RAMA NAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS , having been convicted u/s. 304 -B and 498 -A IPC, are in appeal before the Court. Appellant No. 1 Ramanand is the husband while appellant No. 2 Smt. Haruli Devi is the mother -in -law of deceased Sharda @ Sarita Devi. The couple was wedded on 8.6.1995 with all rituals and customs prevailing between them. The victim lost her life in her matrimonial house within one year and four months of marriage. Since no injury was apparent on her dead body in the autopsy conducted by the government Doctor on 30.9.1996 at 1 PM, her viscera was preserved. As reported by the Public Analyst, Organo Phosphorus Insecticide and Ethyle Alcohol Poison were found in her viscera including the stomach, piece of intestine, liver, bag of pile, kidney and spleen. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 Smt. Hansi Devi (mother of deceased), PW2 Sher Ram (father of deceased) and PW4 Munni Devi (sister of deceased's father) were examined to prove the insatiable conduct of appellants towards the victim on the question of demand of dowry on several occasions. After the marriage, accused persons used to torture the victim demanding cash and other tangible items in the form of dowry. She disclosed such demands to these witnesses who were none other but her own parents. She came to her parental house at several times/occasions after the solemnization of marriage and every time she disclosed that appellants were pressing her consistently to fetch those tangible items as well as cash from her parents. Even she requested her mother PW1 Smt. Hansi Devi for not sending her to the in -laws house so as to save her life.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that when these demands came into the notice of parents of deceased, they never made any complaint either to the Sub Divisional Magistrate or to the Judicial Magistrate or to the police concerned. So, their failure in reporting the matter to the government officers/officials should be looked into as a doubt in the veracity of such demand. This contention is not acceptable for the reason that after the marriage of daughter, the parents, so as to ensure the peaceful/amicable living of their daughter in her in -laws house, always make efforts to settle the dispute within the four -corners of the house and not to bring it on the road. In the rural terrains and that too in the hills where education is still a far -cry and most of the population is poverty ridden, they may not be aware about the protection provided to them by the Law in matrimonial matters. Even if they are, to approach the police or the administrative/judicial authorities, is not the immediate and first step on their part, least it would further deteriorate and shatter the mutual matrimonial harmony between them.

(3.) ALL the witnesses, as afore -named, have categorically deposed that the victim used to narrate the talc of her harassment, at the hands of appellants, on the question of tangible dowry and cash. It would also not be out of place to mention what has been envisaged u/s. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is quoted as below: - -