1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants Ram Prakash alias Pappu, Shyam Lal, Bhura and Smt. Munni Devi against the judgement and order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the Session Judge, Hardoi in S.T. No. 398 of 1992, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , P.S. Kotwali Dehat, district Hardoi. By the impugned judgement & order learned trial court held guilty to the accused appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them for RI of seven years under Section 304-B IPC for one year's RI, under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Separately, Smt. Munni Devi was sentenced for simple imprisonment for the aforesaid terms for all the offences as above. All the sentences of the accused persons are to run concurrently. One accused Kumari Suman was acquitted by the trial court from the charges levelled against her. Learned AGA has not contended that any appeal has been filed against the acquittal order.
2. As per prosecution case, for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, daughter of the informant Sheo Mangal, namely Smt. Suman married with accused Ram Prakash was being harassed and tortured and treated cruelly by the accused-persons who are related with each other. When their demand was not being fulfilled also soon before her death, Kerosene Oil was sprinkled by the accused -appellants on her body and she was put on fire. She received burn injuries resulting in her death in the hospital. An FIR was lodged against the accused persons and after the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them for their trial under the aforesaid provisions of IPC and D.P. Act. After taking cognizance in the matter, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session where the accused persons were charged to face the trial but they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.
3. On behalf of the prosecution seven witnesses were examined to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons. P.W. 1 Sheo Mangal, Father of the deceased/informant of the case ; P.W. 2 Brother of the informant Satish Chandra Gupta have narrated the facts detailed in the FIR and tried to support the prosecution case. P.W. 3 Ram Das has partly supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4 Head Constable Shri Krishna prepared the Chick Report on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant and entered the case in the G.D. P.W.5 Mohan Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case and P.W.-6 Sahadev Singh Rathore prepared Panchayatnama of the dead body and other papers and P.W.7 Ram Sunder Mishra is the witness of the fact that he visited the spot after lodging the FIR and prepared the memos regarding the articles recovered from the spot.
4. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons have not denied the marriage of Ram Prakash with the deceased but they have stated that marriage has taken place ten years before her death and they have denied the rest allegations and the prosecution evidence. Accused Shyam Lal has further stated that he was doing business with the informant and his Brother Satish in partnership. Rs. 25,000/- of the informant were due on him. Some altercation was taken place between them due to non-payment of this amount and only on this cause, this false case has been lodged. He has further stated that when the deceased caught fire from the burning Stope, she was taken for treatment in the hospital b y them. Ram Prakash, her husband was living separately from the last 5 to 6 years and parents of the deceased were informed regarding the occurrence by him. No evidence in defence oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused persons.
5. After hearing the parties counsel and perusing the record, the trial court held guilty to the accused appellants for the charges levelled against them and sentenced them as above. Aggrieved by this judgement and order, the instant appeal has been filed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
7. Appellants are near relatives of the husband of deceased, it is not disputed. Appellant Ram Prakash alias Pappu is her husband, Shyam Lal and Smt. Munni Devi are her Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law, while Bhura is Dewar (Brother-in-Law) of the deceased. Kumari Suman (acquitted by the trial court) is Nanand of the deceased. On the other hand it is also not in dispute that deceased Smt. Suman was daughter of the informant Sheo Mangal and Satish Chandra P.W.-2 is Brother of Sheo Mangal. Another disputed facts are that Smt. Suman, Daughter of Sheo Mangal, (the informant) was married to Ram Prakash and at the time of marriage age of Smt. Suman was about 20 years. She received injuries by burn in her matrimonial house in the night of 4/5 January, 1992 and she was brought to hospital by the accused persons for her treatment. She was treated there for certain period but later on she could not survive. Her injuries were examined by Doctor Gupta before her treatment was started. Injury report prepared by Dr. Gupta Exbt. Ka-14 is available on record showing that she was having 100 % burn injuries of first to fourth degree on all over her body with a smell of Kerosene Oil from her body. She was unconscious at the time of her examination by the Doctor and her general condition was poor and injuries found on her body were fresh. After her death, post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by the Doctor V.K.Gupta. He prepared the post-mortem report i.e. Exbt. Ka-15. Genuineness of these documents was admitted to the accused persons and formal proof of the same was dispensed with by their counsel. He had also found 100 % injuries on her all over body and he opined that cause ofher death was anti-mortem injuries, loss of Plasma and shock due to injuries. It is also undisputed fact that investigation of the case was handed overto Circle Officer Mohan Singh P.W.-5 and after concluding the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by him against the accused persons named in the FIR showing that prima-facie case is made out against them. Defence case is that while she (deceased) was preparing Tea on Stove accidentally she caught fire resulting injuries to her and during the treatment of injures she died.
