Partly allowed

State of Rajasthan v. Samundar Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2017CRLA/705/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld the Special Judge's acquittal of appellant's parents-in-law under Section 304B IPC but reduced the conviction of Mukesh Singh under Section 306 IPC from ten years to eight years, while maintaining the Section 498A sentence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence under Section 306 IPC reduced from ten years to eight years RI; Section 498A and acquittal of parents-in-law upheld.

State of Rajasthan Vs Samundar Singh and Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 411 / 2014

Mukesh Singh

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 705 / 2014 State Of Rajasthan

¶10

----Appellant

¶11

Samundar Singh And Ors

¶12

----Respondent _____________________________________________________

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Goswami for accused appellant

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakad PP

¶15

Mr. Rajesh Goswami for the respondent in Cr. Appeal No. 705/2014

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Judgment

¶17

14/12/2017

¶18

Appellant Mukesh Singh alongwith his father Samunder

¶19

Singh, mother Ramwati and brother Vishnu Singh were tried by the court of Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur, in case arising out of FIR No.111/2010, registered at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur, for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.

¶20

The trial Judge in Sessions Trial No.59/2010, held that

¶21

(2 of 8)

¶22

[CRLA-411/2014]

¶23

Section 306 IPC is a lesser offence compared to Section 304B IPC and thus, instead of Section 304B IPC, for which accused appellant Mukesh Singh was charged, convicted him for offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. The trial Judge acquitted Samunder Singh, Ramvati, parents of appellant Mukesh Singh and Vishnu Singh his brother of offences under Section 304B and 498A IPC.

¶24

Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Mukesh Singh has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 411/2014. State of Rajasthan to assail the acquittal of Samunder Singh, Ramvati and Vishnu Singh filed an application for leave to appeal, which was granted by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.5.2014 and hence, S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 705/2014 was registered as an appeal against acquittal. The State of Rajasthan has not filed any appeal against acquittal of appellant Mukesh Singh for offence under Section 304B IPC. Thus, State of Rajasthan accepted the conviction of appellant Mukesh Singh for offence under Section 306 and 498A IPC and his acquittal of offence under Section 304B IPC.

¶25

Mukesh Singh the present appellant was married with Sangita @ Sonu on 20.4.2008. It is admitted fact that Sangita @ Sonu on 19.2.2010 had consumed poison. As per Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exhibit-P/17), Aluminium Phosphide was found in the viscera sent by the Board of Doctors.

¶26

As per Dr. N.L. Desania (P.W.4) cause of death was due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphide.

¶27

(3 of 8)

¶28

[CRLA-411/2014]

¶29

Immediately after consumption of Aluminium Phosphide, Sangita @ Sonu was brought to SMS Hospital, Jaipur and she was admitted in Ward Bed No.3, New Medical ICU.

¶30

Brahmanand, ASI (P.W.17) in the court deposed that Sangita @ Sonu made a statement before him, wherein she stated that her husband was having illicit relations with a girl called Kavita. Statement (Exhibit-D/4) on the basis of which criminal proceedings were set into motion, when translated into English, reads as under:-

¶31

“Statement of Sangita @ Sonu wife of Mukesh Singh, by caste Rajput, aged 23 years, resident of House NO.151, Shri Ram Nagar ‘B’, Jhotwara, Jaipur, in respect of Rojnamcha Entry No.1328 dated 19.2.2010, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur, stated that my name is Sangita Chauhan. I have studied upto M.A. On 20.4.2008 I was married with Mukesh Singh son of Samunder Singh. After my marriage, during my stay at house of my in-laws, after one month, I learnt that my husband Mukesh Singh is having illicit relations with girl named Kavita. In the night, after locking door of the room, he used to go to her. She used to talk with him on phone. Therefore I used to tell my husband that in case you go to her I will commit suicide. My husband used to tell me that if you have to die, you may die, but I am not leaving her. He used to tell me that his family members have forcibly married him with me. He used to tell me that he shall not keep me. Yesterday night on 19.2.2010, at about 6:00 PM, my husband Mukesh Singh was quarreling with his mother and was saying that he will not keep me. On this I became angry and in the anger, I had consumed Sulphose powder with water kept in the grain of the house. My condition has become precarious. I have been brought and admitted at the hospital.”

¶32

(4 of 8)

¶33

[CRLA-411/2014]

¶34

The above dying declaration was recorded on 20.2.2010 at 12:30 PM. On the next day, on 21.2.2010 at 11:00 AM, dying declaration (Exhibit-D/2) of Sangita @ Sonu was recorded by Jagdish Meena (P.W.18), who was then posted as Judicial Magistrate, No.7, Jaipur City.

¶35

A very detailed dying declaration of Sangita @ Sonu has been recorded by Jagdish Meena (P.W.18), Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur City. In nutshell, in the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, a grievance has been made by Sangita @ Sonu that she has primarily not happy with her marriage, because of illicit relations of her husband Mukesh Singh with a girl called Kavita. It is stated in the dying declaration that she used to request her husband to take her to Gurgaon where he was working in a Call Centre, but her husband had refused to accede to her request, as Kavita another woman in life of her husband used to tell him that in case you take your wife to Gurgaon, she will commit suicide.

