Dharam Chand vs State Of Punjab & Ors

High Court allowed the appeal No. 1012-SB/2002 2

filed by Vinod and partly allowed the appeal

No. 992-SB/2002 filed by other accused and

acquitted some of the respondents-accused for

offences with which they were charged reversing

the order of conviction recorded by the trial

Court.

3. The case of the prosecution in short

is that the appellant herein, a de facto

complainant is brother of one Anju Devi

(`deceased' for short). According to the

appellant, his sister Anju Devi got married to

Accused No. 1, Jolly Singla on May 18, 1997.

Accused No. 2 Reshma Devi is mother in law of

deceased Anju Devi. Accused No. 3 Rajesh and

accused No. 4 Vinod are brothers of accused No.

1 Jolly Singla and accused No. 5 Kiran is wife

of accused No. 3-Rajesh.

4. It was the case of the prosecution

that at the time of marriage, the parents of

the deceased Anju Devi spent an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/-. They also paid substantial

amount of dowry to the accused. Anju Devi 3

delivered a female child Diksha who was about

two years of age at the time of incident. The

allegation of the prosecution was that

immediately after marriage of Anju Devi, her

in-laws were harassing Anju Devi by making

demands of dowry. At several occasions,

deceased Anju Devi made complaints about such

demands. It was stated that though substantial

amount was paid by the parents of deceased Anju

Devi, her in-laws were insisting for more and

more amount. They were also demanding scooter,

colour television, etc. As per the prosecution,

parents of Anju Devi had assured in-laws of

Anju Devi that their demands will be steadily

met with but they should wait for some time

considering the capacity of parents of Anju

Devi.

5. It is alleged by the prosecution that

on March 14, 2000, at about 9.00 a.m., deceased

Anju Devi telephoned the appellant (her

brother) that accused were harassing her and

giving her beatings and were asking her to 4

leave matrimonial home. Such cruel treatment

and demand for dowry was made by all the

accused. According to the appellant, he came

along with his brother Jai Bhagwan, Sarpanch

Harbans Singh and some other people to persuade

the in-laws of deceased Anju Devi, but when

they reached at the house of the accused, they

found dead body of deceased Anju Devi lying

burnt in bath room. First Information Report

was lodged being FIR No. 81 under Section 304B

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

6. The accused were arrested. Usual

investigation was made and charge was framed.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge

and claimed to be tried.

7. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala

in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2000 decided on June

13, 2002 held that it was proved by the

prosecution that the deceased died homicidal

death and all the accused were responsible for

committing the said crime. They were heard on

the question of sentence and the Court ordered 5

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven

years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in

default, they were ordered to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for eight months.

8. Being aggrieved by the order of

conviction and sentence, all the accused

preferred appeals before the High Court. The

High Court allowed the appeals filed by Rajesh,

accused No. 3, Vinod, accused No. 4 and Kiran,

accused No. 5 on the ground that they were

residing separate from accused Nos. 1 and 2.

It, however, dismissed the appeal filed by

accused No. 1, Jolly Singla, husband of

deceased Anju Devi and accused No. 2 Reshma

Devi, mother in law of deceased Anju Devi. So

far as respondent No. 2 Jolly Singla, accused

No. 1-husband of deceased Anju Devi is

concerned, the High Court observed that he had

already undergone the imprisonment and was

released. The said order is challenged by the

complainant by filing the present appeal. 6

9. We have heard learned counsel for the

parties.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant

vehemently contended that the order of

conviction and sentence recorded by the trial

Court was in accordance with law and ought not

to have been set aside by the High Court. It

was also submitted that on the basis of the

evidence adduced by the parties, the trial

Court held that it was a case of homicidal

death. The dead body of Anju Devi was found in

the bath room. The trial Court was wholly right

in observing that normally accidental fire

takes place in a kitchen and not in a bath

room. It was, therefore, held that it was not

a case of accidental fire, but with intent to

cause death, all the accused had committed the

act in question. It was also submitted that

from the evidence, it was clearly established

that there was demand of dowry and deceased

Anju Devi was harassed. The said fact was

proved from sworn testimony of prosecution 7

witnesses. The High Court was wholly in error

in acquitting accused Nos. 3 to 5 who were

convicted by the trial Court observing that

they were staying separately which was

factually incorrect. It was also submitted that

once the incident was established and the High

Court confirmed the finding of guilt against

the mother in law as well as husband of Anju

Devi, there was no reason to interfere with the

order of conviction in respect of other

accused. It was, therefore, submitted that the

appeal deserves to be allowed by restoring the

order of conviction and sentence recorded by

the trial Court.

11. The learned counsel for the

respondents, on the other hand, submitted that

reasons recorded by the High Court for

acquitting accused Nos. 3 to 5 cannot be said

to be illegal nor were based on irrelevant or

extraneous grounds. And hence, even if this

Court feels that two views are possible, a view

which favours the accused rather than which 8

goes against them, should be adopted. When the

appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence

extended benefit of doubt in favour of three

accused, it cannot be said that by taking such

view, the High Court had not acted legally or

reasonably. It was, therefore, submitted that

to that extent, the order of the High Court

needs no interference.