8. To establish its case, prosecution examined three witnesses of the fact, P.W.-1 and P.W.2 Sheo Mangal and Satish Chandra are Father and real Uncle of the deceased. Both have supported the case of demand of dowry made and pressed by the accused appellants and torture, cruel treatment and harassment of the deceased by the accused appellants. Demand of Television, Golden Chain and Watch was made by the accused appellants as per statement of P.W.-1. He had further stated that about one month's before here death accused Ram Prakash alias Pappu, husband of the deceased came to his house where the deceased was staying as the demand of the accused persons was not being fulfilled. Again he pressed their earlier demand but the informant shown his inability to fulfill the same. Ram Prakash leaving his wife in her parents house came back to his home. Again when the efforts were made by the informant, accused Bhura was sent to bring the deceased from her parents house about 15 days before her death. He bring her from her parental house and when the informant was forced again pressed he had undertaken to fulfill their demand in near future.
9. He further stated that as the demand of the accused persons was not being fulfilled so in between night of 4/5.01.1992 she was done to death by the accused appellants by pouring Kerosene Oil on her body and putting her on fire. As per his on oath version whenever she comes to her parents house, she always complained with her cruel treatment by the accused persons as their demand was not being fulfilled. P.W. 2, Brother of the informant had supported his on oath version. He had further stated that on 05.01.1992 when he was at Railway Station, Anil Kumar, a resident of the village of the accused persons met him. He told him that his Niece has been put on fire by the accused persons. When he went to the house of the accused persons/appellants he found that they were not there. He was informed that they are in hospital for treatment of his Niece. He went to the hospital and saw that her Niece was being treated by the Doctor. He informed his Brother /informant after going to the Bus Stand through one Virendra who met him there and on his information when his brother along with other family members reached at the hospital Smt. Suman had already expired.
10 .One another witness Ram Das, P.W.-3 was examined on behalf of the prosecution. From his statement, it can be said that he had not supported the case of the prosecution with all force but from his statement reveals that it was in his knowledge that there was some dispute between the families of the informant and the accused appellants and this dispute was of some Len-den. It is also clear from his statement that accused Shyam Lal was not intending to send the daughter of the informant to her parents house and only on his intervention he had permitted her to go to her parents house. Later on again Shyam Lal was not intending to bring her and only on his intervention when the complaint was made by the informant to him daughter of the informant was brought back to her matrimonial house.
11. Learned AGA argued that statement of this witness corroborates the case of the prosecution that on some Len-den, there was dispute between the two families and as per prosecution case, this Len-den was matter of demand of dowry. Nothing in the statements of P.W. -3 is there from which support the case of the accused can be gathered.
12. As per defence case when she was preparing Tea in the night, all of sudden she caught fire and received burn injuries. No evidence in defence to support this case of the accused either oral or documentary was adduced on their behalf. It is not the case of the accused persons that at that time she was all alone in her matrimonial house. Had it been accidental fire case, definitely on her hue and cry for her rescue someone from the family, atleast, her husband must run. Possibility of 100 % burn injury on all over her body in such a short period was not possible. In attempt of saving her someone from the family must have received the burn injuries but it was not found as such in the matter. There was smell of Kerosene Oil from her body reported by the Doctor in his report Exbt. Ka-14. If these injuries might have received by her from burning Stove, smell of Kerosene Oil from her body will not be there, as such opined by the learned trial court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, these finding of the trial court cannot be said without any force. None amongst the four accused appellants had dared to appear in witness Box to face the cross-examination and to support the defence case to the reason best known to them. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be believed that she caught fire accidentally and received injuries as per defence version.
13. On behalf of the accused persons a plea was taken that her death had not taken place within seven years of her marriage. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they stated that marriage had taken place ten years before her death. No documentary evidence in support of their this case was adduced. No witness was also examined in support. Since beginning from the FIR, it is on record that her marriage took place in July, 1990. She was about 22 years of age at the time of her death. It is not the case of the accused-appellants that during her minority, she was married with the accused Ram Prakash.
14. Moreover, P.W. 3 Ram Das has also stated that marriage had taken place before four years only and he was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused on this point. No suggestion was made to any of the witnesses of the prosecution also about the marriage had taken place ten years before her death. At the late stage of the case in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the first time, they have taken this plea. Learned AGA argued that with the help of legal mind they have tried to develop their this case as such and this argument is not without force in the facts and circumstances of the case. This defence cannot be taken established on record.
13. Challenging their conviction on behalf of the accused-appellants it was argued that the accused-appellant Ram Prakash and the deceased were living separately from other family members from the last 5 to 6 years. For the first time, this fact was brought on record in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Shyam Lal. Accused Ram Prakash has also not stated as such in his statement. No documentary or oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused-appellant in support of their this case. Where they were separately living, it is also not clear from the statement of Shyam Lal. As per case of the accused persons parents of the deceased were informed by them regarding this accident. Again no evidence is there on record to support their this case. How and in what manner they informed the parents of the deceased, it is also not clear. As per prosecution case, P.W. 2 Sathish Chandra had received the information from one Anil (a resident of the village of the deceased) and Satish Charndra informed his Borther Sheo Mangal / the informant about the occurrence through one Virendra who met him on Bus Stand, it is the case of the prosecution since very beginning. Again challenge to the prosecution story was given on behalf of the accused personsappellants that Shoe Mangal and Sathish Chandra (P.W.1 and P.W. 2) were doing business in partnership with the accused Shyam Lal. An amount of Rs.25,000/- of the informant was due on Shyam Lal. Some altercation took place between them for non payment of this amount and only due to this reason, this false report has been lodged. No evidence in support of this case was adduced on their behalf. If they were engaged in some business, possibility cannot be ruled out that there should be some documentary evidence with the accused Shyam Lal in this regard and several persons must he knowing this fact. Why they have not dared to examine any independent witness or tried to file some documentary evidence to support their this case, it is also not explained in their behalf.
