Sham Lal vs The State Of Haryana Etc

1 brothers-in-law- Krishan Lal and Ved Prakash were harassing

her for not bringing sufficient dowry. A female child was

born to the deceased- Usha and gifts were given by her

family in accordance with custom. Appellant and his family

were not satisfied with the gifts. The informant received

information on 28th September, 1992 that his sister and

her child had died due to burn injuries. They rushed to the

house of the Appellant and found Usha and her daughter

dead. Inquest was conducted by the investigating officer

and the bodies were sent for post-mortem. A site plan of

the occurrence scene was prepared and a can containing

three liters of kerosene oil, burnt hair and pieces of burnt

cloth were seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police. A final

report was filed on completion of the investigation and

charges were framed against the four accused i.e. Appellant,

his mother and two brothers under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the IPC and in the alternative, under Sections

304-B and 498-A of the IPC. As there was no evidence

pointed to the murder of Usha and her child by the accused-

Appellant, the trial court opined that Section 302 read with

Section 34 IPC was not proved. Insofar as the alternative

2 charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A were concerned,

the trial court examined the prosecution version of the

demand of Rs.1,00,000/- made by the Appellant after the

marriage and the payment of Rs.50,000/- by the family

members of the deceased. Pawan Kumar(PW-9), brother of

the deceased deposed in his evidence that he contributed

Rs.20,000/- along with his brother Ganga Ram who also

contributed Rs.20,000/-. Another brother gave Rs.10,000/-.

In all, Rs.50,000/- was collected amongst the brothers of the

deceased and paid to the Appellant to meet the demand of

dowry made two months after the marriage. Pawan Kumar

stated that he raised a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the Co-

operative Bank, Lakhan Majra for the sum to be paid to the

Appellant. The trial court examined the testimony of Maya

Chand Kalia (DW-3), the Branch Manager of the Co-

operative Bank who stated that Pawan Kumar became a

member of the bank only on 7 th March, 1992 and obtained a

loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank on 25 th June, 1992. PW-

9’s evidence that he raised a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the

bank in February, 1991 was disbelieved by the trial court.

The trial court discussed the evidence of Pawan Kumar (PW-

3

9) and Ganga Ram (PW-11), the brothers of the deceased

who stated that there was no demand made on behalf of the

Appellant’s family either prior to the marriage or during the

marriage. A detailed analysis of the evidence on record led

the trial court to conclude that the demand made by the

Appellant and the payment made by Pawan Kumar and his

brother Ganga Ram was not proved. The trial court took

further notice of the fact that the Appellant and the

deceased were living separately on the first floor of the

house. They also had separate ration cards. A dispute

between the Appellant and the deceased was referred to a

panchayat on 13th October, 1991. During the Panchayat,

a document (Ex.-DA) was executed in which it was stated

that any further dispute arising between the parties will be

settled by the panchayat. The investigating officer stated in

his evidence that the information about the un-natural death

of Usha and the child was given by Krishan Lal- elder brother

of Sham Lal. Though the death was caused within seven

years of marriage, the trial court was of the opinion that the

prosecution was unable to prove cruelty on part of the

4 Appellant and the other accused. On the said findings, the

trial court acquitted all the accused.

2. While affirming the acquittal of Ganga Devi, Krishan Lal

and Ved Prakash, the High Court reversed the acquittal of

the Appellant and convicted him for offences punishable

under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced him to

imprisonment for seven years. In Sheo Swarup v. King

Emperor1, Lord Russell said:

“….the High Court should and will always give

proper weight and consideration to such

matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to

the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the

presumption of innocence in favour of the

accused, a presumption certainly not

weakened by the fact that he has been

acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the

accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4)

the slowness of an appellate court in

disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a

1 AIR 1934 PC 227 (2)

5 Judge who had the advantage of seeing the

witnesses.”

3. The law is well settled that an acquittal by the trial

court should not be interfered with unless it is totally

perverse or wholly unsustainable. We proceed to examine

whether the trial court was right in reversing the acquittal of

the Appellant. The High Court held that the evidence of

PWs-9 and 11 was not appreciated in a proper perspective

by the trial court. While placing reliance on the evidence of

PWs-9 and 11, the High Court was of the opinion that the

family members of the deceased paid Rs.50,000/- to the

Appellant as dowry. The Trial Court’s opinion that PW-9

miserably failed to prove the source of the money paid to

the Appellant was ignored by the High Court. It is clear from

the evidence of DW-3 that PW-9 became a member of the

Co-operative Bank only in the year 1992 and raised a loan

from the bank on 20th May, 1992. The statement in his

evidence that he raised a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the bank

in February, 1991 to pay to the Appellant is false and

misleading.

6

4. There is no perversity in the judgment of the trial court

in its finding that the prosecution was unable to prove

cruelty on the part of the Appellant and the other accused.

The High Court committed an error in reaching a different

conclusion regarding the cruelty by observing that there was

a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Appellant pursuant to

which Rs.50,000/- was paid by the family members of the

deceased. The High Court went wrong in upsetting the

findings of the trial court regarding payment of dowry.

Possibility of another view cannot be a ground for reversing

acquittal by the Appellate Court. That apart, the conclusion

arrived at by the High Court is completely contrary to the

record.

5. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are

allowed and the conviction of the Appellant is set aside.

..................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..................................J. [M.R.SHAH]

New Delhi, April 09, 2019.

7