PAHLAD RAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 367-SB of 1987 titled as Pahlad Rai and others v. State of Haryana and Criminal Revision No. 681 of 1987 titled as Hukam Chand v. Pahlad Rai and others, as both, the appeal and revision have arisen from the judgment dated 20.5.1987 and order dated 21.5.1987 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak who convicted the appellants under sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Appellants were awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each u/s 498-A, IPC. In default of payment of fine, each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellants were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 306 IPC. In default of payment of fine, each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The trial court further held that all the substantive sentences awarded to the three appellants Pahlad Rai, Shanti Devi and Rajesh Kumar shall run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Smt. Sushila Devi daughter of Hukam Chand was a young girl of 20-22 years and she was married to Rajesh Kumar appellant on 4.12.1984. She was taken by her husband Rajesh Kumar from Rohtak, her parental house, to Bahadurgarh i.e. the house of her in-laws, in the evening of 20.8.1985. On that day Sushila was hale and hearty. The present occurrence took place on 21.8.1985 at 2.00 p.m. when condition of Sushila Devi deteriorated due to vomiting and loose motions. She was taken to St. Stephen Hospital, Delhi, by her husband Rajesh Kumar and was got admitted there at 5.00 p.m. but later on she was declared deed at 5.40 p.m. on the same day. The death of the bride unfortunately in this case had taken place within 8-1/2 months of her marriage.

(3.) ON 20.8.1985 Sushila was in the house of her parents at Rohtak when appellant Rajesh came there and took the deceased with him to Bahadurgarh. Sushila was sent along with Rajesh Kumar appellant on the assurance given by him that in future the deceased would not be harassed. On 21.8.1985 at about 10.00 one Balwan Ram resident of Rohtak, who is maternal uncle of Rajesh accused, came to his house and informed that Sushila had died. Upon this complainant along with his wife Phool Wati, sons Ramesh Chand and Rajesh went to Bahadurgarh in a car and there they got information from the sister-in-law of Sushila that she (Sushila) had been admitted in St. Stephen Hospital, New Delhi and when they reached in the said hospital at about 1.30 a.m., after mid-night, they came to know about the death of Sushila. It is further alleged by the complainant that dead body of Sushila was not shown to the complainant and her family members in the hospital by the in-laws of the deceased and other relatives were also present but they did not have any talk with the complainant. On 22.8.1985, the complainant saw the dead body of his daughter and found that there was bluish signs on her ear, neck and back. With the above allegations the case was investigated. The thanedar Shri Sukhbir Singh prepared inquest report on the dead body of Sushila on 22.8.1985. The viscera of the dead body was preserved and it was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for examination. The statements of Ramesh Kumar and Rajinder Kumar were recorded on 23.8.1985. Spot was inspected and rough site plan was prepared. The appellants were arrested along with Manju Rani a juvenile and she was tried separately. Ultimately poison was found in the viscera and on completion of the investigation of the case present appellants were challaned in the ordinary course under section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate supplied copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 30.1.1986 committed the appellants to the court of Sessions along with Manju Rani. Vide orders dated 4.3.1986, all the three appellants were charge-sheeted under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.