Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3237
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
A.B. Chaudhari, Inderjit Singh, JJ.
Rohtas - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 640 of 2010 and 197 of 2011
Decided On : 06-03-2018
Ashit Malik, Adv., Sanjeev Sharma, Adv., H.S. Brar, Adv., Vivek Saini, Adv., Deputy Advocate General, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Sudesh, allegedly by her husband and in-laws due to dowry demands. The trial court convicted the husband, Rohtas, and acquitted the in-laws. The appeals were filed against these decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the deceased's sister unreliable and rejected it. It also considered the medical evidence of severe injuries on the deceased, ruling out the theory of suicide. The court applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of explanation to the husband, Rohtas, who failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, leading to his conviction. The court upheld the acquittal of the in-laws due to lack of evidence of their presence at the time of the murder.
Issues: Reliability of witness testimony, applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, presence of in-laws at the time of the murder
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the unreliability of witness testimony, the medical evidence of severe injuries, and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of explanation to the accused. The lack of evidence of the in-laws' presence led to their acquittal.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, upholding the conviction of Rohtas and the acquittal of the in-laws.
JUDGMENT
A. B. Chaudhari, J —The appellant-Rohtas has filed appeal bearing CRA-DNo.640-DB-2010, being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 04.05.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Sonipat in Sessions Case No.68 of 2006/2009, in case FIR No.191 dated 27.08.2006 registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by which the appellant Rohtas was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he has to undergo further imprisonment for a term of one year.
2. Balbir Singh-the victim has filed CRA-D-197-DB-2011 against respondents No.2 to 4 under the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court which had recorded acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4 from the charge under Section 302 IPC.
3. Both the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by the present common judgment.
Facts:
4. It is the case of the prosecution that in the intervening night of 26 and 27 August 2006, the police received information that Sudesh wife of Rohtas-appellant, of village Rohna was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak as a case of hanging. ASI Ramesh Chander reached the hospital and obtained the medico legal report dated 26.08.2006 and found that Sudesh had already died. The complainant Sh. Balbir Singh the father of deceased then lodged the report with the police station that his daughter was done to death by the members of her nuptial family. He stated that his two daughters namely Mukesh and Sudesh (deceased) were married with two brothers namely Ravinder and Rohtas-appellant on 03.04.2001. Everything was all right for about six months of marriage of both the daughters. Thereafter, the husband's family started harassing and torturing them for demand of dowry and money. A meeting of the panchayat was arranged to resolve the matter in which Mukesh and her husband separated from the joint family but Sudesh remained in the joint family. Thereafter, Sudesh was pressurized to bring a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash by her husband-Rohtas-appellant and her parents-in-law and other acquitted respondents. The demand was made for establishing a separate shop for Rohtas-appellant. The accused persons demanded a washing machine, a gold chain and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash in the chhuchhak ceremony through Sudesh. The complainant-Balbir Singh gifted a washing machine and a gold chain but could not meet their demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash. Nevertheless Sudesh was being pressurized to bring the amount. Three days prior to the incident, Sudesh made a telephone call to her cousin Rajmal, who was asked to tell her father to make demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-, failing which she apprehend death. Rajmal told the complainant-Balbir Singh accordingly so also other family members. On the fateful night i.e. on 26.08.2006 complainant-Balbir Singh received a phone call that Sudesh was being shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak in a critical condition. He went to the hospital along with his relatives and came to know that Sudesh was throttled by the members of her nuptial family including Rohtas and other accused persons. The FIR for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, was registered with Police Station Kharkhoda. The postmortem examination was got conducted and the opinion was expressed by the doctors that the death was caused by the asphyxia due to throttling and the injuries were ante mortem. Thereafter accused persons were arrested. The three accused were challaned and produced before the Court. The trial Court ultimately framed the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial was held in which the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and closed its case on July 7, 2009. Thereafter an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against accused-Satish and he was summoned to face the trial and charge was framed against him. The accused examined one witness in their defence. The trial Court ultimatel
