Back
2005 Supreme(P&H) 460
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.N.Aggarwal, J.
Sushil Kumar
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1992,
Decided On : MARCH 30, 2005
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of immediate dowry demand and the financial status of the accused are crucial factors in evaluating the offence under IPC Section 304-B.
Headnote:
Dowry Demand - Criminal Law - IPC Section 498-A, Section 304-B - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 498-A, IPC Section 304-B - The court discussed the legal provisions of IPC Section 498-A and IPC Section 304-B, highlighting the importance of proving dowry demand and the circumstances required to establish the offence under Section 304-B. The court also referenced relevant case law to emphasize the significance of timely reporting and the absence of immediate dowry demand in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly harassed for dowry and committed suicide. The accused was convicted under IPC Section 304-B read with Section 498-A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Delay in reporting the matter to the police, conduct of the accused, and statements of the deceased's relatives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely reporting, absence of immediate dowry demand, and the financial status of the accused in evaluating the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the accused was acquitted due to the benefit of doubt.
S.N.Aggarwal, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 17/20.3.1992 vide which the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for having committed offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 304-B, IPC.
2. Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was married to Sushil Kumar-accused appellant on 9.11.1989. She was resident of Kashipur in Uttar Pradesh. She committed suicide on 1.3.1990 and the present case was got registered by jarbhajan Singh (father of Paramjit Kaur deceased) on 19.4.1990.
3. According to the prosecution case, Pritam Singh, father, Smt. Suraj Kumari, mother, Rakesh Kumar and Gopal Singh, brothers of Sushil Kumar and he himself started harassing Paramjit Kaur on account of dowry demand as they were not happy with the quantum of dowry given to her at the time of her marriage by her parents. They raised the demand of a car from the parents of Paramjit Kaur and started harassing and pressing her to meet it out. On 22.12.1989, Sushil Kumar accused-appellant along with his wife Smt. Paramjit Kaur went to the parental house of the deceased at village Chanderpura in Bihar where Harbhajan Singh (father of the deceased) was transferred. They stayed there for about a week. Paramjit Kaur informed her father about the demand of car by the accused. Harbhajan Singh pleaded his inability to do so as he was merely employed as a Foreman. However, he offered to arrange a scooter for the accused-appellant. The accused and his wife returned from village Chanderpura on 28.12.1989. Thereafter, Harbhajan Singh did not receive any letter from his daughter Paramjit Kaur and he asked his son Gurdev Singh to go to the house of the accused-appellant to enquire about the welfare of his daughter. Accordingly, Gurdev Singh reached Kalkaji in New Delhi, where the accused and his wife were living. From there he came to know that they have shifted to a residential flat in Sector 23, Faridabad and Gurdev Singh, accordingly, went to Faridabad. He stayed there for few days and returned to village Chanderpura and informed his father Harbhajan Singh that the accused, his parents and family members were demanding a car in dowry. On this Harbhajan Singh wrote a letter to the accused-appellant on 16.2.1990 assuring him to purchase a scooter for him.
4. On 3.3.1990 Harbhajan Singh received a telegram from Sushil Kumar accused-appellant that Paramjit Kaur had died. Similar messages were received by Rattan Singh, grand-father of the deceased and other relatives. They reached Faridabad. The dead body of Paramjit Kaur was consigned to flames; Harbhajan Singh suspected foul play in the death of his daughter Paramjit Kaur. He wanted a case to be registered but the police officials refused to do so. Then Harbhajan Singh met the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad and filed a complaint dated 19.4.1990 on the basis of which the present case was registered.
5. The case was investigated and the challan was presented against the accused-appellant, his two brothers Rakesh Kumar and Gopal Singh, his mother Suraj Kumari and father Pritam Singh.
6. Charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A, IPC were framed against the appellant and the co-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sohan Lal, Draftsman as PW 1, Dr. Naresh Gupta, Medical Officer as PW 2. He had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur on 2.3.1990 at about 2 p.m. The prosecution also examined HC Vijay Singh as PW 3, Constable Ram Singh as PW 4, Rattan Singh (grand-father of the deceased) as PW 5, Nirmal Singh (uncle of the deceased) as PW 6, Raj Kumar, photographer as PW 7, Harbhajan Singh (father of the deceased) as PW 8, Gurdev Singh (brother of the deceased) as PW 9 and S.I. Ishwar Singh as PW 10. The prosecution closed its evidence.
8. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC, the accused-appellant claimed to be innocent and pleaded that he was running
