2011 Supreme(UK) 654
2012 (1) N.C.C. 456
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani
Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2002
JAGDISH & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
Decided on : 29.12.2011
For the Appellants :Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Headnote:(A) Dowry death — According to prosecution accused persons/in laws of deceased used to subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment for non fulfillment of their demand of dowry and ousted her from their house — A Panchayat held in this regard, in which an agreement was executed and signed by all the accused persons — After that deceased was sent back to her in-laws house — Where they committed her murder — Learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused persons under Dowry Prohibition Act — Thereby appeal by deceased's brother-in-laws, sister-in-law and her father-in-law's brother contending that they reside separately in another house and had separate ration-card — Held — If these appellants had no concern with the crime, they would have never participated in the panchayat and would have never signed the agreement — Thus, contention of accused not trustworthy. (Paras 5 to 9 and 21)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 201 — As per prosecution accused persons committed murder of the deceased for non fulfillment of their demand for dowry — And cremated her without informing the police and her parents — Held that as the pyre of the deceased was lit, without waiting for the deceased's father and without informing the police — Also, as no inquest was conducted and accused had removed the piece of evidence by hastily cremating the deceased's body — Therefore, they rightly been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 201 of Penal Code. (Paras 22 and 25)
(C) Criminal Trial — Dowry death — Conviction and sentence of accused persons u/s 498-A/304 and 201 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act — Appeal — Contention that the I.O. had not prepared site plan and the prosecution story unbelievable — Held — When the dead body was not present, nor inquest was made, no eyewitness was there — Then how could the I.O. prepare the site plan — No question of making site plan in the air no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court — Contention of the appellants without force. (Paras 23 to 26)
¼v½ ngst gR;k & vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k&e`rdk ds lkl@llqj mlds lkFk Øwjrk vkSj mRihM+u dk O;ogkj] ngst dh ekax dh iwfrZ uk djus dh otg ls djrs Fks vkSj mls vius ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k x;k Fkk & bl lEcU/k esa ,d iapk;r gqbZ Fkh ftlesa ,d vuqca/k rS;kj fd;k x;k Fkk ftl ij lHkh vfHk;qDrksa ds }kjk gLrk{kj fd;s x;s Fks & mlds ckn e`rdk dks mldh llqjky esa Hkst fn;k x;k & tgk¡ ij mldh gR;k dj nh xbZ & ekU; fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ngst izfr"ks/k vfèkfu;e ds rgr vfHk;qDrksa dks nks"kflf) vkSj dkjkokl dh ltk lqukbZ xbZ & e`rdk ds nsoj] nsojkuh vkSj llqj ds HkkbZ ds }kjk bl vk/kkj ij vihy nk;j dh xbZ fd os i`Fkd edku esa vyx jgrs gSa vkSj mudk jk'ku dkMZ Hkh i`Fkd cuk gqvk Fkk & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd ;fn bu vihykfFkZ;ksa dk tqeZ ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha Fkk rks muds }kjk dHkh Hkh iapk;r esa Hkkx u fy;k tkrk vkSj os dHkh Hkh vuqcU/k ij gLrk{kj ugha djrs & bl izdkj vfHk;qDrksa dk rdZ fo'oluh; ugha gSA
¼izLrj 5 ls 9 vkSj 21½
¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 201 & vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDrksa }kjk e`rdk dh gR;k mudh ngst dh ekax iwjh u gksus ds dkj.k dh xbZ Fkh vkSj mlds ekrk&firk rFkk iqfyl dks lwfpr fd;s fcuk gh mldk vafre laLdkj dj fn;k x;k Fkk & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k pw¡fd e`rdk dh fprk dks] e`rdk ds firk dh vkus dh izrh{kk fd;s fcuk vkSj iqfyl dks lwpuk fn;s fcuk vkx yxk nh xbZ Fkh vkSj 'ko dh dksbZ tkap iM+rky Hkh ugha gqbZ Fkh vkSj vfHk;qDrksa }kjk lk{; ds lHkh va'kksa dks Hkh 'kh?kzrk ls vafre laLdkj djds feVk fn;k x;k Fkk & blfy, mu dh nks"kflf) /kkjk 201 IPC ds rgr lgh gqbZ FkhA ¼izLrj 22 vkSj 25½
¼l½ QkStnkjh Vªk;y & ngst gR;k & vfHk;qDrksa dh nks"kflf) vkSj dkjkokl dh ltk /kkjk 498A/304 vkSj 201 IPC vkSj 3@4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr lqukbZ xbZ & vihy nk;j dh xbZ & rdZ fn;k x;k fd foospuk vf/kdkjh }kjk ud'kk utjh rS;kj ugha fd;k x;k vkSj vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh vfo'oluh; gS & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k & tc fd 'ko miyC/k ugha Fkk uk gh e`R;ksÙkj tkap gqbZ Fkh uk gh dksbZ izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh ogk¡ Fkk & rc foospuk vf/kdkjh fdl izdkj ls ud'kk utjh rS;kj djrk & gok esa ud'kk utjh cukus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk & ekU; fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa dksbZ deh ugha gS & vihykfFkZ;ksa ds rdZ cyghu gSaA
¼izLrj 23 ls 26½
[Per: Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.]
