Rakesh Chand & Anr vs State Of Punjab

O R D E R

The facts are as under:

Neelam Kumari and Anil Kumar were married on 4th

December 1998 and as per the prosecution story sufficient

dowry had been given to the accused at the time of the

marriage. They were however dissatisfied with what had

been given to them and in July 2000, a demand was made for

Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of buying a motor cycle or scooter. As this demand was not satisfied Neelam Kumari

was turned out up her matrimonial home although she was

in an advanced stage of pregnancy. A motor cycle was

thereafter purchased for Anil Kumar. It is further the

prosecution story that on 22nd April, 2003 Neelam Kumari and

Anil Kumar visited Rajni Bala (PW.16), sister of Neelam

Kumari, also a resident of village Ladda Kothi, where

Neelam Kumari told her sister that her husband was now

demanding Rs.50,000/- in order to construct a room in the

-2-

house and was misbehaving with her as this amount was not

being provided by her parents. As per the prosecution story Neelam Kumari's dead body was spotted on the embankment of

a seepage drain in the area of Barnala by one Komal Singh

on 25th April, 2003. A FIR was duly registered and after

investigation a charge sheet was filed and a charge under

Sections 302/34 and 201 and in the alternative 304-B/34 &

201 of the IPC was framed against Anil Kumar and his

parents, the appellants herein.

The Trial Court relying on the evidence of Chunni

Lal (PW.15), the father of the deceased, her mother Sudesh

Kumari (PW.1) the complainant and Rajni Bala, (PW.16)

convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 304-B and 201 of the IPC but acquitted them of the

offence of murder and they were sentenced accordingly.

An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court. The High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

A special leave petition was filed by the three accused but

leave was granted qua the appellants only. We have

accordingly heard this appeal today assisted by the learned

counsel for the parties.

Mr. Rajeev Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the

appellants, has pointed out that one of the essential

ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B was that the

demand for dowry had to be made soon before the death of

-3-

the deceased. He has referred us to the evidence of Chunni

Lal, Rajni Bala and Sudesh Kumari and pointed out that

there were two sets of demands allegedly made by the accused; the first one in the year 2000 being a demand for

Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of buying a motor cycle and

there appeared no demand thereafter by the appellants as

the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been made by Anil Kumar

alone shortly before the death of Neelam Kumari and the

appellants thus had no roll to play on this score. We find

merit in this submission. In their examinations-in-chief,

PW.1- Sudesh Kumari and PW.16-Rajni Bala have deposed that

the demand for Rs.50,000/- had also been made by Rakesh

Chand and Pushpa Devi. They were however confronted with

their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. wherein

no such details had been spelt out and the demand for

Rs.50,000/- had been confined only to Anil Kumar. Likewise

we have gone through the statement of Chunni Lal. Even

in his examination-in-chief he very categorically stated

that the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been made only by Anil Kumar and not by the two appellants. In the light of the

fact that the only demand that could be foisted on the two

appellant was of the year 2000, it could not be said that

the appellants had made any demand soon before the death of

the deceased so as to be liable for conviction under

Section 304-B of the IPC.

-4-

Mr. Kuldeep Singh, the learned State counsel has

however very vehemently argued that even if there was no

evidence with respect to the offence under Section 304-B

there was ample evidence to maintain the conviction of the

appellants for the offence under Sec.201 of the IPC. In this connection he has referred us to the statement of PW.6

Dildar Khan who deposed that sometime before the 10th May

2003 he had seen Anil Kumar carrying something in a gunny

bag on his motor cycle. This story is, in the facts,

unacceptable. The incident happened on 24th April 2003 and

Dildar Khan's vague statement that he had seen something

amiss before 10th of May, 2003, is an absurdity and cannot

be accepted. We accordingly feel that the conviction of

the appellants was not justified on the evidence. We

accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of

the Trial Court and the High Court vis.a-vis. the two

appellants herein and order their acquittal.

In the meantime, we direct that the appellant-

Rakesh Chand, who is in custody, shall be released

forthwith if not required in connection with any other

case. As regards Pushpa Devi, her bail bonds shall stand discharged.

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

.................J. (C.K. PRASAD) New Delhi, August 11, 2010.