Sham Sunder v. State Of Haryana And ORS.
CRR-1676-2008
Reserved on: 08.05.2024
Pronounced on: 13.05.2024
!"!#$ Ms. Vanika Johar, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Legal Aid Counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 Mr. Vikas Bharadwaj, AAG Haryana
%
1.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 08.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paipat in FIR No. 68 dated 18.08.2006 registered under Sections 304-B, 34 IPC at Police Station Bapoli. 2.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the marriage between the deceased Baby alias Babita and respondent no.2 was solemnised on 16.03.2004. On 16.08.3006, the deceased died by suicide by hanging, at her matrimonial home. The family of the deceased was already present at the spot when ASI Krishan Kumar reached there. The father of the deceased namely Jai Parkash, informed the police that the deceased was suffering from depression. However, on 18.08.2006, the petitioner- maternal uncle of the deceased presented an
application before the SHO, Police Station Bapoli claiming that the deceased was harassed on account of dowry by respondent No.2- husband, respondent No.3- father-in-law and respondent No.4- mother-in-law along with her sistersin-law and brothers-in-law. The respondents were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and a motorcycle from the parents of the deceased. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that PW1-petitioner/complainant has categorically stated that on 15.08.2006, the deceased was given beatings by the respondents-accused. The narrative of the petitioner was corroborated by PW2- Vidya Devi, aunt (bua) of the deceased, as well as PW3-Ram Piary, mother of the deceased. The report of the investigating officer, who appeared as PW7, reflects that the deceased was under a lot of pressure on account of not having a child. Moreover, PW9- Dr. Rekha Verma, who conducted the post mortem on the deceased categorically stated that the deceased was carrying a nine month old baby. As such, the deceased died due to harassment meted out to her on account of dowry.
4.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that the deceased was under mental stress for not having a child as well as the fact that respondent No.2husband remained ill and was unemployed. The family of the respondentsaccused was in a difficult financial position and struggled to make ends meet, which also added to the stress of the deceased. Further, the report submitted by PW7-investigating officer indicates that the deceased died of suicide due to the mental stress faced by her and the accused had no role to play in the said incident. Statements of the parents and relatives of the deceased as well as
& other villagers was also recorded wherein they have stated that the respondentsaccused were not involved in the suicide of the deceased. Admittedly, the dead body of the deceased was also cremated in the presence of her parents and other relatives.
5.
As far as the allegations of demand of dowry are concerned, PW1petitioner/complainant stated that the respondents-accused started harassing the deceased after 1-2 months of marriage, while PW2-Vidya Devi stated that the harassment began about one year from the incident. As such, there is no coherence in the prosecution case regarding unlawful demands of dowry that could inspire confidence of the Court.
!
"
#
$ % & '(#)
'(
#
*
+
'
!
,-./
0 %
.2
)(- *
!" # $
! " # $% &' "
" %&'() * $ +"
"! , "
3#)
4 ,-./
1
5
#'
%
-
,
!" # $
()!( " *+% % ,% -.,
..%() * / ,
"
" 0
, "
" ,
%&'() * $
+" " ! 1 ), "
3, &
4 ,-./ 0%1 ,/
0 &
,#
5"
(
,# 61
4 ,-./
1
4 ,/
&
4 ,-./ " !/0" !/1 $% '.&2$% ' $' - 3 ,!4
" 50,!4
" 51$% '66
2$% '6$' 63 0 1
4 ,-./
1
4 ,/
& 0
1 4" ","78 ,04" ","78 ,1$%
'%&2%
$'%&3
4 ,-./
1
+
.
+
9.
Moreover, the power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanor, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses. (See H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka,
Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division bench of this Court in the judgment passed in State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others CRM-A No.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. 10.
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned Court below which warrants any interference. As such, there is no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
11.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit.
.2
" , , " )
*
& ( '
9
3 +"4 5 46 3
5 46