JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. State of Haryana is in appeal against the judgment recording the verdict of ‘not guilty’ by Shri N. K. Jain, learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, dated August 8,1991, Father and son, namely, Shiv Nath Rai and Keshav Kumar were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution version was unfolded by Shri M. L. Sehgal, father of deceased Sneh Lata, through an application moved by him on August 22, 1990 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar, on which formal F. I. R. Ex. PA/1 came to be registered on August 24, 1990, in Police Station Civil Lines Hisar. Shri Sehgal mentioned in his application aforesaid that his daughter Sneh Lata aged about 25/26 years, was married in May, 1984, to Keshav Kumar son of Shri Shiv Nath Rai Kukreja. On the night intervening 18/19th August, 1990, lie received a telephonic message at about 3.30 hours that his daughter had caught fire while boiling milk for the child and that he should reach al the earliest at Hisar. Again at about 4.10 hours another message was received that his daughter had committed suicide by burning herself. He along with his wife, brother and others proceeded by car and reached Hisar at about 10 hours and found her charred body (beyond recognition) kept in a room and a few burnt pieces of clothes were lying in the courtyard. He found Shiv Nath Rai, Keshav Kumar Bhopesh Kumar and Mrs. Seema along with few other relations in the house. He was told by Keshav Kumar that “he himself along with Sneh Lata and children was sleeping in one room, his father, Shiv Nath Rai, in other room and his brother Bhopesh Nath and his wife Seema on the roof of the house. He did not when Sneh Lata came out of the room and poured kerosene oil and committed suicide. He got up only on hearing the voice of the neighbours and tried to rescue her by extinguishing fire”. He did not notice any sign of burn etc. on his body/hands that he might have sustained in process of extinguishing the fire. To his utter surprise none of the family members inside the rooms and sleeping on I he roof hoard the shrieks/voice of the burning person or noticed smoke, or smell of kerosene oil. From this, he concluded that it was a case of foul play and story had been concocted to give it a colour of suicide. He was convinced that she was killed by burning or she was compelled to commit suicide. He further mentioned that he now recollected the events and background for killing his daughter. Shiv Nath Rai was a most greedy person and had been continuously demanding money on one pretext or the other through his daughter and his son Keshav Kumar had been telling his daughter to comply with the instructions if she wanted good atmosphere at the home otherwise they would have to leave the residence and deprive themselves of the father’s properly. The other accused Bhopesh Kumar and his wife were spectators and consented in the directions given by Shri Shiv Nath Rai. He had paid Rs. 13,0007- to meet with the demands for purchasing a scooter because Sneh Lata was not allowed to pay visit to Gaziabad unless the amount was paid. From time to time he had been paying amounts and giving clothings etc. as demanded. On her visit to Gaziabad along with her husband, from August 11,1990 to August 15, 1990, he could talk to her on August 15,1990 when he was told that this lime the demand was heavy i.e. Rs. 40000/- because her father-in-law was going to instal a photostat machine and generator and on this account she was upset. He told her that he would shortly visit Hisar and speak to her father-in-law and satisfy his urge to the extent possible. His daughter also complained in taunting, by her father-in-law that on his retirement her father had only paid him Rs. 101/- whereas the father of Seema had presented a suit length. Further, he had paid Rs. 15,0007- to his daughter (Veena) whereas her father had not paid such lump-sum amount on his retirement. He further stated that the SHO Model Town, Hisar had told him not to leave Hisar unless his statement was recorded. So, after cremation, he along with his wile and son reached police station at about 18 hours and requested the S. H. O. to relieve them immediately as they were to reach Gaziabad in the midnight. As Shiv Nath Rai’s residence was near the police station, they were regularly chased by the sympathisers and his relatives and therefore, they could not make any statement earlier.
