Vinod Kumar v. State Of Haryana



 
    
  





!

"#$% & &

'

 #$#($) "#$% '& &

'

*+$#",(-.

&&&// 00.$1 *& 1.1 #2. 3.$.

&&& /#$"

$1
 %  4 5 &


 

Present:

Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

******* 

 6& 1.

Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2011 and the order of sentence of even date passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the appellant was convicted in FIR No.293 dated 02.06.2010 under Section 3041B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years under Section 3041B of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/1 along with default mechanism.

  2.

Briefly, the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the complainant namely Ram Narayan received a call at about 11.00 p.m. on 01.06.2010 from his brother1in1law Mangli that his daughter Kusum had fallen from the roof in her matrimonial home and died. The appellant i.e. husband of the deceased, used to beat the deceased for dowry. He was counselled many times by the complainant as well as other family members, but he remained adamant on his demands. The complainant, his wife Maya and his elder brother Bechain Singh arrived at the spot on the next day and found the dead body of Kusum (wife of the appellant) lying in front of Room No.3 at Gangapuri, the residence of the appellant, with injuries on her head. 3.

The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 3041B of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') [
   


         
     )] was recorded, wherein he pleaded false implication and examined 02 witnesses in his defence. After assessing all the material available on record, learned trial Court passed a guilty verdict against the appellant and sentenced him in the abovementioned terms. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant. 4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Court below has erred in rendering the impugned judgment of conviction, as the

7 prosecution has failed to prove the demand for dowry, so as to breach the threshold of Section 3041B of IPC. There is no evidence on record as to when the demands for Rs.50,000/1 and motorcycle were raised. It is clearly a case of accidental death, as the deceased died by slipping from the roof of the building. The site plan (Ex.PL) clearly reveals that there is a water tap on the roof.

5.

Further, the conviction is solely based on the testimonies of interested witnesses. Some persons, whose names had appeared in the inquest proceedings, were not examined by the prosecution during the trial. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellant1accused. A perusal of the testimony of DW12, namely, Ramesh shows that he never saw the appellant and the deceased quarrelling with each other. Lastly, since the alleged cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased was, in no manner, soon before her death, the ingredients of Section 3041B of IPC are not made out against the appellant. 6.


 learned State counsel submits that the harassment meted out by the appellant has resulted in the death of Kusum, daughter of the complainant and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. The impugned judgment is based on correct appreciation of the facts of the case and does not suffer from any perversity.

7.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the

' marriage between the appellant and deceased1Kusum was solemnized a year prior to the alleged incident, which took place on 01.06.2010. Therefore, the death of the deceased has occurred within 07 years of her marriage. 8.

A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court shows that the appellant has been convicted under Section 3041B of IPC only on the basis of the testimonies of complainant1PW3 Ram Narayan, who is father of the deceased and PW4 Bechain Singh, who is uncle of the deceased. While there is no doubt that the success of the prosecution rests on the quality of evidence and not necessarily its quantity, however, in the present case, the depositions of both these witnesses cannot be said to be of an unimpeachable character and of sterling quality. As per the cross1examination of father of the deceased, he regularly visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, however, no specific date or time has been mentioned as to when the demand for Rs.50,000/1 and motorcycle were raised.

As per the version of the prosecution, the appellant repeatedly demanded that the complainant fulfill his dowry demands, which he refused to accede to, yet not one such particular incident has been brought on record by him. Pertinently, no complaint was ever moved before the police during the subsistence of marriage, which is particularly surprising, given that the deceased was frequently harassed and the complainant was confronted with the demand for dowry multiple times.

9.

The relevant provisions are reproduced below:




      ! "
 !#
#
 #! $ 
%         
 
! 
"$  "
 
&
 " 
!   

# !#%!$ "
##
!
$ & #
!




 
 
!"
! !! $$#$$!'!!'
!#
!$ & $$#!"!&!!( )*+$
 
(  ,   ++      #- 
 '!'

$$&""


 
 .

 #  
/ 2  (  &"" !!$$#+
!  "+ 
"
 " $$
#$
&
# "*
! "+ 
"
 $ (3  

     

     ! 
4 
  +
"" !!! "

!   
   