It is a case of dowry death in which the criminal law was set into motion by the unfortunate father of the victim. Meharchand son of Rahtu Lal lodged a complaint with the police of P.S. Bhagwanpur which was registered as crime no. 45/95 under sections 498A/304 B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 12.05.1995 at 08:40 pm. The incident took place in the intervening night of 11.05.1995/12.05.1995.
2. Informant Meharchand’s daughter Seema was married to Chandrahas son of Sukhbeer Tyagi according to Hindu customs and rituals. After a few days of marriage, Chandra has along with his parents etc. started harassing Seema (victim) on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. They demanded a motorcycle. The father of the victim could not fulfill this demand. Seema wrote a letter to her father requesting to meet the demand failing which the in-laws could kill her. Father of the victim met his son-in-law but they did nut budge. Chandrahas, his father Sukbeer Singh, relatives Jagdish, Jogender (brother-in-law of victim) and Chandra Prakash (another brother-in-law of victim) insisted upon providing motor-cycle. The father of the victim collected Rs. 2000/-, paid to them and requested them not to harass his daughter. After a few days the in-laws of the victim ousted her from their house. The in-laws asked her to bring Rs. 20,000/- and a motorcycle. A panchayat was convened and it was decided in the panchayat that Seema would stay with her in-laws. The panchayat undertook the responsibility that her in-laws will not harass her. Seema had a son aged two years. Thereafter, the father of the victim received an unstamped letter from her daughter alleging harassment. On 12.05.1995 a fellow villager named Subhash Chandra informed the complainant-father that his daughter Seema has been killed by her in-laws. On hearing this the complainant, along with co-villagers went to the matrimonial house of the deceased only to find that Seema was killed and she was cremated in the cremation ground in the morning, Her husband Chandrahas, father in-law Sukhbeer, relative Jagdish, jeth Jogender, devar Chandraprakash, mother-in-law Pushpa and jethani Savita had killed her because the members of her parental home could not fulfill the demand of dowry. This is the prosecution story in brief.
3. Investigation of the case was initiated. After conducting the investigation, the IO submitted charge-sheet against Chandrahas, Sukhbeer, Jagdish, Yogender alias Jogender, Chandraprakash, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Savita for the offences punishable under sections 498A/304B/201 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. When the case was committed to the court of sessions and prosecution opened its case, the charges against the accused persons were framed for the offences punishable under sections 498A/304B & 201 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution had examined PW 1 Mehar Chand, PW 2 Rikhiram, PW 3 Sagwa Ram, PW 4 Subhash Chandra, PW 5 SI Data Ram, PW 6 doctor R.K.Verma, PW 7 constable Jaiprakash and PW 8 Surendra Singh Chauhan, Deputy S.P. (retd). Statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were taken. They have admitted marriage but denied having demanded any dowry. They have not adduced any evidence in defence.
4. Learned trial court found Yogendra alias Jogender, Jagdish, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Savita guilty of the offences punishable under sections 498A/304B/201 IPC. Trial court awarded each one of them with imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 304B IPC. Two years’ RI to each accused was awarded under section 498A and section 201 IPC as well. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the said order dated 28.08.2002, the accused-appellants have preferred this criminal appeal. Accused Chandrahas (husband), Chandraprakash (devar) and father-in-law Sukhbeer had died and
therefore, the case against them stood abated.
5. PW 1 Me