VEER BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts :- Manju Bala deceased a young woman 19 years of age had been married to accused Veer Bhan at Gurgaon on 3rd November, 1992. The victim along with her husband and her mother-in-law Krishnawanti co-accused resided with the others in the same house in Gurgaon. As per the prosecution case, the marriage had been performed by her father Mool Chand-PW-3, a driver with the Haryana Roadways, in a manner befitting the status of the parties and various articles such as ornaments and an almirah etc. had been given in dowry at that time. It appears, however, that the accused were not satisfied with what had been brought by Manju Bala deceased and about 15 days after the marriage, she complained to her parents about the obnoxious behaviour of her husband and her mother-in-law and informed them that they had raised a demand for the payment of Rs. one lac in cash in addition to a refrigerator, a cooler, furniture and more ornaments. The evidence further is that four/five days, thereafter, Manju Bala accompanied by her mother returned to her matrimonial home and the latter requested the in-laws not to maltreat and to beat her daughter as it was not possible for her to meet any further demands for dowry. On 22nd December, 1992, Manju Bala once again came back to her parents' home and complained about the ill-treatment that she was receiving at the hands of her husband and mother-in-law and the persistent demands for various articles being made from her. On 30th December, 1992, Veer Bhan-appellant, however, took Manju Bala home after assuring her parents that he would not mal-treat her any further. This compromise was effected on the intercession of one Gianeshwar Dass who had been instrumental in arranging the marriage. The prosecution case further is that on 10th January, 1993, at about 10.30 a.m. when Manju Bala was sitting in her room, Krishnawanti accused poured kerosene oil on her head and set her ablaze. The raula that ensued, brought the neighbours to the spot, on which she was removed to the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon. Dr. Arun Nibber, PW-7 conducted her medico-legal examination and on a ruqa having been sent by him to the Police Station, city Gurgaon ASI Tej Pal-PW4 came to the hospital and after moving an application seeking the opinion of the doctor about her fitness to make a statement, duly recorded the same at 1 p.m. in the presence of the doctor. This statement formed the basis of the formal First Information Report Ex. PF/A. In this statement, Manju Bala clearly stated that she had been set on fire by her mother-in-law Krishnawanti accused and her husband though not present on the spot, at that time, had also been ill-treating her for having brought insufficient dowry. As the condition of Manju Bala who had suffered very serious injuries was precarious, she was removed to Safdarjang Hospital, at New Delhi and admitted as an indoor patient. The Delhi Police too were informed about her arrival and Sub-Inspector Budhi Parkash PW-9 of Police Station, Viney Nagar, New Delhi, came to the hospital and also summoned Sh. Z.U. Siddiki-(PW 10) S.D.M. South (New Delhi) for recording the dying declaration of the injured. The S.I. then moved an application before Dr. Rohit Nayyar-PW 6 who opined that Manju Bala was fit to make a statement and this statement Ex.PM was duly recorded and completed at 4.30 p.m. the same day; the deceased virtually reiterating what she had stated in her first statement Ex.PF/A. It further appears that while Manju Bala remained admitted in Safdarjang Hospital, she also made an oral dying declaration before her father Mool Chand-PW 3. Manju Bala succumbed to her injuries on 11th January, 1993. Her dead-body was, thereafter, subjected to a post-mortem examination and Dr. Chander Kant-PW 8 observed that smell of kerosene oil was coming out from her scalp and that she had died due to extensive burn injuries. The two accused were, thereafter, arrested and after completion of the investigation, were charged for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, brought to trial. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined inter alia Mool Chand-PW 3 father of the deceased; ASI Tej Pal-PW4; Dr. Rohit Nayyar-PW 6; Dr. Arun Nibber-PW 7; Dr. Chander Kant-PW 8; S.I. Budhi Parkash-PW 9 and Sh. Z.U. Siddiki-PW 10 and in addition relied on some affidavits and also Ex.PW, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while admitting the factum of marriage of Manju Bala with Veer Bhan and that she had died due to burn injuries, they denied the rest of the prosecution case with regard to the demand for dowry and mal-treatment of Manju Bala and further set up a case that prior to her marriage with Veer Bhan, Manju Bala had been engaged with one Puran of Gurgaon but the marriage had not taken place as Puran had raised exorbitant demands for dowry, that Manju Bala had sexual intercourse with Puran and had become pregnant thereafter and when this fact was revealed on her medical examination, she had committed suicide on account of shame. The accused also examined Dr. Pushpa Sethi-DW 1, who had conducted the medico-legal examination of Manju Bala on 30th December, 1992 and found her to be two months' pregnant. 5. The trial Court concluded that the defence plea put up by the accused could not be believed as it was impossible to accept that she would be retained in the matrimonial home after the pregnancy from another person having been detected. The Court also observed that from the medical evidence, it was clear that Manju Bala had died due to extensive burn injuries on 11th January, 1993 i.e. 2 months of her marriage and that the dying declarations made by her, one to the police, the other to the Executive Magistrate and the third to her father clearly proved that demand for dowry had been made time and again and that it was on account of the inability of her parents to meet these demands that the mother-in-law Krishnawanti had set her on fire. The Court, accordingly, placed primary reliance on the dying declarations Ex.PF/A and Ex.PM. By way of corroboration, the Court also found that the statement of Mool Chand PW-3 was also to be accepted. The Court also further found that the document Ex.DA dated 20th November, 1992, written by Manju Bala deceased seeking a divorce from her husband, in fact, supported the prosecution case inasmuch as it indicated that she had become unhappy with her marriage within 15 days of its solemnisation. The Court, accordingly, convicted the two accused for offences punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months; both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this appeal. 6. Mr. Baldev Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal has urged that the case of Veer Bhan was distinguishable from that of his mother Krishnawanti as he was not present at the place when the incident took place as per the dying declaration made by Manju Bala, he stood exonerated. 