Allowed

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2014CRA-S/825/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The court held that evidence regarding dowry harassment was unreliable, credible only against the complainant, and failed to establish cruelty beyond suspicion, entitling the accused to a benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of the appellant on charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; set at liberty.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.05.2014

Naresh Kumar

.....Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶14

Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶15

Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

¶16

R.P. Nagrath, J.

¶17

The appellant faced trial under Section 304-B and 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in FIR No. 144 dated 24.08.2008 for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, Police Station GRPS, Karnal. He was convicted of the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304-B IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 498-A IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

¶18

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶20

Meena (deceased) who was married about one and half year before her death, is stated to have ended her life by jumping herself before a running train. It may be stated at the outset that before registration of FIR, the police party went to the hospital where appellant and Shamsher Singh father of the deceased were present. PW-9 stated that father of the deceased did not suspect any foul play in the sudden death of Meena and therefore, the proceedings were conducted in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C. and statements of appellant and father of the deceased were recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C.

¶21

The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that deceased Meena, sister of PW-7-complainant-Hawa Singh, was married with appellant on 02.02.2007 and some dowry articles were also given. When the complainant went to meet his sister about eight days after the marriage, she disclosed about the maltreatment meted out to her by appellant, his parents and wife of his elder brother ( Bhabhi ) on account of insufficient dowry and for not bringing a motorcycle. The complainant told the appellant and his family members that despite being poor persons they have given them the dowry as per their capacity. The complainant brought his sister to her parental home and informed the family members about the said demand. One month thereafter, the appellant and his parents came to bring the deceased but they reiterated the demand of motorcycle and therefore, did not take back the deceased with them. The complainant and his family

¶22

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶24

had, however, assured to meet the aforesaid demand sometimes later.

¶25

On 18.07.2007, the complainant accompanied by certain persons other than family members and relatives, went to the in-laws house of the deceased and left her at the matrimonial home assuring them to give motorcycle sometimes in future. In January, 2008, Meena gave birth to a male child. The complainant accompanied by his brother Bittu went to his sister's house on that occasion and gave them the essential customary gifts. The deceased told her brothers even at that time that in case the demand of motorcycle is not met, she would be killed. She also informed that her in-laws were not provided her food for days together. The brothers promised to meet the demand of motorcycle by the coming Dussehra festival and came back. 5. It is further the prosecution story that Meena had come alongwith appellant on 16.08.2008 on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, to her parents' house. The appellant while leaving on 17.08.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. repeated the demand of motorcycle. Meena requested the complainant not to send her alongwith the appellant because his other family members had been insisting upon the demand of motorcycle. The girl was, however, sent back after persuasion, whereas the complainant himself went to his inlaws house at Jind to bring his wife and children. The complainant returned on 18.08.2008 and learnt about recovery of dead body of Meena on the railway track.

¶26

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -4-

¶28

In support of the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was led. During investigation the dowry articles recovered from the house of appellant were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P-10.

¶29

Evidence which the prosecution has lead may be briefly described:

¶30

PW-1 Satish Kumar was driver of train No. 2 KDM on 18.08.2008 from Ambala to Delhi. PW-1 stated that when the train reached near KM 119/30-32 near gate No. 68C at about 6.44 a.m., a lady wearing red suit suddenly came in front of the train and stood there. The train at that time was at a distance of 15-20 yards from the deceased. The driver immediately applied emergency brakes but could not stop the train and the lady was hit by the engine and died at the spot. PW-2 N.K. Bhardwaj was Guard of this train on 18.08.2008.

¶31

PW-3 Hakam Singh Assistant Station Master Railway Station, Karnal was on duty at the Railway Station during the intervening night of 17/18.08.2008 from 12 O'clock night till 08.00 a.m. next morning. He got the information from the gate-man at about 06.55 a.m. that a lady was lying on the down track near KM 119/30-32. PW-4 Mata Parshad was the gate man.

