JUDGMENT
K.C. Gupta, J.
1.
This Criminal Appeal has been directed by Dev
Karan, accused against the judgment and order dated
23.7.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurukshetra, whereby he found him guilty and convicted him
under Sections 498-A and 308 IPC and sentenced him to one
and a half years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under
Section 498-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months; to
undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under
Section 308 IPC. In default of payment of fine he was
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Out of
the fine realised Rs. 5,000/- were ordered to be paid to
Sunita Devi, PW-7. However, the substantive sentences
were ordered to run concurrently.
2.
Briefly stated, the facts are that Sunita Devi
d/o Roop Chand, complainant, was married with Dev Karan,
appellant, at Village Dudla about one year prior to the
occurrence. Roop Chand had spent upon the marriage beyond
his means but the appellant was not satisfied with the
dowry given and right from the day one, started harassing
her on account of dowry. He put up a demand for scooter
or Rs. 25,000/- in cash but the father of Sunita Devi could
not pay the same or provide a scooter.
3.
It is next alleged that on one occasion, the
appellant tried to strangulate Sunita Devi, as a result of
which blood had flown from her eyes, mouth and anus and on
alarm raised by her, she was rescued by her neighbours.
On other occasion, the appellant had tried to give poison
to her.
4.
Roop Chand, father of Sunita Devi, approached
the police but the police did not register the case and
ultimately he approached the Chief Minister of Haryana and
on his orders, the case was registered under Section 498A
IPC.
5.
PW-10 Simru Ram, ASI to Police Station Sadar,
Thanesar, conducted investigation. He went to Village
Aurangabad on 15.7.1995 and recorded the statement of
Shakuntla Devi wife of Roop Chand, on 19.7.1995, Roop
Chand, Sunita Devi and Shakuntla Devi visited Police
Station, Pipli and he alongwith them went to Village
Dudhla and recorded the statements of Darshana Devi,
Phoolo Devi and Ram Dhari. He also prepared rough site
plan, Ex.PE. The appellant and his co-accused were
arrested.
6.
After the completion of the investigation, the
challan was put up in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
7.
Having made out a prima-facie case, the
appellant was charged under Sections 498-A/308 IPC, while
his co-accused were charged under Section 498-A IPC, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8.
In order to prove the allegations, the
prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Smt. Darshana Devi,
Phoolo Devi and Ram Dhari were given up as won over.
9.
After the closure of the prosecution evidence,
the statements of the appellant and his co-accused were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where they denied the
allegations of the prosecution and stated that Roop Chand
wanted Dev Karan, appellant, to shift to Yamuna Nagar
alongwith Sunita Devi and he promised to arrange some
employment for him and Sunita Devi but Dev Karan refused
and as such, falsely implicated in this case.
10.
After hearing the learned PP for the State and
the defence counsel, the Additional Sessions Judge, vide
his judgment dated 23.2.1996 found Dev Karan Guilty under
Sections 498-A and 308 IPC, while he acquitted the
remaining persons giving benefit of doubt and sentenced
Dev Karan as stated above vide order of even date.
11.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, Dev
Karan, accused, has filed the present appeal.
12.
I have heard Shri R.S. Mamli, counsel for the
appellant, Shri Sudhir Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for the State
and carefully gone through the record.
13.
PW-7 Sunita Devi had stated that the appellant
tried to strangulate her with a cord and as a result of
strangulation, blood had flown from her eyes, mouth, ears and
anus and she cried and attracted Phoolo and her
daughter-in-law. This occurrence, according to her, had
taken place on 25.3.1995 at 12 Noon. Smt. Phoolo and her
daughter-in-law have not been produced to corroborate the
version as stated by Sunita Devi as they were given up as
won over. The only inference is that if they had been
produced, they would not have supported the
prosecution version. PW-3 Dr. Arvind Gupta, Medical
Superintendent of General Charitable Hospital, Village
Jourian, District Yamuna Nagar, stated that Smt. Sunita
Devi, daughter of Roop Chand, visited his hospital on
31.3.1995 and he found redness in both of he eyes which
was alleged to be caused by strangulation. He further
stated that the said redness could be due to
strangulation. He did not state that blood had come from
her eyes, mouth, ears or anus. Simply because there was
redness in the eyes of Sunita Devi, it cannot be said that
the same was due to strangulation. Admittedly, he did not
find any mark of violence on the neck of Sunita Devi.
14.
PW-10 Investigating Officer had admitted in his
statement that during investigation it had not come to his
notice that the appellant had tried to strangulate Sunita
Devi and blood had flown from her eyes, ears, mouth and
anus. Thus, the allegation regarding strangulation
appears to be false and it is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, the appellant is given benefit of doubt and
is acquitted under Section 308 IPC.
15.
Now, further question to be seen is whether the
appellant had committed an offences punishable under
Section 498-A IPC. PW-7 Sunita Devi categorically
stated that soon after the marriage, the appellant had
started mal-treating her on account of demand of
additional dowry i.e. scooter or Rs. 25,000/- in cash but
her parents could not pay the same and as such, she was
constantly harassed. Her evidence is supported by PW-8
Roop Chand. Thus, it is proved that she was being
harassed on account of demand of dowry and thus, he has
been rightly convicted under Section 498-A IPC.
16.
Counsel for the appellant has not pressed the
appeal on merits as far as Section 498-A IPC is concerned.
He contended that the appellant had remained in custody
for about one year and three months and as such, he be
released after taking into consideration the above
mentioned imprisonment.
17.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that the appellant has been
suffering the agony of the trial for the last about 8
years, I take a lenient view and sentence him to the
imprisonment already undergone. However, the appellant
has undertaken to deposit the fine within one month. It
the fine is not paid within the stipulated time, then he
will suffer one month R.I.
18.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.