7. We have considered this argument of the learned counsel and are of the opinion that this argument has no merit as in a matter with regard to a dowry death covered by Section 304-B of the I.P.C., the presence of the accused at the time when the death was caused, is not relevant. 8. It has then been argued by Mr. Baldev Singh that there were three dying declarations made by the deceased in this case; first Ex.PF/A recorded at 1 p.m. by A.S.I. Tej Pal in the Civil Hospital at Gurgaon, the second Ex.PM at 4.30 p.m. the same day by the Executive Magistrate Mr. Z.U. Siddiki and the third oral dying declaration made to Mool Chand-PW 3 the father of the deceased and that there were material discrepancies between the three, which required that they should not be believed. Highlighting this argument, Mr. Baldev Singh has pointed out that in Ex.PF/A, there was no reference to any demand for Rs. 1 lac and a specific assertion had been made that she had been removed to hospital by Krishnawanti whereas in Ex.PM, a reference had been made to the demand of Rs. one lac and a distorted version that she had been removed to the hospital by neighbours had been given. While referring to the third dying declaration made to PW-3 Mool Chand. Mr. Baldev Singh has pointed out that a new story had been built up that 15 litres of kerosene oil had been purchased by Veer Bhan accused a day earlier to the incident and that this oil had been used in putting Manju Bala on fire. 9. As against this, Mr. Sanghi, the learned State counsel has pointed out that substratum of the three dying declarations was common and it was the positive case that a demand for dowry had been made and on account of non- fulfilment of these demands, Manju Bala had been ill-treated and that it was Krishnawanti who had poured the kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze and has pointed out that the discrepancies or improvements pointed out by Mr. Baldev Singh were at best peripheral in nature and did not go to the root of the matter. 10. We have considered this argument of the learned counsel and find that there are no material discrepancies between the three dying declarations, and the minor improvements/deviations which had been made were but natural in the light of the fact that Manju Bala had been in acute agony and could not even be expected to give a parrot-like disposition in each case. It bears repetition that in all the dying declarations, she had made specific allegations with regard to the demand for dowry and the mal-treatment at the hands of the accused and that Krishnawanti had set her on fire in collusion with her husband who was not present at the spot at the relevant time. It is also significant that the two dying declarations Ex.PF/A and Ex.PM were recorded after opinions had been taken from the doctors concerned with regard to the fitness of Manju Bala to make a statement and that these documents had also been attested by the attending doctors in token of their proper recording. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the dying declarations as having been properly made. 11. Mr. Baldev Singh has then argued that it had come in Ex.PF/A that Manju Bala had been brought to the Civil Hospital at Gurgaon by Krishnawanti accused (her mother-in-law) and this fact, by itself, showed her to be an innocent person as this was an extenuating factor in her case. Reliance was also placed for this proposition on Smt. Kamla v. State of Punjab, 1993(1) R.C.R. 643. 12. As against this, Mr. Sanghi, the learned State Counsel has urged that it had come in the dying declarations that after the incident (which took place in the abadi) many persons from the neighbourhood had come to the spot and it was the pressure put by these persons that had prompted Krishnawanti to take the injured to the hospital and as such, this factor, by itself, would not detract from the value of the dying declarations. In support of this argument, Mr. Sanghi, has placed reliance on Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1997(3) Recent C.R. 32 and Bandarupalli Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1975 SCC (Crl) 84. 13. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and once again find no reason to agree with Mr. Baldev Singh. It is the case of the prosecution that a large number of persons of the locality had come to the spot after Manju Bala had been set ablaze and it is, therefore, probable that Krishnawanti had no option but to take her to the hospital herself. It bears repetition that we find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the dying declarations in the light of what has been mentioned above. The judgment cited by Mr. Baldev Singh is based on the peculiar facts of the case and does not lay down any imperative rule that the act of an accused in removing the victim to the hospital is, by itself, sufficient to completely exonerate him despite the other material evidence being available against him. 14. It has then been argued by Mr. Baldev Singh that from the evidence of DW1-Dr. Pushpa Sethi, it was clear that on 30th December, 1992, she had found Manju Bala to be two months' pregnant and this coupled with the statement of Mool Chand-PW 3 who admitted that Manju Bala had earlier been engaged to Puran and that she was pregnant prior to her death, conclusively proved the defence version that she had become pregnant before her marriage with Veer Bhan and she had committed suicide on the detection of her pregnancy. 15. We have considered this argument of the learned counsel and find that it does not merit acceptance even assuming that Manju Bala was two months' pregnant on 30th December, 1992. It is to be reiterated that the marriage of Manju Bala with Veer Bhan had been contracted on 3rd November, 1992 and that when she had been examined by Dr. Pushpa Sethi-DW1 on 30th December, 1992, a pregnancy of two months was quite possible as this period had elapsed since the time of marriage. Moreover, the evidence of Mool Chand-PW3 when read as a whole clearly points out that Manju Bala had been treated by Dr. Pushpa Sethi-DW1 after she had become pregnant after her marriage with Veer Bhan. No benefit can, therefore, be claimed by the accused on the fact of pregnancy of Manju Bala. 16. The question now arises as to the correctness of the sentence that has been imposed. It appears to us from the dying declarations that Krishnawanti was, in fact, liable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but the trial Court framed a charge against both the accused under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code only. We are, therefore, of the opinion that as far as Krishnawanti is concerned, the sentence imposed on her requires no modification, but are of the opinion that in the case of Veer Bhan who was admittedly not present at the spot when the incident took place, some modification in the sentence is called for. We, therefore, while dismissing the appeal, reduce the sentence imposed on Veer Bhan to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code; other parts of the sentence remaining as they are. Appeal dismissed.