¶32

PW-9 Sub Inspector Ram Murti moved application Ex. P2 to the doctor of General Hospital, Karnal for postmortem

¶33

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -5-

¶35

examination of the dead body. He also took photographs Ex. PW9/A and PW-9/B of the railway track where the dead body was lying.

¶36

PW-5 Dr. Sanjiv Grover conducted postmortem examination on the dead body. The doctor tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-5/A. Postmortem report is Ex. P-4. The doctor found multiple injuries on the dead body of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to injuries to vital organs which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of life. The doctor stated that possibility of injuries being caused in a railway accident cannot be ruled out.

¶37

For bringing home the charge under Section 304-B IPC defining 'dowry death', following ingredients must be established beyond suspicion:-

¶38

(i) death of the woman is caused by burns or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;

¶39

(ii) death takes place within seven years of marriage; and

¶40

(iii) soon before the death of woman she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

¶41

There cannot be any dispute with regard to proof of first two ingredients of the offence. The death in this case occurred

¶42

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶43

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M)

¶44

-6-

¶45

otherwise than under normal circumstances, because the deceased jumped herself before a running train in the early morning on 18.08.2008.

¶46

Death of Meena wife of the appellant and sister of PW-7 Hawa Singh complainant, taking place just about 1½ year of her marriage, would instantly shake everyone's conscious but the question that mainly arises in this case would be whether the third ingredient of Section 304-B IPC is established beyond suspicion. 11. The evidence in proof of this ingredient is neither credible nor sufficient enough to hold it in favour of prosecution. 12. The evidence on the subject comprises of testimony of complainant Hawa Singh, real brother of the deceased supported by Jai Parkash son of Bir Singh (PW-8), a neighbourer of PW-7. Not only the above witnesses are highly discrepant on important aspects but the prosecution has failed to examine close family members of the deceased who could reveal the true facts. 13. It would be pertinent first of all to refer to the statement of PW-9. On receiving intimation (Ex. P-1) from Station Master, Karnal about the dead body lying on the railway track, PW-9 went to the spot. PW-9 conducted proceedings, Ex. P-1, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in the presence of appellant and father of the deceased, namely; Shamsher Singh. PW-9 also recorded statements of witnesses to the inquest proceedings.

¶47

PW-9 in cross-examination stated that about 5 to 7 family members of the deceased were also present at the spot.

¶48

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶49

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -7-

¶50

Even PW-7 Hawa Singh complainant was present but did not express any foul play in the death of his sister nor raised any suspicion against her in-laws.

¶51

Even if it be said that family of the deceased was shocked, depressed and taken aback because of sudden death of Meena and were unable to instantly agitate and express suspicion against the appellant, but after some evidence was placed before the investigating agency for suggesting that the deceased was being treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry, it was most important and essential to cite and examine father and grand-parents of deceased to come out with true picture during the trial. It cannot be contended that the other family members may be in a fix after the initial version was put up during proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. but the close family members can always explain their position that earlier version was made on some wrong notion or psychological disturbance. Withholding these important members of the family would, therefore, make serious dent in the prosecution case. In the circumstances, it would not be sufficient to rely upon the statement of PW-7 supported by PW-8 which is otherwise highly discrepant. 16. PW-7 reiterated the story contained in the compliant Ex. P-6 and stated that on return to the village with Meena (deceased) about one week after the marriage, he narrated the whole incident of her maltreatment for demand of dowry, to his grand-parents and Reshma (his Bua ) who used to reside with

¶52

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶53

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M)

¶54

-8-

¶55

them.

¶56

Even none of the other persons who accompanied PW-7 and PW-8 on 18.07.2007, when the deceased was allegedly taken back to the matrimonial home, have been examined in support the version. The other persons who allegedly accompanied PW-7 in July, 2007 were Prithi, Jagmel and Sumer Chand. PW-8 Jai Parkash in cross-examination stated that he has never remained the member panchayat/sarpanch of his village. The real uncles of PW-7 Hawa Singh are Balraj Singh and Mahinder Singh but it is not the case of prosecution that parents, grandparents, Bua and real uncles of the deceased accompanied the said panchayat. PW-8 in cross-examination also stated that they did not call any member panchayat or sarpanch of village Daulatpur of appellant in that gathering where the matter was allegedly discussed.

