RAGHBIR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of five accused, namely, Vinod, Anita Kumari, Raghbir Dayal, Tarawati and Subhash Chand, two accused Vinod and Anita Kumari being juveniles were sent to Juvenile Court for trial whereas the remaining three accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad for executing dying declaration of Aruna on 22.7.1988. Consequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 7.2.1991, acquitted accused Subhash Chand and convicted appellants (hereinafter referred to as the `accused') under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced both of them to under go rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Aruna was bound in nuptial tie with Subhash Chand accused on 5.12.1987 and a sum of Rs.70,000/- was spent by her parents at that time. PW8 Rup Chand also paid Rs.10,000/- to Raghbir Dayal, fahterCr. in-law of deceased-Aruna on his demand on 25.5.1988. Raghbir Dayal visited the house of Rup Chand, complainant on 25.5.1988 and took the deceased to Palwal with the assurance that she would not be harrased in future. On 19.7.1988, Bimla Devi, mother of the deceased went to Palwal to see Aruna. But, she was not allowed to see her. On 21.7.1988, the accused Raghbir Dayal again visited the house of Rup Chand and raised a demand of Rs.40,000/- for construction of a room on the first floor of the house. But, both Mahesh Chand, PW7 and Rup Chand PW8 refused to oblige him,therefore, they threatened them with dire consequences. On 22.7.1988, at about 4 or 4.30 p.m., Aruna got burn injuries while cooking vegetables and was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Palwal where she remained admitted from 5.00 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. and then was referred to Jai Parkash Narain Hospital, New Delhi. She was admitted in the Burn ward at 10.00 p.m. However, she succumbed to her injuries on 23.7.1988. Rup Chand and his family members cremated her on 24.7.1988 at Delhi after post-mortem examination by Doctor George Paul. During her admission in the hospital, the deceased had made a dying declaration. PW10 Smt. Rashmi Krishnan recorded dying declaration of Aruna (Ex.PD) on 23.7.1988, the translation of which reads as under:-

(2.) Stitched cat open drip wound 2.8 x 0.3 cm on the lower inner spect of left leg." The only fact which remains to be decided in this case is whether the deceased died on account of harassment caused by the accused on account of demand of dowry. In this regard, I will trace back to the statement of dying declaration made by Aruna before the Executive Magistrate on 23.7.1988. It is not in dispute that Aruna received 87-88 burn injuries and she was fit to make the statement and the statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. She had animus against the accused at the time of recording of the statement. She had clearly testified that the deceased was fit to make the statement before recording the statement. What has transpired to me to hold that it is not a case of forced suicide on account of demand of dowry and it may be a case of cruelty on account of demand of dowry. The deceased in her dying declaration has no where stated that (1) either the accused by their own act or conduct much less omission set her ablaze (2) any of the accused made mischief while throwing her to flame when she was working on the stove. She has deposed in her dying declaration that she does not know as to how she caught fire but it appears that some persons from behind set her on fire. But this fact stands contradicted from the medical evidence as according to autopsy report conducted by Doctor George Paul, the burn injuries were only on the frontal portion of the deceased. This is indicative of the fact that she caught fire accidentally and not on account of continuous harassment due to demand of dowry by the accused. As such, this cannot be termed as dowry death. However, the accused in the given circumstances of the case cannot escape liability for causing cruelty to her on account of demand of dowry. Besides the dying declaration, dated 23.7.1988 recorded in the police station, evidence led on the record also indicates that the accused used to harass the deceased on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Mahesh Chand has also reiterated about harassment given to the complainant on account of the demand of the dowry. Faced with the situation, Mr.T.S.Sangha, learned counsel for the appellants has also not challenged the evidence led by the prosecution regarding harassment caused to the deceased on account of the demand of dowry. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to convict the accused under Section 498-A IPC even in the absence of specific charge against the accused, as the said offence is of speices to check main charge under Section 304 B IPC.

(3.) I have also heard the counsel for the accused on the quantum of the sentence. The counsel has pleaded that they being of old age have various responsibilities to perform. As the accused are old, they have already suffered lot of agony for the longevity in the trial. While giving thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention, though sufficient time has passed over the judgment of the conviction awarded against the accused yet the agony of the parents of the deceased also cannot be lost site and exonerating the accused would altogether amount to wiping out the penal provisions of the crime against the fair sex and it will encourage atrocities against the newly married women.