Partly allowed

Mahender v. the State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2009CRA-D/47/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered criminal appeals and revisions arising from a dowry death case. The court upheld the conviction for dowry death and cruelty but modified the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years for the main appellant and acquitted the State's other appeal.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of life imprisonment modified to 10 years R.I. for S.304-B and 4 years R.I. for S.498-A IPC. Appeal and revision dismissed.

Mahender Vs the State of Haryana — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 47-DB of 2000

¶4

Dated of Decision:- March 24, 2009

Mahender

....APPELLANT

VERSUS

State of Haryana

....RESPONDENT

Criminal Appeal No.553-DBA of 2000

¶12

State of Haryana …APPELLANT

¶13

Versus

¶14

Smt. Chhano Devi and another

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005

¶18

Ram Diya …PETITIONER

¶19

Versus

¶20

Santosh @ Bai …RESPONDENT

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶22

Present:Sh. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellant.

¶23

Sh. S.S.Patter, Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana.

¶24

Sh. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. (In Crl.Rev. No.399 of 2005)

¶25

¶26

Criminal Appeal No. 47-DB of 2000 , Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005

¶27

MEHTAB S.GILL, J.

¶28

We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No.47-DB of 2000, Criminal Appeal No.553-DBA of 2000 and Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005 by a common order, as they arise out of the same judgment/order rendered by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.

¶29

The Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide his judgment/order dated 16.12.1999/17.12.1999 convicted Mahender son of Phool Singh under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Though the trial Court found him guilty under Section 498-A IPC, but did not award him any sentence.

¶30

The trial Court acquitted Smt. Chhanno Devi w/o Phool Singh and Suresh Kumar son of Phool Singh of the charges framed against them. State has not filed an appeal against their acquittal.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PH of Ram Diya given to Panjab Singh SI/SHO, Police Station Bawanikhera.

¶32

Ram Diya stated, that he performed the marriage of his daughter Urmila four years back with Suresh son of Phool Singh. Her age was 22 years. He spent more money what he could afford on the marriage. He gave table chair, double bed, big box, sewing machine, cooler, T.V., Almirah, Madhani, cooker, twenty one utensils and four tolas of gold. He spent Rs.20,000/- on the meals of the service of the Barat. When Urmila went to the house of her husband, he told her to keep away from her, as he was in the influence of evil spirits. Urmila came back to her parents house and disclosed to her mother Ram Devi, that her husband was impotent and

¶33

¶34

Criminal Appeal No. 47-DB of 2000 , Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005

¶35

was making excuses of evil spirits. Thereafter Ram Diya went to Jeet Pura. Phool Singh, the father of Suresh was called there. A panchayat was called and Suresh’s father was told, that he would have six months’ time to get his son treated. Urmila was left in her parents’ house. On the pretext of treatment, 2/2½ years passed. About three months prior to the occurrence, Suresh’s father Phool Singh came to Village Milakpur. He told the parents of Urmila, that his son was not cured and they should remarry their daughter with his younger son Mahender. He also demanded a motor cycle and fridge. The panchayat of Village Meham turned down this demand of dowry. Phool Singh remarried his daughter with Mahender and thereafter Urmila was sent to her in-laws’ house. After about one month of marriage, Urmila came to her parents’ house and disclosed that Mahender, Suresh, her mother-in-law Chhano and Nanad Bai were demanding a motor cycle and fridge. Ram Diya told his daughter, that he was not in a position to give her anything. Mahender took Urmila to his house. Urmila returned to her parents’ house after some days and stated, that Suresh, Mahender, Chhano and Bai had turned her out of the house. Further they told her that she should not come back without a motor cycle or fridge. Sher Singh resident of Village Jeetpura had arranged the marriage. Ram Diya went to him and told him that he cannot meet the demand of fridge and motor cycle and make the in-laws of Urmila understood this. On the pursuation of Sher Singh, Mahender took Urmila to her house in Village Milakpur. On 12.9.1997 Ram Diya went to Village Milakpur, in connection with some work. Urmila told him, that her husband Mahender, Suresh, mother-in-law Chhano and Nanad Bai were demanding a fridge and motor cycle and if the

¶36

¶37

Criminal Appeal No. 47-DB of 2000 , Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005

¶38

demand was not fulfilled, they would kill her. On 12.9.1997 Krishan and Luxmi Narain residents of Village Milakpur came to the house of Ram Diya that his daughter was seriously ill and asked him to go to Village Milakpur. Ram Diya along with his brother Krishan Puran reached Village Milakpur and found his daughter lying dead. On asking as to how she had died, Mahender said that his daughter died due to cholera. On seeing the dead body, he suspected Mahender, Suresh, mother-in-law Chhano and Nanad Bai had caused the death of his daughter Urmila, by giving her some poison as the demand of dowry of motor cycle and fridge had not been met.

