Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 3393
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.Jeyapaul, J.
Naresh Kumar
Versus
State Of Haryana
Crl.Appeal No. 526-SB of 2001,
Decided On : DECEMBER 22, 2010
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand of dowry and the abetment leading to suicide in cases related to dowry harassment.
Headnote:
Dowry Demand - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 306, Section 498-A - The judgment discusses the evidence related to the demand of dowry and abetment of suicide. It highlights the contradictions in witness testimonies and the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the accused's guilt. The court emphasizes the importance of proving beyond reasonable doubt the demand of dowry and the abetment leading to suicide.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for offences under Section 306 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for the suicide of his wife due to alleged dowry harassment. The prosecution failed to establish the demand of dowry or abetment leading to suicide beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution could not prove the demand of dowry or abetment leading to suicide beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the contradictions in witness testimonies and the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the accused's guilt.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution could establish the demand of dowry and abetment leading to suicide beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving beyond reasonable doubt the demand of dowry and the abetment leading to suicide. It highlighted the contradictions in witness testimonies and the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the accused's guilt.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charges. The appeal was allowed, and any fine amount paid by the appellant was ordered to be returned to him.
M.Jeyapaul, J.
1. The accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 306 IPC and six months under Section 498-A IPC. Hence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows :-
a) PW--7 Phool Chand is the father of the deceased Sona Devi. She was married to the accused Naresh in the year 1990. The accused left her in the lurch as she demanded maintenance expenses from the accused way back in the year 1992. Sona Devi had remained at her parental house for about one year. The complaint was lodged as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in the year 1992. A panchayat was convened. In the said panchayat, the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance allowance to Sona Devi. He had also promised that he would not demand any dowry in future. The copy of the compromise entered into between the accused and PW--7 was marked as Ex.PD. After the settlement, Sona Devi was sent to her matrimonial home. The accused again started harassing the deceased Sona Devi and demanded dowry.
b) Two months prior to her death, Sona Devi came down to her parental home and demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the construction of the house by her husband. PW--7 gave only a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to Sona Devi. On 28.6.1998, the accused again demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from PW--7 for the purchase of a three wheeler. PW--7 arranged this amount through PW--5 Kulwant Singh.
c) PW--3 Darshan Singh, the driver of the train No. 1 SU which was running from Saharanpur to Ambala via Jagadhari stated that a woman came in front of the train at about 6 : 00 AM on 22.7.1998. Consequently, she was run over by the train.
d) Mr. Sohan Lal, the Station Master of Jagadhari Railway Station (PW--2), forwarded the written memo Ex.PB submitted by PW--3 forwarded the same to the Station House Officer/ASI Harbans Lal (PW--9) who having reached the spot conducted inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
e) Dr. M.L. Kamra (PW--10) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sona Devi as per the request made by PW--9. He found lacerated wounds on the right side of the forehead, a lacerated wound on the left side of scalp and a fracture on scalp bone. He opined in his post mortem examination report Ex.PG that the deceased died due to the above multiple injuries which was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature.
f) PW--9 arrested the accused, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, and laid final report as against the accused for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC.
3. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW--7, the father of the deceased, PW---8, the paternal uncle of the deceased, PW--5 who allegedly lent a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to PW-7, PW-6 who allegedly participated in the panchayat which was held in 1992, and the evidence of PW-3, the driver of the train, returned the verdict of conviction as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306and 498-A IPC.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant would submit that the driver of the train has come out with three versions before the Court. Therefore, his evidence does not inspire confidence. PW-5 has come out with a self contradictory version as to the amount lent by him to PW-7 for handing over the same to the accused. The evidence of PW-6 who allegedly participated in the panchayat which was held in the year 1992 does not connect the alleged demand of dowry just before the death of the deceas