¶36

In the very detailed long dying declaration, recorded by the Magistrate two blemish have occurred. Firstly, it is stated that Mukesh Singh appellant and his family members were asking her to bring car, plot and gold chain etc. It was stated that mother-inlaw used to ask for plot and brother-in-law Vishnu Singh used to demand a gold chain. Another blemish which occurred is that mother-in-law had said that in case you have to die, you may die, and may consume Sulphose powder, which is lying upon the drum. The dying declaration (Exhibit-D/2) cannot be read in isolation by

¶37

(5 of 8)

¶38

[CRLA-411/2014]

¶39

ignoring dying declaration (Exhibit-D/4) which was recorded first in time.

¶40

The prosecution in the present case has examined eighteen witnesses, namely Mahendra Singh (P.W.1), Pratap Singh (P.W.2), Rajendra Singh (P.W.3), Dr. N.L. Desaniya (P.W.4), Chittar Singh (P.W.5), Gyan Singh (P.W.6), Smt. Premlata (P.W.7), Shakuntala (P.W.8), Sanju Kanwar (P.W.9), Baljeet Singh (P.W.10), Bajrang Singh (P.W.11), Sumer Singh (P.W.12), Savita Chauhan (P.W.13), Anil Yadav (P.W.14), Richpal Singh (P.W.15), Mohan Singh (P.W.16), Brahmanand (P.W.17) and Jagdish Meena (P.W.18).

¶41

Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the same. Accused in defence examined, Nirmala Sharma, Vinod Kanwar, Vikram Tanwar and Bajrang Singh, as D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4, respectively.

¶42

Mahendra Singh (P.W.1) is father of deceased Sangita @ Sonu. Relations of the witnesses in the present case have introduced the allegation of demand of dowry. Mahendra Singh (P.W.1) in the court stated that the day on which Sangita @ Sonu consumed poison they had not lodged the report to the police because they were not aware of this fact. However, he admitted to be correct that on the day he met Sangita @ Sonu in the hospital, he had not lodged the report on that day. Thus, one fact is clear that before recording dying declaration by the Magistrate, relations were present in the hospital. Therefore, in the

¶43

(6 of 8)

¶44

[CRLA-411/2014]

¶45

subsequent dying declaration (Exhibit-D/2), recorded by the Magistrate, exaggerations have crept in. Thus, the trial court has rightly ruled out the allegation of demand of dowry. In the present case Sangita @ Sonu due to illicit relations of the accused appellant Mukesh Singh had committed suicide.

¶46

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the dying declaration (ExhibitD/2) which is result of consultations and deliberations and to some extent was tutored version after relatives of the deceased had arrived, is to be read along with first dying declaration (ExhibitD/4). The dying declaration (Exhibit-D/4), contains spontaneous version. It is free from blemish of consultations and deliberations. In dying declaration (Exhibit-D/4), which has been reproduced above, nothing has been stated regarding demand of dowry. Furthermore, it has surfaced therein that when appellant Mukesh Singh was quarreling with his mother and asking her as to why he was married with deceased Sangita @ Sonu and he will leave her. Upon hearing verbal duel between the appellant Mukesh Singh and Ramvati her mother-in-law, it is stated by the deceased that she in fit of anger consumed Sulphose Power (Aluminium Phosphate).

¶47

Thus, the judgment rendered by the trial Judge to record acquittal of accused for offence under Section 304B IPC and record acquittal of parents-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased cannot be termed perverse. If dying declaration (Exhibit-D/2) is read in harmony with first dying declaration (Exhibit-D/4), no role has been assigned to parents-in-law and

¶48

(7 of 8)

¶49

[CRLA-411/2014]

¶50

brother-in-law. Thus, the trial Judge has rightly formulated a view that the complainant party had widened the net too far to involve the family members of the appellant. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan and same is dismissed. The acquittal of Samunder Singh, Ramvati and Vishnu Singh is upheld.

¶51

Another question which arises for consideration of this Court is regarding the quantum of sentence awarded for offence under Section 306 IPC upon the appellant, Mukesh Singh.

¶52

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he shall not contest the conviction. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already undergone seven years, nine months and three days. The learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that appellant is in custody since his date of arrest i.e. from 26.2.2010, and hence, this Court should reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.

¶53

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶54

Ten years is the maximum sentence prescribed under

¶55

Section 306 IPC. There must be aggravating circumstances to record maximum sentence. The prosecution is bound to disclose aggravating circumstances to justify maximum sentence. It seems that under the pressure of parents, appellant Mukesh Singh had performed marriage with deceased Sangita @ Sonu and had never accepted her as his wife. Sangita @ Sonu fed up with the conduct of the appellant had committed suicide.

¶56

(8 of 8)

¶57

[CRLA-411/2014]

¶58

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was young person, aged 27 years, he was working in a Call Centre and he is having no criminal antecedents. The appellant has not committed any offence after and before the registration of the present case and merely because he was in relationship with another woman, wife had committed suicide. Thus, it is not a case where maximum sentence should be awarded. It is contended that the sentence of ten years awarded for offence under Section 306 IPC is excessive.

¶59

I find merit in the alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶60

Consequently, the sentence of ten years awarded upon the appellant for offence under Section 306 IPC is reduced to eight years RI. Sentence awarded upon appellant for offence under Section 498A IPC is maintained and as ordered by the trial court, the same shall run concurrently with the sentence reduced by this Court for offence under Section 306 IPC. Sentence of fine and default clause is also maintained.

¶61

With the modification in sentence in above terms, the present appeal preferred by appellant Mukesh Singh is disposed of.

¶62

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶63

Mak/-

State of Rajasthan v. Samundar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Samundar Singh and Ors.

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

Kamal Kishore Saini Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Meer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Mintu Goyal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Jagdish Prasad and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rohtash Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt Rangoli Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.