the complainant that Anamika had got burnt by a gas cylinder. Complainant made a telephonic call to his brother Suresh Pal and his father Rameshwar Dass at Cheeka to reach Ambala. On their arrival from Cheeka, complainant along with them left for the house of his daughter at Yamuna Nagar. On reaching there, he saw his daughter lying dead on a double-bed. Besides her were lying a gas-cylinder, match-sticks and half burnt papers. Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed. As accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held. In order to further the accusations fifteen witnesses were examined. The trial court found the appellants and the co-accused persons guilty. By the impugned judgment High Court directed acquittal of the co-accused persons Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar, but upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant as aforenoted. The trial Court and the High Court placed reliance on the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4.