3. The prosecution, with a view to bring home the offence against the respondents herein, examined Manohar Lal Sehgal as P. W. I, who broadly supported the prosecution version, S. K. Banga. Manager, New Bank of India, was examined as P. W. 2 and he deposed with regard to two bank drafts, one for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and the other for Rs. 7,000/- which were deposited in the account of Keshav Kumar. Shamsher Singh, Draftsman was examined as P. W. 3. He had prepared scaled site “plan, Ex. P. C. Rakesh Kumar was examined as P. W. 4 and he had proved photographs, Ex. P1 to Ex. PS. Ram Lal Kapoor was examined as P. W. 5. This witness had accompanied Mr. Sehgal P. W. 1 and had deposed about Sneh Lata catching accidental fire while boiling milk and later information, regarding Sneh Lata committing suicide. Nand Ram, Registration Clerk was examined as P. W. 6. He only deposed with regard to Keshav Kumar having purchased as a scooter on December 21, 1986 from Subhash Chander Sharma. Dr. S. K. Goyal was examined as P.W.7. He had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sneh Lata. R. C. S. Rawai was examined as P. W. 8. He is Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank. Hisar and had made endorsement Ex. PF/I to the effect that payment of drafts for Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- be made to Keshav Kumar. Dharam Chand ASI was examined as P. W. 9. He had recorded a daily diary report on August 19,1990, prepared inquest report and got the scene of occurrence photographed. He had also taken into possession pieces of Salwar of Sneh Lata which had been burnt, a pair of V shape chappals, a small can of kerosene oil containing about 10 litres of kerosene oil. one match box, one burnt match-stick and one brush for washing clothes. Dharam Pal, HC was examined as P. W. 10. He had recorded formal F. I. R. Ex. PA/1 on receipt of application, Ex. PA.
4. The respondents, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that they had never harassed Sneh Lata and they had been falsely implicated as Manohar Lal wanted them to deposit Rs. one lac each in the name of three daughters of Keshav Kumar to which they expressed their inability. They also slated that Sneh had developed a psychiatic depression because she had given birth to three daughters and was worried. In their defence they examined Dr. Prem Munjhal as D.W. 1 who deposed that he treated Sneh for psychiatic depression. D.W. 2 Jagdish Lal Malik stated that he was intermediary in the marriage of Keshav Kumar and Sneh and that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Letters Mark D1 to D6 said to have been written by Sneh and Mark D-7 to D-20, alleged to have been written by mother of Sneh were also placed on records. After resultant trial, as mentioned above, the respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The learned Sessions Judge returned a firm finding of fact, based upon evidence, that the allegations against the husband of Sneh regarding demand of dowry had been put forward after due deliberations and lapse of time. It was also held that the complaint was an after-thought and was made after due deliberations for extraneous considerations. This is how the learned Sessions Judge proceeded in the matter
A perusal of the evidence on record and also the arguments advanced before me show that the allegations against the husband of Sneh Lata regarding demand of dowry have been put forward “after due deliberations and a lapse of time. It is probable that the accused persons may not have made any demand for any dowry at the time of marriage of Snehlata with Keshav Kumar yet there was no bar for them from making demands for compelling her for bringing more and more gifts to satisfy their lust for easy money, However, if the allegations to that effect had been true, there would have been better circumstance and better evidence to enable me to conclude that the accused persons had actually been guilty of the alleged demand. The only evidence before this Court showing that there might have been some demand by the accused-party emanates from the statement of Manohar Lal Sehgal in the application EK. P. A. as also in his statement in the Court. There is no other evidence in this connection I would like to add that there is also a circumstance on the record showing that a sum of Rs. 13,000/- by way of bank drafts had been paid to Keshav Kumar which fact had been admitted by the latter. The question that requires to be examined here is whether this demand had been by way of any alleged harassment by the accused persons to Sneh Lata or it was just a gift by the father-in-law to son-in-law to enable the latter to meet his requirement for purchase of a scooter. The complaint, Ex. PA does not, in any way, give indication that the said amount had been paid on account of any alleged demand, harassment or torture to Snehlata by one of the accused or by both the accused. The complaint which is alleged to have been drafted by complainant Manohar Lal Sehgal is quite significant. The following paragraph from page 2 of the complaint requires to be reproduced in this connection :-
Accused No. 1 Shiv Nath Rai is a most greedy person and had been continuously demanding money in one pretext or the other through my daughter and his son Keshav Kumar, co-accused No. 2 had been telling my daughter to comply with the instructions if she wanted good atmosphere at home otherwise they will have to leave the residence and deprived from the father’s property. The other accused i.e. Shri Bhopesh Kumar and his wife were spectator’s and consented in the directions given by Shri Shiv Nath Rai. To sum up, I paid Rs. 13,000/- to meet the demand for purchase of a scooter because Sneh Lata (my daughter) was not allowed to pay visit to Gaziabad unless the amount was paid.
