JUDGMENT
A.K. Shrivasvata, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.8.2002, passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2001 convicting appellants 1 to 3 under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer RI of one year each and fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rs. one thousand each) in default, two months RI and convicting appellant No. 4 under Section 304B of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer seven years RI, the appellants have knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Nisha (hereinafter referred as to the ‘deceased)) got married with Yatendra Singh @ Kallu. The accused persons were not satisfied by the dowry given by parents of the deceased and after the marriage, they made demand of dowry and started ill-treating the deceased. The deceased was pressurized to bring dowry. The deceased when used to come to her parents house used to tell her parents that she is being ill-treated on account of insufficient dowry. It is further case of the prosecution that Rama Devi who is younger sister of deceased got married after four years of the marriage of the deceased and in that marriage, parents of the deceased gave scooter and television set, as a result of which, the accused became annoyed and made a demand of television set and scooter. She was also pacified that in case, her parents will not satisfy the demand of television set and scooter, they will not allow her to live in the house. All these facts were narrated by the deceased to her parents at their house but on account of paucity of funds, Anokhe Singh (P.W. 2) (father of the deceased) could not satisfy the demand, as a result of which, accused persons again started their cruelsome behaviour towards the deceased. On account of cruelsome behaviour of the appellants, the deceased was living with her parents. On 27.7.2000, the accused Yatendra Singh went to the house of his father-in-law and asked the deceased to accompany him. At that juncture, the parents of the deceased were not in the house and her younger sister was present. Despite the deceased resisted, the accused Yatendra Singh over powered and took her forcibly. On 5.2.2000, one boy namely Shatrughan of the village of accused persons came to the house of the parents of the deceased and told them that on 4.2.2000, the deceased has passed away in village Motipura which is her nuptial house. On receiving this sad information, parents of the deceased went to the house of the accused persons where, they did not find the accused persons as lock was inserted in the house. The village people told them that the cremation of the deceased has been done. The accused persons did not send any information to the parents of the deceased in regard to her death. On 4.2.2000, the deceased admitted in the District Hospital in Bhind and was brought by her brother-in-law (Devar) Lokendra Singh. The deceased was semi unconscious and in the night, she passed away. Eventually, the ward boy of the Hospital Chakresh Kumar went to the police station along with a memorandum of the doctor and informed the police in regard to the death of the deceased. In this manner, the police arrived in the Hospital and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. The viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent for chemical examination. In the report, presence of aluminium phosphate was affirmed.
3. The investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested accused persons and after doing needful, a charge sheet was submitted in the competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session from where, it was received by Trial Court for the trial.
4. The Trial Court on examining the chargesheet, framed charges punishable under Section 304B of I.P.C. and in the alternative framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 120B of I.P.C. The accused persons were further charged under Section 498A of I.P.C. All the accused adjured their guilt and pleaded their innocence. Their defence is of maladroit implication.
5. In Order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and placed Exs. P/1 to P/6 documents on record. In their defence, the accused persons examined one Rajendra Singh as (D.W. 1).
6. The Trial Court on scrutiny of evidence, came to hold that appellant Nos. 1 to 3 committed offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and the charge in that regard against them was found to be proved. The Trial Court further came to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt under Section 304B of I.P.C. The alternative, charges under Section 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 120B of I.P.C. were also not found to be proved. The Trial Court on the basis of evidence, came to hold that the appellant No. 4 Kallu @ Yatendra Singh committed offence under Section 304B of I.P.C. and eventually, convicted him and passed the sentence which, I have mentioned hereinabove, hence, this appeal by the accused persons.
7. It has been contended by Mr. Madhukar Kulshreshtha and Sushree Nutan Saxena learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all possible doubt. There is no clinching evidence in order to prove the charges and hence, the Trial Court erred in law in convicting appellants.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Mukund Bhardwaj learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment.
9. After hearing heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. In order to prove the charge under Section 304B of I.P.C. against appellant No. 4 Kallu @ Yatendra Singh, the prosecution is required to prove that the death of deceased was caused by burns or bodily injuries or has occurred otherwise then under normal circumstances within seven years of the marriage. The prosecution is further required to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband or in connection with any demand of dowry. In order to prove charge under Section 498A of I.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove that the husband or relative of the husband of the deceased subjected the deceased to cruelty.
11. Curia advisari vult is that whether there is convincing evidence in order to bring aforesaid offence under the clutches of Section 304B of I.P.C., against appellant No. 4 Kallu @ Yatendra Singh under Section 498A of I.P.C. against appellant Nos. 1 to 3.
12. Appellant No. 1 Janki Bai is mother-in-law of the deceased, No. 2 Lokendra Singh is brother-in-law, No. 3 Mahavir Singh is the father-in-law and No. 4 Kallu @ Yatendra Singh is her husband. On the complainant side, (P.W. 2) Anokhe Singh is the father of the deceased, (P.W. 4) Kusuma Devi is the mother, (P.W. 5) Sonu is sister and (P.W. 6) Daroga Singh is the cousin brother of the deceased. Before this Court examine the evidence of the parties, it would be necessary to mention here that the deceased died an unnatural death and in that regard, Ex. P/6 dated 29.12.2000 which is viscera report of the deceased, throw sufficient light in which, the presence of aluminium phosphate has been affirmed.
13. It is no more in dispute that the deceased died on 4.2.2000. The date of her marriage is 7.6.1993. Thus, within seven years, she died an unnatural death.