12. So far as conviction of Jolly Singla-

accused No.1, husband of deceased Anju Devi and

Reshma Devi, mother-in-law of Anju Devi are

concerned, the High Court has confirmed their

conviction and there is no appeal on their

behalf. The question with regard to their

conviction and sentence is not the subject

matter before this Court.

13. As far as respondent No. 2 Jolly

Singla, husband of deceased Anju Devi is

concerned, the High Court stated that he has

already undergone the sentence and hence, the

appeal so far as accused No. 1 is concerned,

had virtually become infructuous. It was, 9

therefore, submitted that the present appeal

deserves to be dismissed.

14. The learned counsel for the State also

supported the order passed by the High Court.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for

the parties, in our opinion, the appeal

deserves to be partly allowed. So far as

acquittal of accused Nos. 3 to 5 is concerned,

in our view, the learned counsel for the

respondents is right in submitting that on re-

appreciation of evidence, the High Court held

that since they were staying separately, it

could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt

that they were also party to the act in

question and hence benefit of doubt was given

to them.

16. We see no infirmity in the reasoning

of the High Court as also the conclusion

arrived at. We, therefore, see no ground to

interfere with that part of the order of

acquittal recorded by the High Court so far

accused Nos. 3 to 5 is concerned.

1

17. The High Court, in our opinion, was

right in dismissing the appeal filed by accused

No.1-husband and accused No.2-mother-in-law of

deceased Anju Devi and in confirming the order

of conviction and sentence.

18. In our opinion, however, the High

Court was wrong in observing that the

respondent No. 2 herein (accused No. 1) husband

of Anju Devi had already undergone the

sentence. From the evidence, it is clear that

the incident in question took place on March

14, 2000 and the High Court decided the matter

on October 30, 2006. Hence, even if we take

the first day, i.e. date of offence and the

last day, i.e. the date of judgment by the High

Court, even then seven years were not over.

Seven years from the date of incident would be

over only on March 13, 2007.

19. The High Court, in the impugned

judgment, observed as under;

"From the above discussion, I am of the view that prosecution case against accused-appellants Vinod, 1

Rajesh and Kiran for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not proved beyond doubt. They are entitled to acquittal and are acquitted. Jolly Singla happens to be husband and Reshma Devi is mother-in-law of the deceased. They were residing together with Anju, deceased. Appeal field by them is dismissed. Jolly Singla is stated to have already undergone imprisonment and released".

(emphasis supplied)

20. From the above observations, it is

clear that before the High Court, it was

"stated" on behalf of the husband that he had

already undergone the imprisonment and was

released. When we asked the learned counsel

for respondent No. 2 as to how the High Court

recorded the above finding, he could not give

satisfactory reply on what basis it was stated

before the High Court that accused No. 1-

husband had already undergone imprisonment and

was released. We, therefore, asked the learned

advocate for the State of Punjab to file an

affidavit stating the basis of the statement

and release of accused No.1. Such affidavit was 1

filed on behalf of the State and the learned

Government Pleader stated that it was as per

the Order dated August 14, 2002 issued by the

Government of Punjab, Department of Home

affairs and Justice (Jails Branch) that accused

No. 1 was treated as having undergone

imprisonment for seven years. A copy of the

said order was also produced along with the

counter-affidavit.

21. The Order was issued by the Government

of Punjab in exercise of power conferred by

Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 and Article 161 of the Constitution.

Clause A provides for remission of sentence of

imprisonment for life in certain cases. It is,

however, expressly stated that the benefits

referred to in that part of the Order would not

apply to certain cases. The said head reads

thus;

"These benefits are not admissible in the following cases".

1 Sub-clause (vii) of that part deals

with offences under Section 304B, IPC, i.e. a

dowry death.

22. It is, therefore, clear that in case

of dowry death, an offence punishable under

Section 304B, IPC, the benefit of remission of

Government Order does not apply. If it is so,

in our opinion, the benefit could not be

granted to respondent No. 2-husband. Hence,

even if accused No.1 or accused No.2 had been

released before completion of seven years, such

action could not be said to be legal and

lawful. If it is so, obviously, the appeal

deserves to be allowed to that extent.

23. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal

deserves to be partly allowed and is allowed by

directing respondent No. 2 Jolly Singla to

surrender to custody and to remain in jail for

a period of seven years which he had to undergo

as per the order of the trial Court. If such

benefit is granted to accused No. 2, she also 1

had to surrender to custody till the period of

seven years is over.

24. The appeal is accordingly allowed to

the above extent.

...................................................J. (C.K. THAKKER)

New Delhi, ...................................................J. November 05, 2008. (D.K. JAIN)