¶39

On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PH was recorded on 14.9.1997 at 11.00 a.m. at Police Station Bawanikhera. The special report reached the Duty Magistrate on the same day at 12.15 p.m.

¶40

The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Dr. Rajender Gera PW1, C. Veer Shakti Singh PW2, Ram Diya PW3, Subhash Chander PW4, Smt. Ram Devi PW5, Krishan PW6 and SI Panjab Singh PW7.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that appellant Mahender has been convicted because he is the husband of Urmila. First the marriage of Urmila was solemnised with appellant Mahender’s brother, Suresh Kumar in the year 1993. No demand of dowry was made then, nor has it come in evidence that any demand of dowry was made by the appellant. The second marriage of Urmila with appellant Mahender was solemnised in the year 1997, but no demand of any sort of dowry or money was made. If we go through documents Ex.PD and Ex.PK, only garlands were used by both the parties to honour each other. In fact it is a case where

¶42

¶43

Criminal Appeal No. 47-DB of 2000 , Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005

¶44

Suresh Kumar, the first husband of Urmila, was impotent and it seems, that Mahender the second husband of Urmila was also impotent. It was out of this frustration, that she consumed aluminum phosphate.

¶45

Learned counsel for the State has argued, that Ram Diya PW3 and Ram Devi PW5, the father and mother of the deceased, have categorically stated, that demand of dowry was made. A motor cycle and fridge were being demanded. As they are poor, they could not afford to give the articles.

¶46

The death of Urmila had taken place within seven years of the marriage to both i.e. first marriage with Suresh Kumar was in the year 1993 and the second with appellant Mahender in the year 1997. Occurrence had taken place in the year 1997. It cannot be overlooked, that within six months of marriage with Mahender, death of Urmila had taken place.

¶47

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

¶48

Suresh Kumar, who was married to Urmila, was impotent. This has come in the evidence of Ram Diya PW3, wherein he has stated, that he collected a panchayat and waited for 2/2½ years so that Suresh Kumar could be treated. Since Suresh Kumar could not be treated, Ram Diya married his daughter to appellant Mahender on the asking of Mahender’s father Phool Singh. Due to the impotency of Suresh, Urmila stayed at her parents’ house. Urmila could not bear a child after she was married to Mahender appellant in the year 1997. Demand of the motor cycle and fridge was made by the appellant and his family members, as in the previous marriage with Suresh Kumar, nothing had been given in dowry. Now they wanted a fridge and

¶49

¶50

Criminal Appeal No. 47-DB of 2000 , Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005

¶51

motor cycle. Since Ram Diya PW3 could not fulfill the demand of the appellant of dowry, he administered poison i.e. aluminum phosphate to Urmila. Urmila died within six months of her marriage to Mahender.

¶52

Ram Diya PW3, Ram Devi PW5 and Krishan PW6 are consistent in their testimony qua Mahender appellant. They have corroborated each other and they get corroboration from the medical evidence. Urmila had told her parents before her death about the demand of the fridge and motor cycle.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that the demand of dowry could not be there, as appellant is a very poor person. This argument does not cut much ice. Shiv Charan DW1 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that from 1.1.1999 till the date of his examination i.e. 2.12.1999, the record shows that there was no electric connection in the house of the appellant. He did not have the record prior to 1.1.1999. It is also come in evidence of Ram Diya PW3, which has gone unrebutted, that appellant and his brother are owners of 15 acres of land. It is not believable that a person having 15 acres of land would not have a electric connection in his house.

¶54

We do not have any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Urmila’s death is a dowry death. Conviction of appellant Mahender under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC is maintained, as awarded by the learned trial Court. Sentence of life imprisonment seems to be on the higher side.

¶55

Sentence of appellant Mahender is modified. He is sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. under Section 304-B. He is further sentenced to

¶56

¶57

Criminal Appeal No. 47-DB of 2000 , Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005

¶58

undergo four years R.I. under Section 498-A IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

¶59

With the above modification in sentence, Criminal Appeal No.47-DB of 2000 is dismissed.

¶60

Appeal filed by the State i.e. Criminal Appeal No.553-DBA of 2000 is also dismissed, as there is no evidence against Smt. Chhano Devi w/o Phool singh and Suresh Kumar son of Phool Singh to convict them.

¶61

We do not find any substance in Criminal Revision No.399 of 2005 and it is also dismissed.

¶62

(MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE

¶63

March 24, 2009 SKArora

¶64

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶65

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

Mahender v. the State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender v. the State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs Gurvinder and Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Rosha Lal etc.

Teja Ram Vs Kuldeep Singh

Hy.State Vs Chano Devi

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Vs Stae of Punjab