STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is it because of the wilful conduct of such magnitude as was likely to drive Nirmala also known as Mohni a young married lady to commit suicide by burning herself or is it the non-compatibility and non-adjustment in the family of her husband and in-laws that provoked her to put an end to her life is the question that has been posed to us for determination by the State of Haryana in appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. Before, however, the question posed by the State is answered, it shall be useful to extract, in brief, the prosecution version that led to a trial of Suresh Kumar, the husband, Krishna Wati, the mother-in-law and Rajni, sister-in-law. Nirmala was married to accused Suresh Kumar who had earlier also married which marriage was dissolved on consent of the parties, on 24/06/1983, Nirmala had not even seen the four seasons in a year of her married life when admittedly she put an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her clothes and litting the same with a match stick on 25/03/1984 Gobind Ram, father of the hapless married lady lodged First Information Report on the same very day, as admittedly he was informed by the father of Suresh Kumar accused on telephone. In the First Information Report that was recorded by Ved Raj Inspector, it was made out that Gobind Ram had given sufficient gift items like furniture, Radio, fan and jwellery in dowry and had spent more than his capacity. The husband of Nirmala, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were yet not satisfied and they kept on taunting Nirmala for having brought insufficient dowry. It is also made out in the First Information Report that Suresh Kumar used to beat Nirmala. The cruelty to which Nirmala was subjected came to be known by Gobind Ram whenever his daughter visited his house. Besides general things, Gobind Ram was specifically told that she was being asked to get an amount of Rs. 30,000.00 from him so that Suresh Kumar could buy a vehicle. Not only that Gobind Ram was so told by Nirmala but he also came to know about the treatment meted out to her, from his another daughter namely Saroj Rani who is stated to have visited him only three or four days before the date of occurrence. Saroj Rani is stated to have received letter from Nirmala wherein woeful story of deceased with regard to harassment was mentioned. Gobind Ram has further stated in the First Information Report that on the date of occurrence, he was present at the shop of one Lala Hari Parshad with whom he was working as a Muneem when he received a telephone call from Yamuna Nagar informing him that Nirmala had died due to burn injuries. Obviously, on receipt of information, he rushed to Yamuna Nagar where to his complete dismay and disappointment he found the dead body of his daughter lying in the room of the house belonging to the accused. In the meantime, the police had also reached there where he made his statement. It is further made out in the First Information Report that his daughter had been burnt after being killed by her inlaws namely her husband Suresh Kumar, sister-in-law Rajni and mother-in-law Krishna Wati due to bringing less dowry and for not bringing an amount of Rs. 30,000.00. Immediately after stating in the First Information Report that his daughter had been burnt after being killed, he also stated that she had committed suicide by burning herself after being harassed by the accused.

(2.) The police, on the information aforesaid, investigated the matter but far from collecting any evidence with regard to the first allegation of Gobind Ram with regard to murder of Nirmala, not even a clue in that direction could be found and, therefore, in ultimate analysis the challan against the accused was put up under S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly the accused were tried on a charge framed against them under S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution endeavoured to bring home the offence against the accused on the strength of evidence of Dr. Kamal Krishan P.W. 1, Gobind Ram P.W. 2, Saroj Rani P.W. 3, Ram Pal P.W. 4, Chuni Lal P.W. 5, Sushil Kumar Draftsman P.W. 6, Sushil Kumar Photographer P.W. 7, A.S.I. Amar Singh P.W. 8, Inspector Ved Raj P.W. 9 and H. C. Laxmi Narain P.W. 10. Whereas the evidence of Dr. Kamal Krishan P.W. 1 proves that the death of Nirmala was on account of burn injuries which fact, otherwise, is not disputed by the defence, the other relevant witnesses in the case are Gobind Ram P.W. 2, Saroj Rani P.W. 3, Ram Pal P.W. 4 and Chuni Lal P.W. 5 besides the Investigating Officers.