¶57

Rest of the prosecution story relates to the visit of appellant and his wife (deceased) on 16.08.2008 on the eve of Raksha Bandhan . PW-7 stated that the appellant and his wife came to the house of PW-7 and then went to village Kohand for tying Rakhi to the son of Reshma, Bua of the deceased. On 17.08.2008, the appellant and his wife came back from village Kohand at about 12.00 noon/1.00 p.m. When they were about to leave at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased told PW-7 not to send her alongwith the appellant as parents of the appellant and his Bhabhi specifically asked her to bring motorcycle otherwise she should not

¶58

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶59

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -9-

¶60

come back. PW-7 persuaded his sister and assured to give motorcycle on the Dussehra festival. PW-7 stated that on 17.08.2008, he had gone to his in-laws at Jind and reached there at about 8.00/8.15 p.m. PW-7 returned to his village Madanpur on next day i.e. on 18.08.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. and came to know about the death of his sister. He came to know at his in-laws house at Jind that dead body of his sister was found at railway track. There is no other witness apart from PW-7 to reiterate the aforesaid stand. PW-8 only stated that PW-7 told them about the visit of his sister in August, 2008. In the FIR, no such version of the couple going to village Kohand on 16.08.2008 was stated, for which PW-7 was duly confronted with contents of complaint Ex. P- 6, which PW-7 admitted.

¶61

As per prosecution version stated in the challan report, it was found during investigation that the couple came to village Madanpur, the parental village of deceased on 17.08.2008, after tying Rakhi to cousin of the deceased in village Kohand, where Bua of PW-7 is married . When the couple returned from there on 17.08.2008, Reshma ( Bua ) told them to stay for the night. Meena (deceased) agreed to stay there but the appellant told them if the deceased stayed back she would never be able to return to husband's house. Reshma told the appellant to learn respecting females but the appellant reiterated that his in-laws are not meeting the demand of motorcycle and are rather bent upon spoiling Meena. According to that story, PW-7 promised to give

¶62

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶63

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -10-

¶64

motorcycle on the occasion of Dussehra festival. Even the deceased told that she would not be spared unless the demand of motorcycle was met. The above version could be corroborated only by Reshma, Bua of the deceased who has been conveniently given up as unnecessary. I am of the considered view that the very fact that appellant came accompanied by his wife to the house of her parents on 16.08.2008 on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, would bring a circumstance that appellant was a caring husband. Had there been any ill will for not meeting the demand of a motorcycle, the appellant would not have come for this festival for which the girls are quite emotional for personally going to tie Rakhi to their brothers.

¶65

The version put-forth by the complainant (PW-7) was that the appellant and his parents were living together. This statement of PW-7 has been shown to be incorrect. PW-11 SI Krishan Kumar was the SHO of Police Station GRP on 12.09.2008 and being the investigating officer arrested the appellant on 13.09.2008. In cross-examination, PW-11 stated that during investigation he found that appellant was residing separate from his father and brothers. The above fact would make PW-7 to be not a reliable witness. 21. To wriggle out the proceedings conducted under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in which father of the deceased participated and also recorded his statement, PW-7 has a different story to propound. In cross-examination, PW-7 stated that after return

¶66

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶67

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -11-

¶68

from his in-laws place Jind, he remained in the house on 18.08.2008 and did not go anywhere. His entire family was present at home at about 6.00 p.m. PW-7 first of all discussed the matter with his grandparents and then with other family members. PW-7 further stated that his father, brothers, uncles, aunts and other people totaling about 50 to 60 including other relatives had gone for cremation of the dead body of Meena.

