STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ROHTAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Crl. Appeal by the State arises out of a judgment and order dated 3.8.1993 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1989 (ST No. 3 of 1990), acquitting the accused respondents of the charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC for dowry death of and cruelty to deceased Indro, said to be aged 20, during 7 years of her marriage.

(2.) VIDE the FIR (Ex. PC-2), which was recorded on the statement of Jiwan (PW-1), father of the deceased, his daughter deceased Smt. Indro was married to Rohtas (respondent No. 1) son of Dharam Pal (respondent No. 2) about a year before the date of incident. He had given dowry articles in her marriage exceeding his capacity. But the deceased was taunted for bringing insufficient dowry and was often times reminded of her poor family status. The complainant tried to persuade his son-in-law (respondent No. 1), while stating that he could hardly afford any further dowry. Even then, he was forced to sell his house to give a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to settle his son-in- law in some business, who was working as a Tailor Master. The harassment to the deceased did not stop there and on 4.7.1989, in the day time at about 1.00 p.m., one Gopi Chand son of Nand Lal, resident of Mandora (the native place of the accused), and one Ram Kishan, at the instance of Dharam Pal (respondent No. 2) came to the complainant's place and informed him of the death of his daughter due to consuming of some poisonous tablets and that her dead body had been cremated the same day in morning. The complainant made enquiries about the cause of death and he gathered a strong suspicion that the deceased was done to death after administering of poisonous tables by her husband, father- in-law, husband's elder brother and mother-in-law, for the dead body was cremated without giving information to him. He being accompanied by his brother Ram Pal, one Fateh Chand, Maha Singh, Khasa Ram and Ashok Kumar, came to Panipat for reporting the matter to the Police. SI/SHO of Police Station Kharkhoda, Inder Pal (PW-6), recorded the statement of the complainant (PW-1), while being on patrolling duty at Rohtak Chowk, Kharkhoda. From the statement of the complainant, as the offences under Sections 304B, 201 and 498A IPC were made out, the SI sent a ruqa for recording of a formal FIR with directions to send the copies thereof to higher police officers. He then proceed to the spot of incident in a Government vehicle. Accused Rohtas, Rajbir and Brahmi were arrested on 6.7.1989, and accused Dharam Pal on 8.7.1989. After completion of investigation, the police laid a challan against the accused, who were later on tried upon the charges under Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. The father of the deceased, Jiwan (PW-1) is the complainant. Suresh (PW-2) has been produced to prove that PW-1 had sold his house to him so that he could give the amount of Rs. 10,000/- out of the sale proceed to his son-in-law for doing his business. Fateh Singh (PW-3) is a neighbourer and appears to be a village elder. HC Bhim Singh (PW-4) had recorded the formal FIR (Ex. PC-2) on receipt of ruqa (Ex. PC), bearing endorsement (Ex. PC-1) of the SI/SHO Inder Lal. He sent the copies of the FIR to the senior police officers and also the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate the same night through a special messenger, which was delivered at his residence a 10.00 p.m., after covering a distance of 19 kms. Nand Lal (PW-5) is a qualified Draftsman, who prepared the site plan (Ex. PF) on 26.9.1989. SI Inder Lal (PW-6) recorded the statement of the complainant vide Ext. PC and investigated the case.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned State counsel submitted that the circumstances like cremation of the deceased without intimation to the complainant side, sale of house by the complainant (PW-1) to Suresh (PW-2) for meeting the demand of dowry by his son-in-law, and the recovery of broken pieces of bangles from the house of the accused showed that the deceased was physically assaulted and was done to death for dowry by administering poison.