GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts which led to the registration of a case of dowry death are that Salochna (deceased) was married with Gopal appellant -accused on 13 -2 -1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A day after the marriage it is customary for the bride and the groom to return to the bride's parents house for a while which is called "Phera" and therefore, the couple visited the house of in -laws Le. Ram Sarup. PW.4 in village Mandvi where Gopal told that inadequate dowry has been given and had demanded Rs. 20.000/ - from Ram Sarup and told that he would take Salochna only if the demanded amount was paid to him. Ram Sarup promised to pay this amount. Thereafter on the same day, the couple returned to village Dhamtan Sahib i.e. the house of the in -laws of the bride. On 27 -2 -1994, Ram Sarup PWA, handed over four Kisan Vikas Patras Ex. P13 to R16 of the denomination of Rs. 5,000/ in each to Gopal after having purchased the same in the name of Salochna. However, these Vikas Patras could not be - -got en -cashed and Gopal did not get the money. He had been telling that either she would be left back at her parents place or to be dealt with accordingly. It appears that the tussle between the two sides precipitated on this issue. It was within 17 days of the marriage that on 3 -3 -1994. It was reported that Salochna died of poisoning and Amar Nath PW.3 the real maternal uncle of Salochna set the machinery of law into motion by making a statement EX.PA before ASI Ishwar Singh. PW.9 and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PA/l was recorded at 3.35 P.M. on 3 -3 -1994. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 6.15 P.M. on 3 -3 -1994.

(2.) ASI Ishwar Singh PW.9, went to the house of the accused in village Dhamtan Sahib. He inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. PJ of the scene of occurrence. He prepared inquest report Ex. PF/1 and sent the dead body of Salochna for post -mortem. He also took into possession the viscera and sealed packet containing the ornaments of the deceased vide memo Ex. PK. Desh Raj, Gopal and Subhash accused were produced by Mohinder Singh Panch, Pala Ram Panch along with Hem Chand before SI Ajaib Singh PW. 16 on 9 -3 -1994. On that day Gopal was interrogated and suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PL and on 10 -3 -1994 got recovered shirt Ex. P17 and Salwar Ex. P18 from the specified place which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PM. Thereafter Gopal accused produced four Kishan Vikas Patra Ex. P. 15 to P. 16 of the denomination of Rs. 5.000/ - each which were taken into possession vide memo EX. PN. SI Ajaib Singh PW. 16 also took into possession the dowry articles given in the marriage vide memo Ex. PO. He also recorded the statements of Ram Sarup PW.4. father of the deceased during the investigation. Before the accused were arrested they also made statements before the village Panchayat in the presence of Khem Chand PW. 10 and Mohinder Singh, Member Panchayat PW. 12 that they had committed a blunder in committing the murder of Salochna. As per report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PH the pieces of liver. spleen, kidney and small and large intestines gave positive test for aluminium phosphide and blood gave positive test for phosphide.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the statements of the witnesses. The relevant witnesses in this case are, namely Amar Nath PW. 3 maternal uncle of the deceased and Ram Sarup PW.4. father of the deceased. Their statements have to be read along with the contents of the first information report Ex.PA/l, It nee -ds categories and specific mention that the allegations of demand of dowry are mainly projected against Gopal appellant i.e. the husband of the deceased as he was causing harassment to the deceased on account of demand of, Rs. 20,000/which was promised to be given as a part of dowry but the mere papers in the shape of Vikas Patra were of no use. This threat was administered by the appellant Gopal alone in the presence of the Ram Sarup PW.4 the father of the deceased. Both Amarnath PW.3 and Ram Sarup PW.4 visited the house of the deceased or her in -laws when they were informed about the stage of the critical health of the deceased on the day of occurrence. The names of other persons i.e. in -laws and husband's brother (Jeth) of the deceased has merely been mentioned in the first information report that they also were causing the harassment but no specific attribution of any overt act against them was found anywhere in the first information report. Therefore this F.I.R. is to be read along with the statement of Amar Nath PW.3. maternal uncle of the deceased who lodged the report has stated that on 17 -2 -1994 he had called Salochna and Gopal and obtained their signatures/thumb impression on certain application forms for getting a sum of Rs. 20.000/ -. En -cashed in lieu of Vikas Patra but still the cash could not be given to the husband and, Vikas Patras were handed over to him to him and it was only on 3 -3 -1994 that this witness learnt that the deceased or some medicine or something like that and they tried to rescue her but she was reported to be dead. In cross -examination he made it clear when confronted with his statement Ex. PA that Subhash, brother of the appellant -husband did not accompany the couple to Mandvi on 14 -2 -1994. So there was no question of any demand or harassment on the part of the in -laws of the deceased, namely, Des Raj and Bohti and brother of the husband -appellant, namely, Subhash. The witness had to take shelter for certain contradictions by explaining that he was perplexed because of the death of his sister's daughter and, therefore, could not make a proper statement. Similar is the version of Ram Sarup PW.4 father of the deceased and he claimed that Gopal had been taunting the deceased for inadequate dowry and insisted for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - So these are the main witnesses on whose testimony the case depends otherwise Khem Chand PW. 10 and Mohinder Singh PW. 12, a member Panchayat also claimed on oath that a confession was made before the Panchayat by all the accused. However, the Court has to sift the grain from the chaff. Their statements have not to be taken on the face value. Rather they are read to conclude as to what did they mean? What the witness mean was that Gopal husband of the deceased had demanded money which was earlier promised and since he did not get the same, there was a bad blood between the husband and wife and she was found dead due to poisoning within a very short span of the marriage. So the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus would not be applicable in the case in hand. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that no specific role has been assigned to Subhash, husband's brother. Des Raj father -in -law and Smt. Bohti, mother -in -law of the deceased that they either demanded Vikas Patras or asked for more dowry or the husband's brother also demanded any dowry. It is true that when the bride as such dies in abnormal circumstances in the place of her in -laws, it is for them to explain and all of them could be made liable for the offence but when the deceased did not tell anything before her relations ever earlier that her father -in -law and mother -in -law taunted her or asked for more dowry, their case has to be excluded, from that of the husband. These three persons have claimed absolute innocence and they have been charged because they happened to be the in -laws otherwise they had no role to play. It can safely be pointed out that it was because of the misdeeds of the husband of the deceased that she lost her life and he alone in our view would be responsible for the death of the deceased and for causing cruelty and harassment to the deceased.