Sudhir Kumar vs State Of Punjab

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1327 OF 2003

SUDHIR KUMAR .. APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB .. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The prosecution story is as under:

Kamlesh Rani deceased, daughter of PW.3-Tej Ram was

married to Sudhir Kumar, the appellant herein, on 28th July,

1989 at Maur Mandi, District Bhatinda. At the time of

marriage, ornaments and cash befitting the status of the

families, were given in dowry. A month after the

marriage, however, the appellant and his parents Angoori Lal and Kaushalya Devi and sisters Neelam Kumari and Urmila

Devi started maltreating Kamlesh Rani for having brought

insufficient dowry. Sudhir Kumar also demanded a scooter

for himself and a gold ring each for his sisters Neelam and

Urmila. The demand was duly conveyed by Kamlesh Rani to her

parents at Maur Mandi. Tej Ram promised to fulfill the

demand on which Kamlesh Rani returned to her matrimonial

home and was immediately questioned by her mother-in-law as

to the scooter and the gold rings. Bhim Sain, brother of

Kamlesh Rani, however, told them that the family was not in

a position to fulfill the demand on account of financial

difficulties. He, however, returned to Maur Mandi after

-2-

leaving Kamlesh Rani in the matrimonial home. About 10 days prior to the incident Ramji Das-PW.2, Tej Ram's younger

brother, came to Maur Mandi and told Tej Ram that the

accused had given slaps to Kamlesh Rani in his presence on

which he had promised that the demand for a scooter and

gold rings would be fulfilled within a few days. Sudhir

Kumar also came to Maur Mandi and once again reiterated the

demands to his father-in-law failing which he threatened

dire consequences for Kamlesh Rani. On 30th November, 1989,

Bhim Sain went to the house of the accused and found the

outer gate shut. On persistent ringing of the bell, Angoori

Lal came out but moved away and when Bhim Sain entered the

house he noticed Kamlesh Rani's dead body lying in the

latrine. Bhim Sain immediately came to the house of his

uncle Ramji Das PW.2 and the two then went to the police

station where the former lodged the report Exh. PD on the

basis of which an FIR was registered. Sub-Inspector Santokh Singh thereupon reached the place of incident and

made the necessary inquiries. On completion of the

investigation a challan was duly presented against Angoori

Lal, Kaushalya Devi and Neelam and Urmila for an offence

punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and the matter

was brought for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Court

of Sessions, however, charged the accused under Sections

302/149 IPC read with Section 304(B) of the IPC in the

alternative.

-3-

The prosecution in support of its case relied on the evidence of PW.1 Dr. S.S. Malik who had performed the post-

mortem on the dead body, the three primary witnesses PW.2-

Ramji Das, PW.3-Tej Ram and PW.4-Sat Paul, also an uncle of

the deceased, in addition to the formal evidence of Santokh

Singh the I.O. The statements of the accused were

thereafter recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and

they denied the allegations simplicitor. Sudhir Kumar,

however, took up additional plea:

"I am innocent. I have been falsely involved. This occurrence has taken place before

noon time and at that time myself and my father Angoori Lal were present at our medical store while my sister Neelam Kumari was teaching at private school and Urmila was at her in-laws house. I was suffering from Epilepsy and used to be treated by Dr. Sohan Lal Grover and other senior doctors before and after marriage and due to the effect of the drugs I was unable to perform the sexual intercourse and for that reason my wife used to remain under depression. After the occurrence we were summoned from the shop. I never maltreated or demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased."

They also produced some evidence in defence. The

trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence convicted

the appellant and Kaushalya Devi, his mother under Section

304-B of the IPC and sentenced them to R.I. of seven years.

-4-

Angoori Lal, Urmila and Neelam were, however, acquitted.

An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court which in its judgment dated 7th April, 2003, which has been impugned

in the present proceedings, allowed the appeal of Kaushalya

Devi as well. This appeal by way of special leave is,

therefore, confined only to Sudhir Kumar, the husband of

the deceased.

We have heard Mr. A. Sharan, the learned senior

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned

counsel for the State of Punjab. We find that the

prosecution story is fully proved by the evidence of PW.2-

Ramji Das, the uncle of the deceased, PW.3 Tej Ram, her

father and PW.4. Sat Paul, another uncle of the deceased.

The medical evidence shows that the deceased had suffered

95% burn injuries and the dead body had been found in the

bathroom of the house. Keeping in view the fact that the

presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has to be raised in such matters, it is for the defence to dispel

the presumption. We find that the trial Court and the High

Court have gone through the evidence and given the benefit

of doubt to three of the accused while maintaining the

conviction only against one i.e. the husband of the

deceased. We also see from the evidence that the marriage

had been performed on 28th July, 1987 and death had occurred

on 30th November, 1987, that is just four months after the

marriage.

-5-

Mr. Sharan, the learned counsel for the appellant

has, however, submitted that in the light of the fact that

the prosecution story had been disbelieved with respect to

four of the five accused, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act had been rebutted and as such the

appellant was entitled to acquittal on parity with the

other accused. It is true that four of the five accused

have been acquitted but we find that primary evidence is

against Sudhir Kumar, the appellant herein. A reading of

the evidence shows that it was the appellant who had, just

a few days' before the incident, visited the house of his

father-in-law and threatened Kamlesh Rani with dire

consequences if his demand for a scooter and two gold rings

was not fulfilled and Bhim Sain, the brother of the

deceased had told him that his father Tej Ram was not in a

position to meet the demands on account of financial

difficulties. A few days later Ramji Das (PW.2) too had

visited Kamlesh Rani's in-law's home and had also informed

Tej Ram thereafter that the appellant had been found

beating his wife at that time and had once again threatened that if the demands were not satisfied Kamlesh Kaur would

pay dearly for it. It is true, as contended by Mr.

Sharan, that in a case where the peculiar evidence has been

discarded with respect to four of the five accused, the

presumption under Section 113-B could to some extent be

-6-

said to be dispelled, but on an over view we find that the

primary role and the weight of the evidence has been on

the appellant herein.

We, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal.

Dismissed.

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

.................J. (J.M. PANCHAL) New Delhi, January 14, 2010.