INDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.12.1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1998 State Vs. Indra Singh and Others, whereby accused Indra Singh (the present appellant before this Court) has been convicted, and sentenced under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, I.P.C.) for life imprisonment.

(2.) Brief case of the prosecution before the trial court was that complainant (P.W.1 before the trial court) Dan Singh lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station - Jhulaghat, Pithoragarh on 4.5.1998, stating that about one and a half years back, his daughter Leela Devi was married to Indra Singh, S/o Shiv Singh, resident of Village Katiyani, Thana Jhulaghat, Pithoragarh, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Ever since their marriage, his daughter was being harassed by her husband, her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law regarding dowry, and whenever his daughter used to come to her maika, she used to complain harassment and torture by her in-laws. He has further stated that as per his financial conditions, he gave money, etc. to his in-laws at the marriage of his daughter, yet the harassment and torturing of her daughter in the hands of his in-laws and son-in-law, continued. On 2.5.1998 at about evening, he was informed that his daughter has hanged herself to death, but in order to appreciate the correct situation, he had sent his brother Raghubir Singh and other persons to Village Katiyani. His brother reported back saying that his daughter was lying dead and there were marks of injuries on her body and her in-laws have falsely stated that Leela Devi hanged herself, in fact, she has been murdered! The complainant further stated that he suspected that the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of his daughter together committed the murder of his daughter. The inquest report itself was prepared by Hayat Singh Sajwan, Sub-Inspector on 2.5.1998 at 7.30 P.M. Autopsy was conducted on the body of deceased. As per the post-mortem report, there were as many as seven injuries on the body of the deceased, which are as follows :-

(3.) The internal examination shows that at least injuries no. 2 and 3 had haematoma. In other words, these injuries were not superficial in nature, though apparently they were only contusions. Appearance of haematoma inside the body, under these injuries would mean that these injuries have been caused by severe blows on the body of the deceased. The nature of ante mortem injuries in any case clearly reveals that the deceased was subjected to beating before her death. The prosecution story is further corroborated with the statement given by P.W.1 Dan Singh before the court. P.W.1 being the father of the deceased has supported the story of the prosecution in total and stated that the deceased was married to appellant Indra Singh only one and a half years prior to her death. In close proximity before her death, there have been demand of dowry, harassment and beating. P.W.1 has stated before the court that mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased never gave her sufficient food to eat or enough clothes to wear and she always used to complain that she is being tortured by her in-laws and repeatedly the demand of dowry was being made. Only after six months of her marriage, Leela Devi came to her maika to attend a marriage and she complained against her mother-in-law and sister-in-law having harassed and tortured her regarding demand of dowry, and therefore, when the daughter of the complainant was going back to her sasural, he (complainant) gave her Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter, P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has further stated that later his daughter came with the accused-appellant her husband Indra Singh and she stated that appellant Indra Singh wants her to get Rs. 10,000/- from her father. On the same day, accused-appellant Indra Singh came to their house under intoxication of liquor when he had beaten Leela Devi in front of P.W.1 and P.W.2, i.e. father and mother of the deceased. Next morning he took Leela Devi to his house stating loudly that Leela Devi will never return to her maika again. After one and a half months of this incident, Leela Devi was murdered in her sasural. P.W.1 further stated, as in his F.I.R., that on 2.5.1998, someone came from Village Katiyani, Pithoragarh and informed him that Leela Devi committed suicide, and thereafter, he sent his brother and other persons to Village Katiyani and when they went there, they found that there were injuries on the body of Leela Devi, etc. P.W.2 Smt. Parwati Devi is the mother of the deceased Leela Devi. She, more or less, repeated the same thing, as stated by her husband as P.W.1, particularly, regarding demand of dowry and harassment of her daughter. Even P.W.2 in her statement narrated the same thing as her husband P.W.1 that Indra Singh had come to her house under intoxication of liquor and had beaten her daughter in front of them. P.W.3 Raghubir Singh is the person who was sent to the sasural of the deceased only to gauge the correct state of affairs. P.W.3 stated that there were injuries on the body of the deceased which showed that she has not committed suicide but has been murdered. P.W.4 is Dr. B.M.S. Tolia, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 4.5.1998. According to him, the body by that time had partially decomposed and was in the process of decomposition, and as per his medical opinion, death had taken place 3 to 5 days prior to post-mortem examination. He narrated the ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased and stated that since the body had decomposed, the correct reason for her death cannot be ascertained. However, injury no. 7 which is the ligature mark on the body of the deceased under the "mangal sutra" suggests that it is a case of "strangulation" and not of hanging. Be that as it may, it is also true, that there is no clear medical opinion on this aspect.