 #     !    "
 !  #
#%!#+
$"
 


 
    
  !"
!    !      $$ +"+
!!!!( )*+$
 
(,++   
!!$$ &""


 
 5 6
! 
 
$ 7!5   21(3 10.

A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "   # $   %  & '( )*     laid down the ingredients for attracting the offence under Section 3041B of IPC. Speaking through Justice Amitava Roy, the following was held: 82( 



 !!!
!# 

5 7!
! 
 9  ! "


! #
#


8 #! $ 
%    #  
      


"$  "

!

   
&
 " 
!

 
# !#%! $"
##
!
$ & #
! 


 
 
!"
!  !( *** *** *** 0( 
$$"
 $!# #
! $ & 


 
 
!"
!


++&$#$ !"
! !


 
  ""

 
 # 


( 11.

Recently, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in  + , " + # $   -.& ( (

/  ( 01, has held that to attract the presumption under Section 1131B of the Indian Evidence Act, it is necessary to prove a case of cruelty and harassment with regard to dowry against the husband or his family. Further, merely because the alleged incident has occurred within seven years of marriage, the provision of Section 3041B of IPC is automatically attracted. Speaking through Justice Rajesh Bindal, the following was observed:

(/
%
!
  
56 7
! 


  6
! 
)& !
/  
+"+ 
 !! !
+    !%!"
   *!#$9- '

(: 7 $ 
!$$

+
!

++  
 5 7!
! 


   /  &  ++
!!      +"+ 
  



 + 
 +$$ 
! 
 


  
 5
 $    "2 3 $    "2& '( *   1) 4 '( *  '* 5
!!
/"  $   7 3/" 6  $  

9 7& '(  * 8  8

4 '(  * 8  '*

85( 6
$+

"
 7++
!! 
      
 $ 
! 
    !  !  
!  
 5 7! !"& #%!"
$


 
 !"
!

!
# !
! 
! 
 #+&!#+ 
#
!
#$ !#  
!  
$  
   7   $$  +"     !"" !


 !!
!  


 /(6 ! ++&$ $ !  
  7
6$  $ / $ 9:   / 36$  $ / $ 9:   /& '(

*   () 4 (

 '* ()5 

 +&  
  
 5 7!
 "

! 
 


  4 !# #$ !      '
 #     !'     #%!$
!"
'


 
  !"
! !'(

5(  
$$+  
 !#& " 
4 !#*"
!

! $$
+"+ 

# ! 
++$$
$ &
+ 
 "+&
  
!+


!;++$$
(< 12.

Learned trial Court has inferred that because the complainant is a rickshaw puller, which made it impossible for him to satisfy the persistent demands of dowry raised by the appellant, the deceased must have been continuously tortured and harassed, resulting in her death. This interpretation of learned trial Court cannot be the basis of convicting the appellant especially in the absence of any other evidence to corroborate the factum of dowry harassment. The financial constraints of the complainant may have made it difficult to satisfy dowry demand, if there were any, but to say that

: the deceased suffered because of this is far1fetched and forced. Also, as per the testimony of DW12 Ramesh, he never saw the appellant and the deceased quarrelling with each other or the appellant ever tormenting the deceased on the pretext of dowry. Learned trial Court has not afforded sufficient reasons to discard this testimony since there is nothing to suggest that the said witness had an ulterior motive or that the testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

13.

Lastly, one of the preconditions to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused under Section 3041B of IPC is to satisfy that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. Since the allegations of harassment lack specificity and no date and time has been mentioned with respect to the alleged occurrences of dowry harassment by the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has miserably failed to breach the threshold of Section 3041B of IPC. Thus, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 3041B of IPC are not made out against the appellant1accused. 14.

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that learned counsel for the appellant has been successful in establishing his case. Hence, the present appeal is allowed and consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2011 and the order of sentence of even date passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, are hereby set aside. 15.

The appellant stands acquitted of the charges framed against

 him in the present case and his bail/surety bonds, if any, shall be discharged. 16.

All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

 ;

 < 04.10.2024   & 
 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No