MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS and their co-accused, Hira, Supari and Bharpai were tried for the offences stated to have been committed by them under Sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, their co-accused, named above, after resultant trial, were acquitted of the charges framed against them, appellants herein were convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default whereof, they were to further undergo R.I. for two months. They were also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default whereof, they were also to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month. It is this order of conviction and sentence dated January 28, 1987 rendered by Shri R.N. Batra, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, which has been challenged in the present appeal preferred by the appellants herein. Before the contentions raised by learned counsel representing the appellants are taken for consideration, the brief facts, leading to death of Chhotan, need a necessary mention.

(2.) SMT . Chhottan died on June 20, 1986. Balbir Singh, her brother, lodged an FIR on June 26, 1986 at 5 p.m. He stated in his application, Ex. PA that his sister Chhotan was married with Mahabir in village Jhupan Kalan in 1979 and a female child was born to them in the year 1984. All the accused i.e. appellants herein and those named above, who have since been acquitted, used to harass her and she used to narrate the incident of teasing by her in-laws whenever she would visit her parents' house. Smt. Chhotan used to say that her in-laws demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- failing which they would not keep her as she did not bring anything from her parents. On June 18, 1986 when he went to village Jhupan Kalan and stayed there upto June 19, 1986, he advised the in-laws of his sister but they stated that he should pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- otherwise Smt. Chhotan would be killed. On the morning of June 20, 1986 when he came to his village Barara and informed his mother Smt. Darkan, his mother asked him to visit Smt. Chhotan again at village Jhupan Kalan. It is for that reason that he again went to village Jhupan Kalan on June 23, 1986 and when he was going to village Jhupan Kalan, at the bus stand Gignau, he came to know that his sister Smt. Chhotan had been burnt alive and stealthily cremated. He then went to village Jhupan Kalan and remained there and made inquiries about the cause of death of Smt. Chhotan. He was told that Smt. Chhotan had been murdered and burnt by the accused persons. On June 26, 1986 when he was going to the Police Station to report the matter, Assistant Sub-Inspector Deep Chand met him at Gignau bus stand where he made complaint, Ex. P.A., referred to above. It is on the basis of complaint, Ex. PA that the formal FIR Ex. PA/1 came to be recorded. During investigation, ASI Deep Chand went to the cremation ground of village Jhupan Kalan and took into possession ash Ex. P3 and wooden bamboo, Ex.P4. His investigation revealed that Smt. Chhotan had committed suicide. Mahabir, Amar Singh and Suresh accused were arrested by him on July 6, 1986 from the fields of village Jhupan Kalan. Mahabir accused produced rope, Ex.P1 and sickle, Ex.P2 from the field which were taken into possession. The prosecution case had been that these articles were used by Smt. Chhotan for committing suicide.

(3.) THE only contention raised by learned defence counsel is that the FIR in this case is highly belated and for that reason alone the whole prosecution version should be rejected. It is true that Smt. Chhotan died on June 20, 1986 whereas the FIR came to be lodged by brother of the deceased on June 26, 1986. It is also true that as per the prosecution version itself Balbir Singh had come to know that his sister had died on June 23, 1986. There is, thus, no denying that fact that FIR in this case is rather belated. That, however, is considered view of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not enough to reject the prosecution version in toto. Even otherwise, if there is a plausible explanation furnished by the prosecution for lodging the FIR at a later stage, the delay alone cannot be then pressed into service for getting an order of acquittal. Balbir Singh, brother of the deceased had come to know of demise of his sister on June 23, 1986. He explained the delay by stating that he took time in verifying the facts from the village and it is only when he was convinced that his sister has died and that too on account of torture meted to her by her husband and in-laws, that he reported the matter to the police. As mentioned above, all the witnesses, reference of whom has been given above, have given cogent and consistent account with regard to demand of various articles and an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Their evidence inspires confidence and is worthy of credence. The guilt of the appellants herein is further established from the very fact that no information whatsoever was given to the parents or brother of Smt. Chhotan when she died and she was cremated in utmost haste. It is not even the defence version that any one from the family of Smt. Chhotan was informed that she had died. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken into consideration entire evidence led by the prosecution as also the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 Crl.P.C. By process of reasoning, which cannot be faulted, in view of this Court, he has come to a right conclusion and that being also the judgment recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge requires no interference.