14. Learned AGA argued that all these defence pleas were taken by the accused-appellants only with the help of legal mind and they have no route and case of the accused persons cannot be believed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this argument of the learned AGA cannot be said without without force.
15. It was argued on behalf of the accused persons that if they have put her on fire, they will take her for treatment in the hospital where she succumbed to the injuries, it is not probable. Learned AGA argued that there is explanation of this fact also in the evidence of the prosecution. When the neighborers reached at the house of the accused persons where the deceased was receiving burn injuries, only on hue and cry of the neighborers, accused persons were forced to take her to the hospital. If she had accidentally caught fire, why the accused persons had not informed the Police immediately after admitting her in the hospital, it is also not explained on behalf of the accused persons. So by this fact that they had admitted her in the hospital for her treatment, it cannot be taken that they have not committed the offence of dowry death. In case 2002 Cr.L.J. 2774 Umesh v. State, it was held that on the sole basis that accused persons get admitted the deceased in the hospital for her treatment, it cannot be held that they are not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that co-accused Kumari Suman has been acquitted by the trial court on the same evidence and no specific role has been assigned to Father-in-Law, Mother-in-Law and Brother-in-Law (Dewar) of the deceased. From the statement of the P.W. 3 Ram Das, it is clear that Shyam Lal was not permitted the daughter of the informant to go her parent parents' house and only on the intervention of this witness, he had permitted her to go to her parent's house and again only on his intervention, she was brought back to her In-laws House. Accused Bhura went to bring the deceased from her parents' house and from the statement of P.W.-1, it reveals that he had prayed Bhura not to harass his daughter for nonfulfillment of their demand of dowry. Section 304 B IPC deals with the offence of dowry death which reads as follows :
"304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, such death shall be called' dowry death', and as such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused here death. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides as follows :
"113B. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation : For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"
17. Above provisions show that irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connection with the death or not , it shall be presumed to have committed the dowry death provided that the other ingredients mentioned are satisfied. Giving reasons, Kumari Suman was acquitted by the trial court. There are allegations against all the appellants about the demand of dowry and harassment by them of the deceased, so the appellants are not entitled for the
relief which was granted to Kumari Suman.
18. From the above all discussions, it is clear that false story has been developed by the accused persons in their defence that accidentally the deceased caught fire and received injuries. As per statements of the witnesses, it is also clear that after the death of Smt. Suman in the hospital, they had put off her jeweleries and escaped from their. None of them was present when the Panchayatnama of the dead body was being prepared by the Investigating Officer. Although they resides in the same house. Shyam Lal has tried to take a plea of separate living from the deceased and her husband. Her death took place beyond seven years of marriage, they have also tried to develop this case without any basis. Wrongly, they tried to develop the case that they informed to parents of the deceased about the incident and a case without merit was taken by Shyam Lal that due to business dispute and non-payment of Rs. 25,000/- by him , this false report has been lodged. This all shows that their subsequent conduct consistent only with their guilt. Absence of sufficient explanation of burn injuries and cooked false case about the burn injuries on the body of the deceased gives only a possible inference that they participated in the crime. Burden to prove contrary lies on them since it was within their special knowledge.
19. Strong motive for crime to the accused is proved by the prosecution because the deceased and her parents failed to fulfill their dowry demand. False defence has been taken by the accused persons. The deceased died with unnatural homicidal death within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial house. She was in care of the accused-appellants at her matrimonial house. Since beginning demand of dowry and her harassment for non-fulfillment of demand soon before death is proved. A special protection of her life and property was required from the accused persons/appellants. In 2005 SCC (Crl.) 511 Kamlesh vs. State, apex Court has laid down as
follows :
" Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home for the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories therewith a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her groom's house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter-in-law, but a daughter in fact. Alas ! the alarming rise in the number of involving harassment to the newly wed girls for dowry shatters the dreams. In-laws are characterised to be outlaws for perpetrating terrorism which destroys the matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry, and it is spreading tentacles in every possible direction."
Giving detailed and sufficient reasons, scrutinizing the evidence with panic eyes, learned trial court held guilty to the accused-appellants for the offence for which the accused persons were charged . Already lenient view was taken by the learned Session Judge and almost minimum prescribed sentence was awarded to the accused persons. I do not find any force in the appeal of the accused appellants. Appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the appeal of the accused-appellants Ram Prakash alias Pappu, Shyam Lal, Bhura and Smt. Munni Devi is hereby dismissed. Finding of conviction and order of awarding sentence by the trial court to them is hereby confirmed. Accused persons - appellants are on bail. Their bail are hereby cancelled. They are not present in the Court today. Copy of the judgement along with the record be sent to the trial court to procure their attendance and to send them in jail to serve out the sentence awarded to them. Compliance report be sent by the trial court to this Court, within two months.