LATORI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal was initially preferred by 8 appellants. who were convicted by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 315 of 1980 by judgment dated 6.11.1982, and were found guilty of committing offences under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201, I.P.C. Out of them appellant No. 1 Latoori was specifically held guilty of committing offence under Section 302, I.P.C. besides being convicted under Sections 147 and 201, I.P.C. The 8 convicts were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 147, I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201, I.P.C. They filed the present appeal to challenge the order of conviction and sentence passed upon each of them. During the pendency of the appeal appellants Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 demised, and, as may appear from the order passed by this Court on 16.4.2013, and prior to that on other dates, the appeal, as against the deceased appellants, stood abated leaving the same surviving only on behalf of appellant No. 1 Latoori and appellant No. 4-Devi Prasad. Undisputedly, the deceased Indira Kumari, daughter of Rameshwar Dayal the complainant (P.W. 2) was married to appellant No. 1, Latoori about one and half years prior to the occurrence. The prosecution allegation, as per the complaint petition filed by P.W. 2 on 9.11.1977, was that appellant No. 1 Latoori and his mother Smt. Dallo were unhappy on the quantum of dowry, which was brought by the bride, and they used to ill treat and torture her so much so that she had written a letter to her father narrating her tale of woes to him. It was stated that after having received the letter, P.W. 2 arranged for Rs. 1,000 and came to village Bamnoi. Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh on 25.10.1977 and was told by one Rakshpal (not examined) and Vijay Pal (P.W. 2) that his daughter had been assaulted in their presence in the evening on 10.10.1977 by appellant No. 1 Latoori and his mother-Smt. Dallo, and further, that in the early morning on 11.10.1977 the above two accused persons poured kerosene oil on the deceased inside the house and burnt her. Two persons namely, Rakshpal (not examined) and Vijaypal (P.W. 2) were attracted to the house of the appellants after hearing the cries of the deceased, and the deceased stated to them there that as she had not brought the money desired by the accused persons, she had been burnt by them. The complainant stated that the witnesses namely, Rakshpal (not examined) and Vijaypal (P.W.2) stated to him that they asked appellant No. 1 Latoori and his mother-Smt. Dallo that they had indulged in the foulest of crimes, and as such they should call a doctor and get the lady treated, else they would have to bear serious consequences. Allegation was that a doctor was brought, and on his advice the deceased was put on a bullock cart for being taken to Aligarh for being treated in a hospital.

(2.) It is alleged in the complaint that when they had travelled for about three quarters of a mile, the deceased Indira Kumari said to accused persons as to where she was being taken by them after being killed, upon which Dori Lal appellant No. 2-father of appellant Latoori said that the deceased should not be taken to the hospital, else their predicament would be very compounded, as a result of which Indira Kumari was brought down from the bullock cart and put on the ridge of a sugar cane field and appellant-Latoori strangulated Indira Kumari to death. It is stated that the statement of Indira Kumari, regarding being injured, and also being taken to another place, was allegedly heard by Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (P.W. 3). Ram Charan. (P.W. 4), Ganga Prasad (not examined) of village Bamnai. It was stated that after killing the deceased they made preparation for cremating the dead body, but by that time the Chaukidar of the village also arrived there, and forbade the accused persons to cremate the dead body, and sent an information about the occurrence through his son to the Police Station.

(3.) It is not denied, as may appear from the evidence of P.W. 2 the complainant at pages 46 and 49 of the paper book, that there was an investigation conducted by the police as regards the cause of death of Indira Kumari, and it is also not disputed that none of the witnesses, who subsequently came forward in support of the prosecution charges, like, P.W. 1, who has also been treated as P.W. 2, Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (P.W. 3). Ram Charan (P.W. 4) and Ganga Prasad (not examined) in spite of having found and met the police in their village, did not make any statement in support of the story subsequently propounded by P.W. 2 through his complaint petition. The complainant claimed to have handed over the letter written by the deceased Indira Kumari to him, which was received by him, to the Investigating Officer, who was examined as D.W. 1. namely. Sub-Inspector Har Prasad Verma, during the preliminary investigation the police had carried into the causes of death of the deceased Indira Kumari. Undisputedly, the complainant did not lodge any protest or filed any complaint regarding the conduct of the Investigating Officer, i.e., D.W. 1, who was investigating the cause of death of Indira Kumari after having received the information about the incident through the Chaukidar, namely, Gulla, whose name has been stated by D.W. 1, the Sub Inspector of Police posted in the concerned police station. This also appears undisputed from the very evidence of P.W. 2 that after investigating into the information received by the police, the final report was also submitted. This appears from the very second line of cross-examination of P.W. 2 at page 46 of the paper book. Though the prosecution witnesses stated that they had not been questioned by the police, nor they had made any statement to it voluntarily ever during the preliminary inquiry, or investigation, which was conducted by D.W. I, but the very admission of P.W. 2 that the final report was submitted fairly puts it beyond the pale of any doubt that there was definitely an investigation and some persons ought to have been questioned during that course. D.W. 1 stated that he had questioned the prosecution witnesses Vijay Pal (P.W. 2) and Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (P.W. 3). and they had not made any statement, as they made subsequently regarding the particulars of the case, that it was the accused persons, who were torturing the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry and also had initially assaulted her on 10.10.1977, and had, subsequently, poured kerosene oil and burnt her and also strangulated her to death, in the manner stated by the witnesses. This evidence, which comes from the witnesses, and the Investigating Officer, who had held the investigation, regarding the cause of death of Indira Devi clearly puts into doubt the very prosecution story as regards its veracity.