State Of Haryana v. Ram Singh And Ors.

1. The State of Haryana has challenged the judgment dated 1.5.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, acquitting accused Ram Singh, Prem, Dharamwati, Har Lal and Rattan Lal i.e. father, mother, sister and uncles of Nihal, husband of deceased Hem Lata.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Hem Lata daughter of Hari Ram, complainant, was married to Nihal on 21.11.1996. Sufficient dowry was given by the complainant (Hari Ram), as per his financial means. Just after the marriage, accused Nihal, his other relatives and grand-father Sukhi Ram, started treating Hem Lata with cruelty, as they were not satisfied with the dowry. On 18.9.2000, accused Nihal came to the house of the complainant and made a demand of Rs. 50,000, for setting up a shop. He was accompanied by his father, Ram Singh. When the complainant expressed his inability to meet the alleged demand, accused Nihal said that he should think about the welfare of his daughter. However, on 28.9.2000, Hem Lata is stated to have been burnt to death by the accused in their house. Complainant Hari Ram made an application, Ex. PA, to the Police, on the basis of which, First Information Report was registered against Nihal, his father Ram Singh, mother Prem, sister Premwati and grand-father Sukhi Ram. Meanwhile, Sukhi Ram died, therefore, charge under Section 304B read with Section 34, I.P.C. was framed against three accused only i.e. Nihal, Ram Singh and Smt. Prem.

3. After recording statement of Hari Ram (PW-1), application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was moved by prosecvition, for summoning Smt. Dharamwati, sister of the accused Nihal, Rattan Lal and Har Lal, uncles of the accused Nihal. The material witnesses qua demand of dowry as well as dowry death are PW-1, Hari Ram (complainant) and PW-2, Fateh Singh, uncle of the deceased Hem Lata. PW-3 Dr. D.S. Rathi, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Hem Lata on 29.9.2000 and found burn injuries present all over the body. All vital organs were found to be congested. The cause of death, in his opinion, was shock as a result of burn injuries, which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hem Lata, the deceased, was medico legally examined by PW-4, Dr. P.S. Parihar, who found burn injuries all over the body except feet and part of the head. The accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations with regard to demand of dowry or harassing deceased Hem Lata. According to them, Hem Lata sustained burn injuries accidentally and they have been falsely implicated.

4. Learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, acquitted all the accused of the charge framed under Section 304B read with Section 34, I.P.C. Only accused Nihal, husband of the deceased, Hem Lata, was convicted for the offence under Section 498A, for treating her with cruelty and for the demand of dowry, vide impugned judgment.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.

6. Learned State Counsel argued that from the testimonies of PW-1 Hari Ram and PW-2 Fateh Singh, it is well proved that the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage of Hem Lata. Just after the marriage, they demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000, as more dowry. Hem Lata was tortured and harassed by all the accused persons. Both PW-1 and PW-2 had gone to the house of the accused to request and persuade them not to ill-treat Hem Lata. However, the accused persons adopted a stern and rigid attitude and threatened that Hem Lata shall be killed. Afterward, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Hari Ram (PW-1) had submitted an application before the Women Crime Cell, where compromise was effected on the condition that Hem Lata shall not be tortured in future. But, the accused did not mend their ways, and on 19.7.2000, the accused Nihal accompanied by his father came to the house of Hari Ram and Nihal asked him to pay cash of Rs. 50,000, failing which, Hem Lata shall be murdered. After two months thereof, Hem Lata died unnatural death in her matrimonial home. It is argued that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the trust worthy and reliable evidence of PW-1 Hari Ram and has placed undue reliance on the testimony of DW-1 Ajmal Khan. According to him, none of the accused was present at their house and he had informed the police on telephone with regard to the incident. It is argued that Ajmal Khan (DW-1) resides in the neighbourhood of the accused persons and, therefore, he is likely to support them, being their neighbour. It is further argued that the testimonies of PW-1 Hari Ram and PW-2 Fateh Singh are supported by the medical evidence. Hem Lata suffered extensive burn injuries.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that there is no evidence on record that the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000 was made by any of the respondents. Even as per the prosecution case, the demand was made by Nihal, for setting up a shop. There is also no evidence that the demand of dowry in any shape was made before or at the time of marriage. According to the statement of Hari Ram PW-1, the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000 was raised after two months of the marriage, but, according to PW-2 Fateh Singh, it was raised after one year of marriage. It is further argued that there has to be a proximate link between the alleged acts of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death, in question. The marriage took place in the year 1996 and the demand is alleged to have been made after two months/one year, thereafter. However, death took place in the year 2000. Learned Counsel further argued that the Trial Court has rightly concluded that since the alleged demand has become too stale, therefore, after such a long time, Hem Lata, could not be driven to commit suicide for the alleged demand of dowry. By this process of elimination, the only possibility can be that the death was accidental.

8. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions and the evidence on record, we endorse the view taken by the Trial Court. As per the complainant, Hari Ram (PW-1) and Fateh Singh (PW-2), the demand was made by the accused Nihal, for setting up a shop. The demand did not relate to the marriage, even there is no evidence that the demand for dowry in any shape was made before or at the time of marriage and, therefore, the alleged demand cannot be termed as demand for dowry. The prosecution has failed to prove that the demand for dowry was made soon before the death of Hem Lata. According to PW-1 Hari Ram, the demand was made two months after the marriage, whereas PW-2 Fateh Singh stated that the demand of dowry was made after one year of the marriage. However, the death took place in the year 2000.

9. It is true that the provisions of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, were incorporated to deal with the social evil of dowry death. However, it is seen that these provisions of law are more pronounced in their misuse and there is a general tendency to implicate all the relatives of the husband's family when death of a wife takes place. There is no evidence against the present respondents that they had treated Hem Lata with cruelty or harassed her for the demand of dowry. The prosecution could not prove the essential ingredients of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings given by the Trial Court, acquitting the respondents of the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34, I.P.C.

10. In view of the above, the present miscellaneous application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed.