Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 227
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali and K.S.Kumaran JJ.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Parveen Kumar
Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1991,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 5, 1996
In order to establish a case of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
Headnote:
DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 304-B, 498-A IPC - ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
Rita Rani, wife of Parveen Kumar, died under suspicious circumstances. Her father, Baljit Singh, filed a complaint alleging that the accused, including Parveen Kumar, his father Shamsher Singh, and mother Lajya Devi, had demanded dowry and subjected Rita Rani to cruelty, leading to her death. The accused were charged under Sections 304-B (dowry death) and 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to establish that Rita Rani was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. The court noted that the complaint did not mention any specific instances of demand or ill-treatment, and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was unreliable.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established that Rita Rani was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. 2. Whether the accused were liable for punishment under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish that Rita Rani was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. The complaint did not mention any specific instances of demand or ill-treatment, and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was unreliable. Therefore, the accused could not be held liable for punishment under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
K.S.Kumaran, J.
1. Accused Parveen Kumar (2) Shamsher Singh and (3) Smt. Lajya Devi were tried in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1989 for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code regarding the death of Rita Rani, the wife of first-accused Parveen Kumar, Second accused Shamsher Singh and third accused Lajya Devi are father and mother respectively of first accused-Parveen Kumar. After trial these accused were acquitted by the Learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide his judgment dated 18.8.1990. Hence the State of Punjab has come forward with this appeal.
2. Baljit Singh (PW-2) father of deceased Rita Rani lodged a complaint at the Police Station Garhshanker on 3.1.1989 wherein he had reported that he got married his daughter Rita with accused Parveen Kumar in June, 1988, and that on the date of the complaint i.e. 3.1.1989 at about 7 a.m. he was informed by Sagli Ram, a resident of Garhshankar that Rita Rani had expired, upon which he along with members of his family and others went to the house of the accused and found his daughter dead in her in-laws house. Baljit Singh suspected that Rita Rani had been administered poison by the accused. This complaint was given by Baljit Singh at Police Station Garhshankar, on the basis of which Head Constable Sangat Singh (PW-5) of that police station recorded DDR No. 20 (Ex.PD). A copy of this DDR entry was received by Joga Singh ASI, who immediately reached village Binewal, found the dead body of Rita Rani, conducted inquest and sent the body for post-mortem. Dr. Varinder Kumar (PW- 1) Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Garhshankar, conducted the post-mortem examination of Rita Rani, on 4.1.1989 at 10.30 a.m. and sent a piece of brain, heart, lungs, liver, whole of spleen and one kidney, a piece of small intestine and a piece of large intestine, whole of stomach, and the blood for chemical examination. After the receipt of the chemical examination, he gave the cause of death as aluminium phosphide poisoning, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ASI Manjit Singh (PW-4) had after receipt of the report of the chemical examiner and on the basis of the DDR entry registered the formal F.I.R. Baljit Singh (PW-2) the father of deceased Rita Rani and Jagjiwan Singh (PW-3) sisters husband of Rita Rani deposed about ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to Rita Rani by the accused.
3. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the first accused-Parveen Kumar stated that he is innocent and that he along with his wife was living separately from his parents. According to him while his parents were doing agricultural works, he was running a shop in the village. He also denied any maltreatment to Rita Rani. According to him his wife was suffering from various diseases. The other accused denied the allegations against them and claimed to be innocent.
4. The accused also examined Achhru Ram (DW-1) who stated that accused Parveen Kumar was living with his wife separately from his parents and was running a shop while, Shamsher Singh, father of Parveen Kumar, was cultivating the lands. He also stated that accused never ill-treated Rita Rani. DW-2 Ram Parkash also deposed similarly.
5. As pointed out already the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence and the materials placed before him acquitted the accused.
6. We have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
Although Baljit Singh (PW-2) the complainant has stated in his complaint that he suspected that the accused had poisoned his daughter, he has not stated either that the accused demanded dowry or that they ill-treated Rita Rani as the demand was not met, or that she was poisoned as a result. Of course, it is not necessary that the complaint should contain all the details of either the demand or the refusal or the ill-treatment, but, there should certainly be a mention that there was demand and ill-treatment by the accused on the ground that Rita Rani had not brought