¶69

PW-7 stated in the cross-examination that on 18.08.2008 he had a talk with his father regarding death of Meena, and was told that the signatures of father of deceased were obtained on the pretext of handing over the dead body. PW-7, however, admitted that the aforesaid fact was not mentioned by him in the complaint Ex. P-6. PW-7 has tried to conceal a material factor denying his participation in the cremation of the deceased. The complainant categorically stated that he did not attend the cremation of his sister as he was away to his in-laws. PW-8, however, stated in cross-examination that he was present in the hospital as well as in the cremation of Meena at village Daulatpur. He was called by PW-7 and they went to village Daulatpur by a tractor. PW-7 stated in unequivocal terms that PW-7 was present there at the time of cremation. Even PW-9 stated that Hawa Singh-complainant was also present and did not raise any suspicion or foul play in death of Meena.

¶70

In view of the highly discrepant evidence and nonproduction of other important family members in support of the

¶71

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶72

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M) -12-

¶73

said story, the version with regard to alleged maltreatment of deceased for not meeting the demand of dowry or for any other reason, cannot be possibly believed. The complainant (PW-7) rather stated in cross-examination that there was no demand of dowry from the appellant on the day of marriage or prior thereto. According to PW-7, the demand was raised for the first time eight days after the marriage. However, no application was made by parents of the deceased before any authority with regard to said demand. In the circumstances of the case, it seems highly improbable that the appellant would harass his wife only on account of non-meeting the demand of motorcycle.

¶74

It was further contended for the appellant that circumstances of the case would suggest that the deceased was not happy with the marriage with appellant and her thinking was marred by superiority complex. PW-7 in cross-examination stated that Meena was a fair complexioned girl and taller than the appellant.

¶75

Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that there was huge delay of about six days in lodging the complaint Ex. P-6 to the police. To explain the delay PW-7 stated that he made application to the police on 19.08.2008 itself but the police did not take any action, so he sent complaint to the Superintendent of Police by a registered post. The State counsel referred to last paragraph of the compliant that it pertains to an incident taking place yesterday i.e. on 18.08.2008 for suggesting that it was made

¶76

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶77

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M)

¶78

-13-

¶79

to police on 19.08.2008.

¶80

According to PW-12 Sub-Inspector Guru Dutt of Police Station GRPS, Hawa Singh came at the police station on 24.08.2008 to hand over this complaint. PW-12 further stated that PW-7 was accompanied by Prithi, Jagmer and Jai Parkash of village Madanpur with this application Ex. P-6. There is also endorsement Ex. P-6/A dated 24.08.2008 made by PW-12, to this effect but PW-7 in cross-examination stated that he was accompanied only by his paternal uncle Balraj Singh when he moved application Ex. P-6. This would be a material discrepancy especially when Balraj Singh was not examined nor cited in the list of witnesses. The version of PW-7 that he sent this application, Ex. P-6, by registered post, is not substantiated from record especially in the absence of postal receipt showing its dispatch by registered post.

¶81

PW-7 in cross-examination stated that Reshma ( Bua) was residing with them for about 10 to 12 years. She was working as a maid servant in the house of an advocate who was engaged by them earlier in this case. It is thus contended for the appellant that the aforesaid details in the complaint were made after due consultation and deliberation and that remain un-substantiated by any of the close family members of the deceased than PW-7.

¶82

It is, therefore, not possible to accept the prosecution story on the third ingredient of Section 304-B IPC. The appellant, therefore, deserves to be granted benefit of doubt.

¶83

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶84

CRA-S-825-SB of 2010 (O&M)

¶85

-14-

¶86

As a result of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction by acquitting the appellant of the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

¶87

May 21, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE

¶88

Jitender kumar 2014.06.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh 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

Parminder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Satpal Arora and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Azad Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Pall Singh Bachu and Another Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harwinder Singh Alias Bhola Singh Fattipoch Vs State of Punjab and Another