LAWS(UTN)-2014-4-28

ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On April 01, 2014
ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Sessions Trial No.89 of 2006, accused Ashok Kumar (husband), Surajmani (elder brother -in -law) and Ms. Sona Devi (mother -in -law) were tried for the offence of sections 304 -B and 498 -A IPC. The said trial pertains to crime no.2 of 2002 at Patwari Circle Udaipur Talla. The trial culminated into the acquittal of Surajmani and Ms. Sona Devi but at the same time, learned Trial Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence of sections 498 -A and 306 IPC. Appellant has been sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/ - u/s 306 IPC and has further been directed to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment u/s 498 -A IPC.

(2.) DECEASED Kavita was married to the appellant on 6.12.2000 as per all Hindu rituals and customs prevailing between the parties. She was found dead in the matrimonial house on 23.4.2002, where her dead body was hanging with the ceiling -hook of her room. Thus, she lost her life within one year and five months of marriage. Her father Shivanand Amoli (PW1) succeeded in lodging the first information report (Ex.Ka -1) after running from pillar to post on the next day of occurrence. Chick report thereof is Ex.Ka -13. It was alleged by the complainant that his daughter was subjected to cruelty soon after her marriage on several occasions and she was constrained to face this insatiable conduct at the hands of accused persons consistently till her death. It was further alleged that the accused persons, in order to give a colour as if she committed suicide, have hanged the dead body of his daughter after killing her. Chargesheet (Ex.Ka.16) was submitted on culmination of investigation for the offence of sections 498 -A and 304 -B IPC r/w section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, however, levelled the Charge only for the offence of sections 498 -A and 304 -B IPC. At the end of trial, the court below was of the opinion that instead of section 304 -B IPC, the offence, which could have been attributed to the accused Ashok Kumar, was in the nature of section 306 IPC, and accordingly, he convicted him, as afore -mentioned.

(3.) ATTENTION of this Court was drawn to the fact that the demand (if any) was to construct a kitchen in the house. In the opinion of this Court, even such demand cannot be placed outside the ambit of dowry. The Apex Court, recently in case of 'Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2014 CrLJ 561', has held that even the demand made for business of accused is covered within the definition of dowry if it has connection with marriage. It was further held that the cruelty on any day would be cruelty 'Soon Before' her death, and the failure of the brothers of deceased to specify the exact date on which demand was made, is inconsequential. Hon'ble the Supreme Court was of the view that the Penal Statute has to be construed strictly in such a manner that their construction should not defeat its purport. In the instant case, although the Trial Judge has opined that the case is in the nature of section 306 IPC but this Court does not concur with the said opinion. Looking to the evidence of fact witnesses (as stated above), they have deposed in so many words that the husband along with two other accused persons, named above, were not satisfied with the dowry offered to them in the marriage and more particularly, the husband/appellant teased her because she had some burning spots on her skin. All these fact witnesses have categorically stated that before marriage, the fact regarding existence of such spots on the skin of victim, was disclosed to the accused persons.