RAMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab in respect of co-accused Satish Kumar, Madan Lal and Asha while upholding the conviction of the present appellant Raman Kumar. The learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur had directed acquittal of the appellant and two co-accused persons who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC).

(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Suman Bal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married to the appellant on 11.4.1992. On 13.8.1992 she came to her maternal home with her husband on Raksha Bandhan and stayed there for the night. At 8.00 a.m. while going back to her husband, she started weeping. Her father Sham Lal PW-6 gave her a wrist watch and Rs. 300/-. He also separately gave her Rs. 2,000/-. On 16.8.1992 at 8-00 A.M., Surinder Kumar (husband of sister of Sham Lal) met Sham Lal and told him that he received information from Raman Kumar that Suman Bala was burnt in the night at 2.00 A.M. and was admitted to Muni Lal Chopra Hospital at Amritsar. Sham Lal went to the hospital but Suman Bala was unconscious. His statement was recorded by SI Tirath Ram to the effect that Suman Bala had put kerosene on herself and finished her life, fed up with her in-laws. This led to registration of First Information Report (in short the FIR). SI Tirath Ram PW-9 prepared inquest report and made application for post-mortem examination. He took steps for investigation and after investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. PW-3 Dr. R.K. Goria conducted post-mortem examination on 18.8.1992 at 4.50 P.M. According to him, cause of death was due to shock and as a result of burns, which were sufficient to cause death. Evidence on record shows that PW-1 Dr. Balbir Singh Randhawa examined Suman Bala on 16.8.1992 at 6.10 A.M. and found 75% burns. She had four months pregnancy. PW-4 Dr. Gurmanjit Raj had joined PW-3 Dr. R.K. Goria in conducting the postmortem examination. PW-2 Satish Chander, Draftsman prepared site plan. PW-5 Surinder Kumar deposed that in-laws of Suman Bala were not dissatisfied about dowry. He resiled from statement made during investigation. In cross-examination, he admitted that the accused were able to give satisfactory reply as to how Suman Bala was burnt. PW-6 Sham Lal deposed that his daughter told him in the hospital that she was caught hold by appellant and Satish, her mother-in-law Asha Rani put kerosene oil on her and she was set ablaze by the appellant. She also wrote letter Ex.PF about her being unhappy. Surinder Kanta (PW-7) mother of the deceased Suman Bala deposed that Suman Bala was being harassed for dowry. Manoj Kumar PW-8, brother of deceased, deposed that Suman Bala was being harassed for dowry and Raman Kumar had demanded Rs. 1 lakh and she was burnt in the night intervening 15/16.8.1992. She died on 17.8.1992. Tirath Ram PW-9 is the Investigating Officer. He proved the investigation conducted by him. Harwant Singh PW-10 was a formal witness. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mahajan PW-11 deposed that Suman Bala was admitted in his hospital on 16.8.1992 at 6-00 A.M. She told him that she was burnt in accidental fire. She was referred to Muni Lal Chopra Hospital for further treatment. The accused denied the prosecutions allegations. Raman Kumar stated that he never demanded dowry or maltreated Suman Bala. She was burnt in accidental fire while igniting the gas stove. She was treated firstly at Batala and then at Amritsar. Satish Kumar stated that he was living separately from Raman Kumar and he never harassed the deceased. Madan Lal and Asha Rani also took the same stand. Dass Gobind Singh DW-1, Driver of the Ambulance, stated that he accompanied Raman Kumar and Suman Bala from Batala to Amritsar on 16.8.1992. He also proved the entry made by Dr. Inderjit Singh at Batala Ex.DC. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, held that case of the prosecution was proved against Raman Kumar but gave the benefit of doubt to Satish, Madan Lal and Asha Rani. The High Court after referring to the respective stand of the parties in an abrupt manner held that the acquittal of the appellant was not legal and proper. It however held that the trial Court was right in holding that the so called dying declaration stated by Sham Lal (PW-6, Smt. Surinder Kanta (PW-7) and Manoj Kumar (PW-8) was not fully reliable. The view taken was a possible view and no interference was called so far as the acquittal of Satish, Madan and Asha Rani are concerned. As regards the present appellant it was held that though the letter Ex.PF was inconsequential but the evidence of the parents and brother of the deceased about her harassment for dowry cannot be brushed aside. Her death took place within four months of the marriage and no other possible reason was put forward why she died. The plea of accidental fire was not reliable. Reference was made to the evidence of PW-7 the mother of the deceased who stated that the deceased had complained of demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and harassment for dowry. Similar version was given by Manoj Kumar (PW-8) the brother of the deceased. With this only observation the appeal of the appellant was dismissed.