This shows that Shiv Nath Rai had been making demands through Snehlata and also through his son Keshav Kumar on the threat that the atmosphere in the house would not be good and that Keshav Kumar would be deprived of his share in his property (Shiv Nath Rai’s properly). The allegations are also there against Bhupesh and his wife who remained spectators and did not protest against the alleged demands by accused Shiv Nath Rai. Significantly, this complaint does not show that Shivnath Rai had actually caused harassment to Snehlata on any account or had otherwise made her life miserable. There is not even a word in the entire complaint which could show that Snehlata had committed suicide on account of harassment by her father-in-law or by her husband. Simply because the accused might or might not have threatened his son (co-accused) that he would be deprived of the property of his father was no justification to conclude that there had been any maltreatment to Snehlata in her matrimonial home nor it gives an indication of the fact that she was mentally tortured. The complainant alleged that he paid Rs. 13,000/- Rs. to (he accused because he had not allowed Snehlata to visit Ghaziabad. In his own statement, complainant Manohar Lal Sehgal (P. W. I) staled that Snehlata was not allowed to visit Ghaziabad to humiliate him in the eyes of his brother-hood because he had not been able to meet his demands for money to enable him (the accused) to purchase a scooter. It is significant in this connection that the demand in the complaint is attributed to Shivnath Rai and not to accused Keshav Kumar yet the money had been sent in the name of the latter. This was clear from the statements of the complainant P. W. I and of Mr. S. K. Banga, P. W. 2. Further, the statement of Mr. S. K. Banga shows that the bank drafts were dated 14-5-1986, and 3-6-1987, whereas according to the statement of the complainant. Snehlata was not allowed to visit Ghaziabad in the month of April, 1986. It follows that the drafts had been sent not because Snehlata had been stopped from visiting Ghaziabad. If these had been sent to please Keshav Kumar, these or atleast the one would precede the Mundan ceremony and not after about a month or 2 1/2 months. This does not give an indication that she had actually not been allowed to visit Ghaziabad for the alleged annoyance of the accused against the complainant. The accused had given an explanation which seems to be sufficiently reasonable. They have suggested to the witnesses that Snehlata was the only female member in the house on 13-4-198’6, in as much as Shivnath Rai is admittedly a widower and his other son Bhopesh had not been married and his daughters had also been married. Her services were needed at Hisar because Shivnath Rai had to undergo an operation on 16-4-1986. No doubt, the accused have not brought any evidence on the file to show that Shivnath Rai had actually undergone an operation on 16-4-1986, and if so when was admitted in the hospital for the purpose of preparation. The averment of the accused in this respect could not altogether be ignored because the assertions of the complainant party to be patent after thought.
