Raj Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Punjab

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2004

RAJ KUAMR & Ors. .. APPELLANT(S)

vs.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB .. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

This appeal by way of special leave has been filed

on behalf of Raj Kumar, husband of the deceased Varsha

Rani, his mother Sita Rani and his first cousin Subhash

Chander. The trial Court convicted them and Kaushalya Rani

for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C.

and sentenced Raj Kumar and Subhash Chnader to undergo R.I.

for 10 years while Sita Rani and Kaushalya Devi were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. On appeal, the High

Court by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and

sentence of three of the accused but acquitted the 4th

accused Kaushalya Rani, the mother of Subhash Chander.

The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

Varsha Rani and Raj Kumar were married on 4th

October, 1987. At the time of the marriage PW.7 - Munshi

Ram, father of Varsha Rani gave dowry as per his capacity.

It appears that soon after the marriage all the appellants,

who resided in a one room tenement, raised demands for more

dowry and some cash had in fact been given by Munshi Ram

to his daughter who had passed it on to her in laws. On

-2- account of the dispute between the parties a Panchayat had

also been called and some assurance had been held out by

Raj Kumar that he would not misbehave in future. Pursuant

to the proceedings before the Panchayat and about four or

five days before the date of occurrence, PW.11 Sikandar Lal

along with PW.7 Munshi Ram visited Varsha Rani to enquire

about her welfare. Varsha Rani told them that the four

accused were harassing her continuously for more dowry and

had threatened that in case the demand was not satisfied

she would be done to death so that Raj Kumar could take

another wife. Munshi Ram however advised Varsha Rani to

accept the situation as he was a poor person, and

thereafter returned home. On 29th June, 1987 Munshi Ram

received the news that Varsha Rani had been burnt alive by

her in-laws after sprinkling kerosene oil upon her, on

which he rushed to her in laws' home along with his son Sikandar Lal and from information gathered by him was able

to ascertain that Varsha Rani had been burnt at about 7.30

p.m. on 28th June, 1988 and that she had received very

extensive burn injuries on almost all parts of the body and

had been admitted to the hospital by Subhash Chander. An

FIR was thereupon lodged in Police Station Division No.5,

Ludhiana and after investigation the accused were charge-

sheeted and sent up for trial. The trial Court relying on

the evidence of PW.7 Munshi Ram and his son PW.11 Sikandar

Lal and PW.8 Manohar Lal who too had been a witness to

-3-

the efforts towards effecting a compromise between the

parties, and the medical evidence given by Dr. J.S. Grewal (PW.2) and relying on the presumption raised under Section

113-B of the Evidence Act convicted and sentenced all the

accused for an offence under Section 304-B as indicated

above. This judgment was largely confirmed by the High

Court in appeal with the distinction that Kaushalya Rani

was acquitted. The other three accused who were before the

High Court are now before us.

Mr. R.K. Talwar, the learned counsel for the

appellants has pointed out that there was no evidence to

suggest that the appellants were in any way involved in

Varsha Rani's death as it appeared from the evidence that

her clothes had caught fire accidentally while she was in

the process of lighting a lantern. He has further

submitted that an FIR had been lodged after a very long

time and after a compromise between the parties had failed

and the story had been concocted in the interegnum. He has accordingly pleaded that the appeal ought to be allowed and

an acquittal in toto in respect of the appellants be

granted by this Court.

Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned State counsel has,

however, supported the judgment of the High Court and has

pointed out that it was clear from the evidence of PW.7

-4-

Munshi Ram that all the appellants had been involved in

treating Varsha Rani with cruelty and as all of them were

living together in a room tenement, it had to be assumed that the cruelty had been jointly meted out to her and

that no interference was thus called for with the impugned

judgment.

We have considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties. It is true, as contended

by Mr. Talwar, that there is some delay in the lodging the

FIR. To our mind, however, the delay in such like matters

cannot be fatal to the prosecution. It has to be borne in

mind that matters arising out of a matrimonial dispute are

always extremely sensitive and it is after serious

consideration and debate amongst the victims family that

the FIR is lodged. It has come in the evidence of Munshi

Ram that they too had considered the matter in its entirety

and it was only after he had been advised by his relatives,

that a formal FIR had been lodged.

On the contrary, we find that the medical evidence supports the view that the burns could not have been

accidental in nature. We have gone through the evidence of

Dr. J.S. Grewal (PW.2) and he reported that there were

superficial to deep burn injuries all over the body and

the smell of kerosene was present and the condition of the

deceased was very serious and that in the case of

-5-

accidental burn injuries as suggested by the defence, the

injuries would have been on the front portion of the body

and not all over as a lantern ordinarily can hold only a

small quantity of kerosene oil. The presence of injuries on the front and the rear of the body to our mind indicates

that the kerosene had been poured on the body and had

caused the very severe injuries over the lumbar portion.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the medical evidence

supports the view that the unnatural death could not be

attributed to an accident. The presumption raised against

the appellants under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act,

thus, stares the appellants squarely in the face.

We have also examined the argument of Mr. Talwar

with respect to the involvement of the various appellants.

We have gone through the evidence of PW.7 and PW.11 as also

the First Information Report. We observe that the primary

role in the incidents of harassment has been given to

Subhash Chander and there is no specific allegation either

against the husband Raj Kumar or his mother Sita Rani. In the light of this fact we believe that the involvement of

these two persons is suspect. To our mind therefore they

are entitled to the benefit of doubt and having said so we

acquit them by allowing the appeal. The involvement of

Subhash Chander is however explicitly spelt out from the

evidence of PW.7 and PW.11. Mr. Talwar's argument that

Subhash Chander had carried the injured Varsha Rani to the

hospital and had admitted her therein was an indication of

-6-

his innocence is to no avail and this fact by itself will

not absolve him of this involvement in the incident which

happened only about 8 months after the marriage. However,

keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in respect of an offence under Sec.304-B of the IPC we reduce

the sentence of Subhash Chander from 10 years to seven

years R.I. With this minor modification in the sentence his

appeal is dismissed.

.................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.................J. (B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, October 8, 2009.