Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana

Pradeep Kumar ..Appellant

versus

State of Haryana ..Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant

for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304(B) of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life for the first offence but no separate sentence was

imposed for the second offence.

2. Appellant alongwith two others faced trial. Each was charged for

having committed offences punishable under Section 304(B) IPC and

Section 498A IPC. Appellant alone was separately charged for offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

Kewal Krishan (PW 4) is the complainant. He is a resident of Ambala

City. He is the Director of G.G. Flour Mills. He had four daughters and two

sons. Marriage of his eldest daughter Suman Rani alias Anamika

(hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was solemnized with appellant

Pardeep Kumar alias Raju on 19.10.1996 in Laxmi Palace at Patiala. As per

asking of the accused persons dowry and streedhan was given according to

the capacity of the complainant on the festival of Karva Chauth,

complainant's daughter Anamika along with appellant and, Anamika's

father-in-law and mother-in-law came to their residence. Sufficient articles

were given on Karva Chauth. On that day, Anamika told the complainant

that her husband Pardeep Kumar who was running a shop at Yamuna Nagar

in the name and style of New Punjab Tractors, wanted to take her to

2 Yamuna Nagar. He demanded colour T.V., washing machine, Godrej

almirah and a refrigerator. Thereafter his daughter went to her in-law's place

in Village Dhanola, District Sangrur (Punjab). Ten to fifteen days thereafter,

complainant's daughter rang them up from Dhanola that she along with her

husband were shifting to Yamuna Nagar and the articles demanded should

be sent to her at Yamuna Nagar. Complainant Kewal Krishan along with

Mohinder Pal son of Bachan Lal resident of Ambala City came to Yamuna

Nagar. They purchased colour T.V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a

refrigerator and handed them over to the appellant in his house.

Complainant's wife was operated upon at Ambala for some ailment.

Anamika came to see her mother. Anamika did not look well. Complainant

Kewal Krishan enquired about her health. Anamika stated that her husband,

father-in-law and brother-in-law Parveen Kumar were threatening that if she

wanted to remain alive, she should get Rs.2 lacs from her father, as they

wanted to expand their business at Yamuna Nagar. This demand was met

and complainant gave Rs.50,000/- and requested for some time so that he

will pay the remaining amount after arranging for it. This amount was given

about a month prior to the death of Anamika. About 15 days before her

death, Anamika made a telephone call to the complainant that her father-in-

law Prem Nath had told her husband Pardeep Kumar that if Anamika did not

3 arrange for the remaining amount, she should be eliminated, he would

arrange for everything and perform his second marriage. Again on

23.1.1997, complainant's daughter gave a telephonic call to the

complainant, that if 'the remaining amount was not arranged within 2/3

days, she would be eliminated.

On 25.1.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., Anil Kumar (PW-3) gave a

telephonic call to the complainant that Anamika had got burnt by a gas

cylinder. Complainant made a telephonic call to his brother Suresh Pal and

his father Rameshwar Dass at Cheeka to reach Ambala. On their arrival

from Cheeka, complainant along with them left for the house of his

daughter at Yamuna Nagar. On reaching there, he saw his daughter lying

dead on a double-bed. Besides her were lying a gas-cylinder, match- sticks

and halt burnt papers.

Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, chargesheet

was filed.

As accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held.

4 In order to further the accusations fifteen witnesses were examined.

The trial court found the appellants and the co-accused persons guilty. By

the impugned judgment High Court directed acquittal by the co-accused

persons Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar, but upheld the conviction and

sentence of appellant as aforenoted.

The trial court and the High Court placed reliance on the evidence of

PWs 2, 3 & 4.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that there was no evidence of the appellant having committed offences as

alleged. There is no direct evidence to hold that the appellant has committed

murder of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the

judgment of the High Court confirming that of the trial court.

6. It is undisputed that the marriage took place on 9.10.1996 and the

date of occurrence is 25.1.1997. The co-accused persons were the father

5 and the brother of the appellant. The only evidence adduced by the

prosecution to substantiate the allegation of commission of offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC is that the accused and the deceased

stayed in the same house. That according to us is not sufficient to hold the

appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the facts

of the present case. However, the accusations related to Section 304 B IPC

are satisfied.

7. Section 304 B IPC reads as follows:

"304B. Dowry Death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death."

5. The necessary ingredients of Section 304 B IPC are as follows:

(1) The death of the woman was caused due to burns, bodily

injuries or due to unnatural circumstances.

6 (2) The death should be within seven years of marriage.

(3) It is shown that soon before death victim was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the

husband.

(4) The cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any

demand for dowry.

8. Therefore while setting aside the conviction for offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC, we uphold the conviction, so far as it relates to

Section 304 B IPC. Custodial sentence of ten years would meet the ends of

justice. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

............................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

............................................J. (ASOK KUAMR GANGULY) New Delhi, March 31, 2009

7