The other demand alleged by the complainant is that Rs. 40,00(V- when accused Keshav Kumar visited the house of the complainant from 11-8-1990 to 15-8-1990. According to the statement of the complainant in the Court the demand had been made by’ Keshav Kumar because his father wanted to instal a Photostat machine along with generator set and that demand had been made in the presence of Raj Rani, Bharat Bhushaii and Ramsaran Das. It has also been stated by the complainant that he had offered to give Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- within a few days. However, complainant. Ex. PA gives a different version where it is recorded that the alleged demand of money had been put forward by Snehlata now deceased. The further assertion by the complainant that he had offered to pay Rs. 15 to 20 thousand within a few clays does not find mention in the complaint, Ex. PA. That too indicative of the fact that this part of the statement is an after-thought. This being so, I am of the opinion that the statement of the complainant that the accused had actually made a demand of Rs. 40,000/- or I hat he had offered Rs. 15 to 20 thousand is wholly unreliable. The other significant fact which has come in the statement of the complainant in this Court is that his son-in-law had left his house without taking meals on account of annoyance because he had failed to provide the demanded money. This fact again does not find mention in the complaint, Ex. PA which is a material omission and shows that the complainant has been adding lies every time he has tried to secure justice on account of the death of his daughter Snehlata. It is entirely unbelievable that the complainant would not mention that fact in his complaint the accused Keshav Kumar and actually felt annoyed and left the house of the complainant without taking meals within week before this occurrence. It follows that the ommission is indicative of the falsehood of the version of the complainant. It established that he was bent upon to secure conviction of the accused instead of asserting true facts before this Court.
The complaint, as I noticed earlier, is an afterthought, after due deliberations and appears to have been filed for extraneous reasons not germane with the guilt of the accused. The arguments of the learned counsel for the accused on this aspect are not altogether baseless. I am not at all convinced of the fact that complainant, who had actually been accompanied by his wife, his son, his wife’s sister and husband of the latter and had time to deliberate with them during travel from Ghaziabad to Hisar had not become aware of the fact that there was possibility of his daughter having been burnt or killed by the accused party more so in the peculiar circumstances when Ram Lal Kapoor P. W. asserted that different versions had been given to him with regard to the manner in which Sneh Lata caught fire. Also, the complainant alleged that the accused persons had been causing harassment to his daughter by making demand for money. He as well as his wife were also aware of the fact that lastly i. e. 1st to 15th August, 1990 their son-in-law Keshav Kumar had left their house on account of annoynace because complainant Manohar Lal Sehgal had not been able to meet his demand for money. To add to it, as noted earlier, he had also been told by somebody at Hisar that the accused had been harassing his daughter for inadequate dowry. This must have given sufficient ground to them to feel aggrieved against the accused party and to conclude that their daughter had actually been killed. Instead of coming to that conclusion, the complainant and all others accompanying him had told the police that they did not suspect any foul play in the death of Snehlata. So much so the son of the complainant gave Ex. D. C. in writing to that effect. This being so, it is apparent on the record that tire al legation that the accused persons had been making demands from Snehlata was obviously for extraneous reasons not connected with the alleged demand and harassment. Apparently, all the allegations have not been substantiated by the initial statements of witnesses made before the police. The complainant’s statement that he had been perplexed and that his son, his wife and others had been pressurised to make statements in favour of the accused are falsified by the statement of Dharam Chand ASI P.W. 9 who has stated that the statement of parents and brother of the deceased had been recorded at about 5 p.m. after the cremation and that he had correctly recorded statement Ex. DA of Manohar Lal without any omission or addition. Even otherwise, it there had been any pressure on the complainant from the accused, he would have sent telegrams and a complaint to Senior Police Officers soon after he was freed from the proceedings before the police because he had left for Ghaziabad before 7.30 p.m. on the same day i. e. 19-8-1990. Therefore, it was impossible to place reliance upon the complaint, Ex. PA or the statement of Manohar Lal Sehgal, P. W. 1.
5. Learned Sessions Judge further, on the basis of evidence produced before him, held that the version of the respondents herein that Snehlata was suffering from psychiatic depression was supported by documentary evidence. The finding to that effect has been recorded in paragraph 15 of the judgment.
6. Mr. Varinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. when confronted with the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, reproduced above, was unable to support the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against the impugned judgment. We have also applied our mind and have gone through the evidence brought on records. We find absolutely no infirmity in the judgment recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.