14. Anokhe Singh, who is father of the deceased has been examined by the prosecution as (P.W. 2). He has stated that the deceased got married with accused Yatendra Singh on 7.6.1993. In the marriage, for the best of his ability, he gave dowry. But the accused persons were not satisfied by the items which he gave in the marriage and after 8-10 days of the marriage, when deceased came to his house, she stated that the accused persons are not satisfied by the dowry. After four years of marriage of the deceased somewhere in the year 1997, his another daughter Rama Devi got married and in the dowry, he gave scooter and television set to her (Rama Devi). On this cause, the accused persons became annoyed and started saying to the deceased that since, your father has given scooter and television set to your younger sister, they should also give television set and scooter to them and if they will not give these articles, they will not allow the deceased to live in the house. It has been specifically stated by this witness that the demand was made by all the four accused persons. After marriage of younger daughter, the deceased went to the house of accused persons and when she came back after some time, she was told by the accused persons that in case, television set and scooter is not given, they may put her life to an end. Thereafter, he went to the house of the accused persons and requested when he had to marry two more daughters and now, he cannot satisfy the demand. According to this witness, the deceased told him that she was being harassed and subjected to cruelty by the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the husband. Thereafter, this witness has stated that on 27.1.2000, his son-in-law (accused No. 4 Yatendra Singh) came to his house and at that juncture, he and his wife were not present. Younger daughter Sonu and the deceased were present in the house. Accused Yatendra Singh insisted the deceased to accompany him but she resisted and told that she will not go. Her younger daughter Sonu also stated that at present, nobody is in the house and, therefore, it was requested to Yatendra Singh not to take away the deceased. But forcibly, he took away the deceased. After only 9 days on 5.2.2000, one boy of Motipura came and stated that the deceased had died on 4.2.2000. All of them went to the house of accused persons and despite being asked to the accused persons, they did not say how the deceased passed away. The villagers told him that the deceased was cremated on 4.2.2000. This witness was cross-examined at length but he remained embedded in his version. True, there are certain contradictions and omissions in police statement Ex. D/1 but they are minor. If the police statement Ex. D/1 of this witness is read in proper perspective, it can be gathered that he has stated the same facts which he has stated in the Court. In his police statement Ex. D/1, he has specifically stated that in the marriage of his younger daughter, he gave a television set and scooter and this made a cause to the accused persons for annoyance and, they insisted the deceased to bring scooter and television set and on not satisfying the demand, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. In police statement, he has also stated that deceased told him that this dowry may take her life.
15. Similar type of statement was given by Kusuma Bai (P.W. 4) who is mother of the deceased. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that this witness is a tutored witness. In para 18 of his statement, she has stated that his Counsel stated to her that her statement which was recorded is in the file and she has to give the same statement. Even if, she has stated so, it cannot be said that she is a tutored witness because, according to her, the Counsel only told him that her statement is in the file and she may give the same statement. This witness has also stated that on account of giving scooter and television set to her younger daughter accused persons became annoyed and made demand of scooter and television set and on not fulfilling the demand, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. This witness has also stated that all the accused persons harassed and treated with cruelty with the deceased on account of non-fulfilling the demand of scooter and television set and this was told to her by the deceased.
16. Another witness Sonu (P.W. 5) is an important witness because, when appellant No. 4 Yatendra Singh came to take away deceased from the house of her parents at that juncture, she alone was present in the house along with the deceased. This witness is the younger sister of the deceased. She has specifically stated that the accused persons were harassing the deceased and their behaviour was cruelsome. The deceased happens to tell her all these happenings to her whenever she comes to the house of her parents. On 27th January, the accused Yatendra Singh came to the house, her parents were not present at that time in the house and she insisted that when her parents will come, he may take away the deceased. But appellant No. 4 Yatendra Singh did not care and forcibly took away the deceased and also told the deceased that “touch this house lastly because, now, you will not see this house” (IS GHAR KE PAIR CHHOO LO PHIR KABHI DEKHNE KA MAUKA NAHIN MILEGA). This piece of evidence of this witness indicates that the accused persons were adament to obtain dowry and for the non-satisfaction, life of the deceased may put to an end. This fact has also been mentioned in the police case diary statement Ex. D/3 of this witness. The statement of Daroga Singh (P.W. 6) who is the cousin brother of the deceased is also reliable and he has corroborated the evidence of Anokhe Singh, Kusuma Devi and Sonu.
17. Thus, there is clear cogent and trustworthy evidence of mother, father younger sister and cousin brother of the deceased against accused persons. From all the angles, the evidence of these persons cannot be said to be unbelievable. On the other hand, the evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy. The learned trial Judge rightly by placing reliance on the statements of these witnesses, has convicted the appellants. I have given my anxious and bestowed consideration to the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court and I do not find any error in the judgment of the Trial Court coming to the conclusion that the accused persons are guilty. Thus, by this judgment, I hereby extend my stamp of approval to the reasons and the judgment of the Trial Court. There is no substance in the statement of learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. The question is why the evidence of these witnesses should be disbelieved. I have no scintilla of doubt that the evidence of these witnesses are worth reliable and I arrive to the conclusion that the appellant has committed offence for which, they have been convicted by the Trial Court.
18. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have been convicted under Section 498A of I.P.C. and appellant No. 4 has been convicted under Section 304B of I.P.C. and looking to the sentence awarded to them, I am of the view that the Trial Court has already taken a lenient view in awarding sentence. Thus, the question of further reducing sentence does not arise. Appellant No. 4, who is the husband of the deceased, he has been convicted under Section 304B of I.P.C. and has been sentenced by minimum sentence of seven years and the same cannot be reduced.
19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal as filed by the appellants being without merit, is hereby dismissed. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender to suffer remaining part pf their sentence.