Nathu Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 971 of 1997
Petitioner: Nathu Ram and Ors.
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 971 of 1997
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 02, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 304B, 498A and 201 – Deceased married to one of accused (A-2) only 1½ years – Death unnatu-ral – Real sisters of deceased also married in same house – Com-plaint by her to father after 15 days – Evidence establishing demand of dowry and harassment by three accused but not by fourth (A-3). Held that accused A-3 is acquitted of charges but there is nothing to interfere in the findings with regard to others.
(Paras 5,6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Three sisters of one family were married to three brothers in another family. One of the sisters, Dhamma, was done to death on 8.10.1993 and her dead body was buried. 15 days thereafter, Dhamma’s sister Vimla (PW-13) complained to her father that Dhamma was actually killed by her father-in-law (1st accused – Nathu Ram), her husband (2nd accused – Mangi Lal), her brothers-in-law Bhanwar Lal (3rd accused) and Pappu Ram (4th accused). All the four were charge-sheeted by the police after investigation for the offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial the Sessions Judge convicted all of them under the said offences and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 3 years respectively under the aforesaid counts. They filed an appeal before the High Court and a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. They have approached this Court by special leave and that was granted.
2. Evidence of PW-13 (Vimla) has been believed by the trial court and the High Court. That testimony shows that all the four accused had assaulted Dhamma on 8.10.1993 and 1st accused (Nathu Ram) threatened her to death. If the statement of PW-13 remains the same when she was interrogated by the investigating officer it is inexplicable to us as to why challan was not laid for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. besides other offences. If the present materials were consistent with the investigation record we are unable to understand why the Sessions Judge did not frame a charge at the stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the aforesaid offences. When the matter reached before the High Court the whole focus was to examine whether offence under Section 304B and the other offences charged against the accused have been made out.
3. We mentioned the above facts only to show that even if we are convinced of the truth of PW-13’s testimony it is not possible for us to hold the accused guilty of the offence of culpable homicide.
4. As PW 13’s evidence was believed by the two courts, and we find no reason to disbelieved that evidence, the death of Dhamma can be held to be not under normal circumstances. It is admitted that Dhamma was married to A-2 (Mangi Lal) only about one-and-a-half years prior to her death. So, two important ingredients regarding the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. have been established. What remains is the postulate that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with any demand for dowry.
5. PW-9 is the father of the deceased and PW-10 is the uncle of the deceased. They have stated that Vimla complained to them that her father-in-law ( Nathu Ram), her husband (Mangi lal) and his younger brother A-4 (Pappu Ram) have been harassing her with the demand of dowry. PW-9 said that those persons repeated the demand with him also but there is not even one sentence of evidence to show that any such demand was made by A-3 (Bhanwar Lal) either to the deceased or even to her father or brothers. It is practically conceded that so far as A-3 (Bhanwar Lal) is concerned there is not even a speck of evidence regarding that aspect.
6. We, therefore, allow the appeal regarding A-3 (Bhanwar Lal) and set aside his conviction and sentence under Section 304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He will stand acquitted and shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case. We do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 (Nathu Ram), A-2 (Mangi Lal) and A-4 (Pappu Ram) and therefore appeal against them will stand dismissed.
1. Three sisters of one family were married to three brothers in another family. One of the sisters, Dhamma, was done to death on 8.10.1993 and her dead body was buried. 15 days thereafter, Dhamma’s sister Vimla (PW-13) complained to her father that Dhamma was actually killed by her father-in-law (1st accused – Nathu Ram), her husband (2nd accused – Mangi Lal), her brothers-in-law Bhanwar Lal (3rd accused) and Pappu Ram (4th accused). All the four were charge-sheeted by the police after investigation for the offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial the Sessions Judge convicted all of them under the said offences and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 3 years respectively under the aforesaid counts. They filed an appeal before the High Court and a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. They have approached this Court by special leave and that was granted.
2. Evidence of PW-13 (Vimla) has been believed by the trial court and the High Court. That testimony shows that all the four accused had assaulted Dhamma on 8.10.1993 and 1st accused (Nathu Ram) threatened her to death. If the statement of PW-13 remains the same when she was interrogated by the investigating officer it is inexplicable to us as to why challan was not laid for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. besides other offences. If the present materials were consistent with the investigation record we are unable to understand why the Sessions Judge did not frame a charge at the stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the aforesaid offences. When the matter reached before the High Court the whole focus was to examine whether offence under Section 304B and the other offences charged against the accused have been made out.
3. We mentioned the above facts only to show that even if we are convinced of the truth of PW-13’s testimony it is not possible for us to hold the accused guilty of the offence of culpable homicide.
4. As PW 13’s evidence was believed by the two courts, and we find no reason to disbelieved that evidence, the death of Dhamma can be held to be not under normal circumstances. It is admitted that Dhamma was married to A-2 (Mangi Lal) only about one-and-a-half years prior to her death. So, two important ingredients regarding the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. have been established. What remains is the postulate that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with any demand for dowry.
5. PW-9 is the father of the deceased and PW-10 is the uncle of the deceased. They have stated that Vimla complained to them that her father-in-law ( Nathu Ram), her husband (Mangi lal) and his younger brother A-4 (Pappu Ram) have been harassing her with the demand of dowry. PW-9 said that those persons repeated the demand with him also but there is not even one sentence of evidence to show that any such demand was made by A-3 (Bhanwar Lal) either to the deceased or even to her father or brothers. It is practically conceded that so far as A-3 (Bhanwar Lal) is concerned there is not even a speck of evidence regarding that aspect.
6. We, therefore, allow the appeal regarding A-3 (Bhanwar Lal) and set aside his conviction and sentence under Section 304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He will stand acquitted and shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case. We do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 (Nathu Ram), A-2 (Mangi Lal) and A-4 (Pappu Ram) and therefore appeal against them will stand dismissed.
