STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SAT NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts :- Meera (since deceased), sister of the complainant Ram Bhagat (PW-1) and daughter of Ram Kumar (PW-8), had been married to accused Mukesh Kumar on January 18, 1989. She visited her in-laws' house on January 19, 1989 for the first time. She often visited her parental home thereafter but returned to her in-laws, after such visits. On the night intervening 8/9.7.1989 she died of burn injuries, while the accused Sat Narain, Bhagwati Devi and Sangeeta, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively, were also present in the house. Sat Narain sent information with regard to her death to Ram Kumar in village Tigrana, on which, he alongwith Shiv Kumar reached the place of incident. In the meanwhile, consequent upon information sent to police Station, City Bhiwani, a policy party had also reached the place. The police made the necessary inquiries and prepared the inquest report incorporating the statements of Ram Kumar (Exh.PC/1) and Shiv Kumar in which they stated that she had committed suicide and that no body was responsible for the her death and as the behaviour of her in-laws towards her had been very affectionate, their relations had been cordial and as such they did not wish to initiate any action against them. Ram Bhagat (PW-1), the brother of the deceased, who was doing his business in Cuttack in the State of Orissa, reached village Tigrana after having received information with regard to her death and after making inquiries, he concluded that Meera had been killed or compelled to commit suicide by the deceased on which, he submitted a complaint (Exh.PA) alleging that the accused had made demands for dowry and more particularly a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her as this was the balance price of the plot which they had agreed to purchase from Mahavir Parshad (PW-2). It was further alleged that Meera had made frequent complaints against her in-laws to the effect that she had been harassed by all the accused for extorting more dowry. It was further alleged that the signatures of Ram Kumar (PW-8) had been obtained by the police on some papers on a false pretext and that he had, in any case not even been aware of the demands for dowry. On this complaint, a case under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. On investigation, the police found that Sangeeta was innocent. Accordingly, a challan was filed against the other accused whereas Sangeeta's name was put in column No. 2 of the report. The three accused were thereafter charged for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. After the prosecution had examined PW-1 Ram Bhagat, an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved for summoning the fourth accused, Sangeeta. That application was allowed and Sangeeta too was arrayed as the fourth accused.

(2.) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined, inter alia, PW-1 Ram Bhagat, the complainant and the brother of the deceased; PW-2 Mahavir Parshad, with whom the accused had entered into an agreement for the purchase of a plot and to whom they had to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-, which was allegedly being demanded from the parents of the deceased; PW-3 Dr. S.K. Anand, who alongwith Dr. Prem Chand, had conducted the post-mortem examination; PW-5 Subhash Chand, who proved the agreement between Sat Narain and Mahavir Parshad pertaining to the sale of the plot; PW-7 Shyama Devi, the sister of the deceased, who stated to the motive; PW-8 Ram Kumar, the father of the deceased, who stated that his signatures had been obtained by the police without letting him know the contents of the document; PW-9 SI Ranbir Singh, the Investigating Officer; PW-10 Constable Chhote Lal, who deposed that Ram Bhagat (PW-1) had made a complaint that the local police had connived with the accused and hushed up the case.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence, the trial Court held that the first three ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code stood established whereas the fourth, i.e., the demand for dowry, had not been proved on record. Primary reliance for this finding was placed on Ram Kumar's statement (Exh.PC/1) in which he had clearly exonerated the accused and stated that Meera had never made any complaint against the conduct of the accused and that no body was at fault for her suicide. The statement of Shiv Kumar aforesaid, the uncle of the deceased, also recorded in the inquest report and much in the same terms was also relied upon by the trial Court. It was further observed that though the case had been registered on July 17, 1989 but Ram Kumar and Shiv Kumar had disowned their statements on September 7, 1989 and there was no plausible explanation as to why they had taken so long to complain that false statements had been recorded by the police. The Court also observed that the explanation tendered by Ram Kumar that the demand for dowry made from his daughter had not been conveyed to him by the other family members on account of his delicate heart condition was also liable to be disbelieved as being unnatural. His statement that he had not met his daughter after her marriage was also held to be a lie as was clear from the letter (Exh. D-3) written by Meera which indicated that he had been meeting her frequently. It was also observed that PW-7 Shyama Devi, Meera's sister, had admitted that the information with regard to the demand for dowry had been given to Ram Kumar, which led to the only inference that the demands for dowry, if made, had been in the knowledge of Ram Kumar. It was also found as a matter of fact that even in the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ram Kumar had nowhere stated that his statement (Exh.PC/1) had been recorded without his knowledge or consent. The motive, i.e. demand for Rs. 50,000/- to defray the costs of the plot, was also rejected and for arriving at this conclusion, the Court observed that as per the complaint (Ex.PA), which was the basis of the F.I.R., the demand for dowry had been made in January, 1989 whereas Shyama Devi (PW-7) stated that the accused required a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the month of March for making the balance payment of the plot as per agreement dated March 27, 1989 and that this was an apparently false story as admittedly there was no agreement in existence in January, 1989. It was also observed that Mahavir Parshad (PW-2) had become a witness for the complaint party as he and Sat Narain accused were in deep litigation. The Court also held that the relations between Meera and her in-laws were cordial as Ruchhi, Meera's niece, had stayed in Meera's matrimonial home for many days time in the months of February and March and that there was no indication at that time that the demands for dowry had been made. Further support to show that the relations between them were cordial, was found from the letter (Exh.D-3) written by Meera from her parents' house to her in-laws in which she had addressed them in very affectionate terms. The conduct of accused Sat Narain, in particular, in sending information to the police and to Meera's parents by a special messenger and the fact that the cremation was attended by Ram Kumar, Shiv Kumar and others was taken as yet another circumstance in favour of the accused and having held as above, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge.