STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unfortunate victim of dowry death Smt. Sumitra would have never dreamt that within 2-112 years of her married life she will meet a tragic end and that too at the hands of her husband and mother-in-law. This is, however, what precisely happened when she died on August 10, 1990 on account of injuries suffered by her as also because of asphyxia, as a result of smothering. She was married on June 24, 1988 to respondent Prem Singh and within the span of two years and two months her and came. Respondent Prem Singh and Smt. Shanti were tried under Section 304 Part Band 498-A of the Indian Penal Code but were, however, acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Sonepat, vide his order dated October 14, 1992. It is against this order of acquittal that the State being aggrieved of the same has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Death of Sumitra was reported by none other than her father Suraj Bhan who made a statement before Ram Parkash ASI P.W. 7 of Police Station, Rai on August 11, 1990 Formal F.I.R Ex. PD/i came to be recorded on the statement of Suraj Bhan at 3.15 p.m. on August 11, 1990 and the Special Report with regard to the incident reached the Special Magistrate on the same day at 4.45 P.M. Suraj Bhan stated that he had five children out of which Suresh Kumar aged about 29 years was the eldest who who was married. Younger to him was daughter Kamlesh aged 24 years who too was married at village Bohar and younger to her was Sumitra aged 21 years. He had performed her marriage with Prem Singh son of Bhala Ram Brahman resident of village Jajal in the year 1988 according to Hindu rites. Younger to her was another daughter Sushila aged 17 years and still younger to her was a son Jagdeep Kumar aged 16 years. They were unmarried. He had given two earrings of gold weighing 6 Mashas, 52 Sarees and Suits, Rs. 2,100/- In cash and Rs. 1,100/- as a fare of bus etc. Radio, fan, one chair and table and 21 utencils as dowry articles to his daughter Sumitra. After some days of the marriage, his son-in-law Prem Singh an his mother Shanti started taunting his daughter Sumitra over the matter of bringing insufficient dowry. They started her saying. Chhtoe Ghar Ki Hai.T (She belongs to a poor family), her father is a teacher and she has brought less dowry on account of which they had to bear/insult in the village. About 1- 1/2 years earlier, his daughter had told this fact to him when she came to them. When his son-in- law Prem Singh came to take his daughter, he made him understand that he should remain satisfied with whatever he earns but his wife Phoola Devi advised him that they should give something to Sumitra till the birth of her child. As per advice of his wife, he gave one buffalo worth Rs. 5,100/- to his son-in-law Prem Singh which he had purchased from village Ahulana. After that about 11 months back, his daughter Sumitra gave birth to a son named Sumit Amit. They thought that their daughter would be settled but his son-in-law Prem Singh and his mother Smt. Shanti started harassing his daughter. About eight months, earlier, Prem Singh and his mother had inflicted injury on the right hand of his daughter Sumitra and sent her to their house for bringing an amount of Rs. 5.000/-. Sumitra told this fact to him and he with great sorrow narrated this fact to the persons of his village Ram Dia, Tek Chand and Karam Singh. Fifteen days thereafter his son- in-law Prem Singh came to their house and then Tek Chand made him understand by saying. Master has a big family and all are dependent upon his sectary only. You should lead your life by doing work. At the instance of Karam Singh and Tek Chand he sent his daughter Sumitra with Prem Singh to village Jajal. On August 3, 1990, he and his wife Phoola Devi came to know that their daugtherTs son Sumit Amit had sustained burn injuries and he was admitted to City Hospital, Sonepat. Thereupon he alongwith his wife went to the City hospital, Sonepat to enquire about him. Then his daughter Sumitra asked him and his wife to give Rs. 5.000/ otherwise her husband Prem Singh and her mother-in-law Shanti would not allow her to live. He expressed his help lessness to his daughter and told that he had no money but assured her that he would give money after arranging the same. On the date when he lodged the report, when lie was present in his house. Om Prakash Member of Panchayat of village Jajal told him that Sumitra died at night. On receipt of information he and his wife Phoola Devi rejected village Jajal. He enquired about the cause of death of his daughter Sumitra from his son-in-law Prem Singh and her mother-in-law Shanti but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Suraj Bhan further stated that he was suspicious that his daughter has died in mysterious circumstances by consuming some poisonous substance on being harassed at the hands of his son-in-law Prem Singh and her mother-in-law Shanti for bringing insufficient dowry. After leaving his wife Phoola Devi near the dead body of his daughter Sumitra, he was going to the police station for lodging the report that Ram Parkash ASI met him before whom, as mentioned above, he lodged the report.

(3.) With a view to substantiate its case the prosecution examined Dr. R.N. Tehlan. Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonepat as P.W. 1. He stated that on August 11, 1990 at 5.30 P.M. he along with Dr. S.S. Wadhawa conducted postmortem on the dead body of Sumitra Devi. The dead body was brought by Constable Krishan Chander and Constable Dilbag Singh. The dead body was of a female aged about 21 /22 years. The pieces of dried rice plants (hay) and sand were present on the dead body, clothes and hair, Rigor mortis was present on all the four limbs more in lower limbs. Post - mortem staining was present on the back. The face was congested Doctor found following injuries on the dead body of Sumitra Devi: 1 Reddish brown contusion over the upper and lower lip all around. Mucuos membrane of gums and nose were congested.