RAVI PRAKASH @ RAVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVI Prakash @ Ravi (The appellant) challenges the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 26.02.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 58/09 arising out of FIR No. 4/09 PS Anand Parbat whereby he was held guilty for committing 'dowry death' punishable under Sections 498A/304 -B IPC. By an order dated 28.02.2011, he was awarded RI for ten years under Section 304 -B IPC and RI for three years with fine Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 498 -A IPC. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently. The prosecution case as emerged out from the record is as under :

(2.) MEENU @ Meena was married to Ravi Prakash @ Ravi on 14.04.2008. After the marriage initially they lived together for about eight days in village Itawa Bhadhath (Rajasthan) and thereafter, at F -94, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi. On 28.01.2009, she suffered a suicidal death in the matrimonial home. Daily Diary (DD) No. 30 A (Ex.PW -14/A) was recorded at PS Anand Parbat at 08.28 P.M. on getting information of the occurrence. The investigation was assigned to SI Hukam Singh who with Const. Rakesh went to the spot. Meenu @ Meena was found hanging by the hook of a ceiling fan in a room on the first floor. SI Hukam Singh conveyed the information to PW -1 Pramod Kumar (Sub Divisional Magistrate) who went to the spot. Crime team took photographs of the crime scene. Intimation was sent to the deceased's parents. On 29.01.2009, Mukesh Kumar Bhargava, deceased's elder brother recorded statement (Ex.PW -1/A) before the SDM and First Information Report was lodged. During the course of investigation, post - mortem examination of the body was conducted and statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Ravi Prakash @ Ravi (husband), Om Prakash Sharma (father -in -law), Deepak Sharma @ Vicky (brother -in -law) and Vijay Laxmi @ Pooja (sister -in -law) arrayed as accused were arrested. Efforts were made to find out the whereabouts of Sahi Devi, deceased's mother -in -law but in vain. She was declared Proclaimed Offender on 21.07.2009. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted in the Court. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses to establish the charges. In their 313 statements, the accused persons facing trial denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. They claimed that Meenu @ Meena used to insist Ravi Prakash @ Ravi to give money to her brother, Mukesh Bhargava who was in dire need of it. She used to remain tense on that count and committed suicide. DW -1 (Damodar Kumar Sharma) and DW - 2 (Ramakant Jha) were examined in defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held Ravi Prakash @ Ravi guilty of the offences mentioned previously. It is relevant to note that other accused facing trial were acquitted of the charges and the State did not opt to challenge their acquittal.

(3.) FACTUM of marriage between the parties on 14.04.2008 is not under challenge. It is undeniable that after the marriage both the appellant and Meenu @ Meena lived together for about eight days in village Itawa Bhadhath (Rajasthan) and thereafter, at house No. F -94, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi as a joint family. It is also on record that on 28.01.2009 within nine and a half months of marriage Meenu @ Meena committed suicide in the matrimonial home by hanging. Parents of the deceased resided far away in village Malikpur, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan). PW -13 (Sampat Kumar Bhargava), R/o. Village Bhadhath (Rajasthan) from the appellant's native place was mediator in the marriage. No other relative of the deceased lived in the vicinity of the matrimonial home. It is unclear at what time and in whose presence the incident occurred. Since the death had taken place other than under normal circumstances in the matrimonial home within nine and a half months of the marriage, it was the boundened duty of the appellant, her husband, to divulge the circumstances forcing Meenu @ Meena to put an end to her life under Section 106 Evidence Act. However, the appellant did not elaborate at what time Meenu @ Meena committed suicide and what were the surrounding circumstances that day which prompted her to take the extreme step suddenly. The appellant did not examine any neighbour in defence to throw light whether the relations with the deceased were cordial and she had no complaint whatsoever against his conduct and behaviour. He did not explain the delay in giving intimation to the police about the incident. In 313 statement, a specific plea was taken that Meenu @ Meena used to remain tense due to demand of money by her brother ­ Mukesh Kumar Bhargava. However, the appellant was unable to prove this allegation and the defence was rightly rejected by the Trial Court for cogent reasons. The appellant did not elaborate as to when any specific demand of money was raised by deceased's brother or the said demand was ever met. In the cross -examination, Mukesh Kumar Bhargava categorically denied any such demand for the treatment of his wife. PW -5 (Vimla) and PW -12 (Babu Lal Bhargava), deceased's parents were categorical to deny any demand of money by their son ­ Mukesh Kumar Bhargava from the appellant or Meenu @ Meena. They informed that he (Mukesh Kumar Bhargava) had sufficient income and used to contribute Rs. 3,000/ - or Rs. 4,000/ - every month to them. In the absence of cogent evidence, it cannot be inferred that Meenu @ Meena used to remain depressed or stressed on account of demands by her brother. It appears that the appellant has taken false excuse to wriggle out of the proceedings and has not presented true reasons for her death. In 'S.Govindaraju vs. State of Karnataka', 2013(10)SCALE454, Supreme Court observed: