Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2013CRA-S/1776/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against conviction under Section 304-B IPC. Upholding the trial court, it held that the child witness confirmed repeated dowry demands preceding the death and found no merit in the appellant's claims regarding delays or the dying declaration. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was maintained.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; original conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment upheld.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Appeal No.1776-SB of 2002 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Cr.A.No.1776-SB of 2002 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 23.4.2013

Sanjeev Kumar

APPELLANT

VERSUS

State of Haryana

RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri D.D.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Shri Narender Singh, D.A.G. Haryana.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 11.10.2002/12.10.2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which the appellant was convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years.

¶14

According to the F.I.R. whcih was recorded at the behest of the father of the deceased Sweety Devi, her marriage was performed with the present appellant on 7.3.2000. The occurrence took place on the intervening night of 4/5.8.2000 when Sweety Devi suffered burn injuries eventually leading to her death when she was being transported to P.G.I., Chandigarh. The complainant

¶15

Criminal Appeal No.1776-SB of 2002 -2-

¶16

alleged that about 10/12 days before the festival of Teej which fell on 3.8.2000, his niece Sapna (brother's daughter) had gone to visit the deceased in her matrimonial home where she stayed for 8/9 days and noticed as many as three incidents of violence inflicted by the appellant upon the deceased accompanied by demand of dowry i.e. car etc. Sweety Devi had informed her parents over telephone about the maltreatment. On the fateful day, information was received by the complainant about the burn incident whereupon the complainant alongwith his wife and younger brother Surjit Kumar and his wife Sushila Devi rushed to Aggarwal Hospital, Kurukshetra where the deceased had been taken to. She was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh, but died on the way.

¶17

Dr.K.C.Aggarwal PW-4 received the injured in his hospital at 12.05 a.m. on the night of occurrence with more than 85% burns. The police was informed and Wilson Kumar brother of the deceased (PW-7) who was staying at Kurukshetra, also reached the hospital upon getting information where the deceased who was in a feeble condition, informed him about a row that she had with the appellant. Shri Sanjeev Arya, J.M.I.C., Kuruskehtra was present and recorded the statement of the deceased. A request was made by this officer at 2.30 a.m. seeking doctor's opinion regarding the medical condition of Sweety Devi to make a statement. At 2.45 a.m., the doctor opined that Sweety Devi was not able to answer any question and was serious and unfit.

¶18

After the death of Sweety Devi, the police was informed who carried out the inquest proceedings. Post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased, the report of which is on record as Ex.PF opining that burn injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The F.I.R. was registered on 22.8.2000 whereupon the investigation was carried out leading to the filing of challan against the appellant. Charge was framed under the provisions of Section 304-B I.P.C. and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶19

Criminal Appeal No.1776-SB of 2002 -3-

¶20

It may be relevant to state here that during the course of trial, the aunt of the appellant was also summoned to face trial, but eventually, she was acquitted by the learned trial Court.

¶21

In order to prove its case, the learned trial Court examined as many as 9 witnesses namely HC Mukesh Kumar PW-1, Constable Jaswant Lal PW-2, Constable Dharam Pal PW-3, Dr.K.C.Aggarwal PW-4, Dr.Harbans Singh PW-5, Mam Chand PW-6, Wilson Kumar PW-7, Sapna PW-8 and SI Ram Singh PW-9.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, has contended that at the time when police was present on the date of occurrence, the complainant and other family members did not choose to level any allegation of dowry, rather they stated that the deceased was of a temperamental behaviour and was quarrelsome. He has further contended that the only statement which has been taken into consideration by the learned trial court as a virtual dying declaration was merely hear-say, as the deceased is said to have made this statement before her brother Wilson Kumar PW-7, but not to the Magistrate or to the doctor. He thus, contends that even if the statement is considered, it would only reveal some altercation between the deceased and the appellant, but under no circumstance, would imply that the altercation or dispute was on account of demand of dowry.

¶23

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant while pleading innocence, stated that the deceased had been unable to clear her graduation examination and got a compartment in one of the subjects and it is on this count that she was feeling frustrated which led her to committing suicide. (On similar lines was his testimony recorded during the course of trial.) It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and when this delay is considered in conjunction with the statement earlier recorded before the police immediately after the occurrence, it would

¶24

Criminal Appeal No.1776-SB of 2002 -4-

¶25

evidently suggest that the allegations set out in the F.I.R. have been doctored. That apart, much emphasis has been laid on the injuries caused to the appellant on his hands when he attempted to save the deceased.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has justified the judgment of the learned trial Court leading to the conviction and sentence of the appellant by referring to the overwhelming testimony of the complainant and his niece Sapna, besides the other relations who have supported the case of the prosecution and have testified that there were repeated demands of dowry leading to the unfortunate incident.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶28

What is significant in this case is that an unnatural death took place within almost 5 months of the marriage. There is testimony of PW-8 Sapna, niece of the complainant, who has unhesitatingly supported the cause of the prosecution by stating that she had visited the house of the deceased about 10-12 days prior to the festival of Teej which was on 3.8.2000 and stayed there for 8-9 days during which period she noticed as many as three incidents of violence between the appellant and the deceased on account of demand of car etc. These incidents of beating were duly brought to the notice of the complainant. The appellant has not been able to shatter the testimony of this child witness despite cross-examination. Nothing could be brought out to shake the reliability of this witness. When her testimony is read in conjunction with the testimony of the complainant and other family members, there is hardly any room for doubt that demands for dowry were indeed raised by the family of the deceased which upon not having been met, led to the unfortunate incident.

¶29

The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the interregnum between the marriage and death of the deceased is just about 5 months and therefore, there

¶30

Criminal Appeal No.1776-SB of 2002 -5-

¶31

was a strong onus upon the appellant to offset the presumption of law against him. However, no such evidence was led which would indicate that it was on account of any frustrating experience of the deceased which was unrelated to the demand of dowry as the cause of death.

¶32

As against this, the testimony of Sapna PW-8 is inspiring enough to warrant acceptance. Apart from this, the testimony of Dr.K.C.Aggarwal PW-4 is forth-right. He has narrated the condition and state of affairs when the deceased was brought to his hospital with 85% burn injuries. At that point of time, even though it is not recorded by the said doctor, yet he went on to say that the relations accompanying the deceased came out with an explanation that the stove had burst leading to the burn injuries. Ex.DA is the record of treatment of the deceased wherein the doctor has also written about the altercation immediately prior to the incident. The appellant tried to establish his innocence that he suffered burn injuries on his hands while trying to save the deceased, but there is no medical evidence on record which would substantiate this aspect of the matter.

¶33

Having regard to the aforesaid facts in their totality and noticing the fact that the testimony of the complainant is ably supported by the testimony of Sapna PW-8 which leaves no room doubt that the demands for dowry were made and since the period of sustenance of marriage is so short, it would automatically lead to an inference that the demands of dowry were raised just prior to the occurrence and the death on account of burns being an established fact, would lead to an irresistible conclusion which is not deviant from the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court.

¶34

I thus, do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant pleads that a lenient view qua sentence be taken in view of the fact that a number of years have passed and that the appellant has now re-married.

¶35

Criminal Appeal No.1776-SB of 2002 -6-

¶36

I have considered this aspect, but noticing the blatant manner in which the life of the deceased was lost on account of the greed of the appellant, I do not find it to be a redeeming feature to consider any leniency qua the sentence of the appellant.

¶37

Appeal dismissed.

¶38

April 23, 2013 GD

¶39

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶40

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. 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

Akhlesh Kumar Vs State of Hy.

Jeet Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Kumar Nagpal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ved Parkash Dalal Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Kumar etc. Vs State of Haryana