Darshan Kumar and Others vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—The facts giving rise to this appeal as stated by Sushila Devi complainant in her statement Ex. PS recorded

by Assistant Sub-Inspector Roshan Lal on 15.11.1985 are that she was married to Darshan Kumar accused, a resident of village Batta, about five

years before the occurrence. A few days after her marriage Darshan Kumar started maltreating her and saying that he would contract a second

marriage. Aggrieved by the conduct of her husband she went to her father''s house at village Salwan. On account of the conduct of her husband

and his other relatives her father initiated proceedings in a Court at Jind. Thereafter the accused brought a Panchayat from village Batta and on the

assurance of the Panchayat she returned to her husband''s house. The matter pending in the Court also ended in a compromise. On her return to

the house of her husband, she was subjected to the same maltreatment and harassment by the husband as well as by his mother who often taunted

her that she had not conceived a child. Once again she was compelled to go to her parental house. About 15 days before the occurrence Darshan

Kumar accused came to her parents house and felt sorry for his previous conduct. He brought her back to village Batta. Her mother-in-law

resorted to her old behaviour of taunting her and Darshan Lal stated giving her beating and told her that he will not permit her to go to her parents

village and will torture her to death. On account of this maltreatment she sprinkled kerosene oil on her in the Chaubara of the house at above 9.00

A.M. to finish her life and to save herself from the daily mental agony. The neighbours heard her shrieks and they came to the spot and

extinguished the fire. She was taken to Primary Health Centre Kalayat by her husband.

Dr. P.K. Gupta who was present in the Primary Health Centre, sent ruqa EX. PE to Station House Officer, Police Station, Kalayat, when

Sushila was brought there, but before Assistant Sub-Inspector Roshan Lal reached there Sushila had been referred to Civil Hospital, Narwana for

medico-legal examination as there was no lady medical officer in the health centre. At 2.00 P.M. on 15.11.1985 Sushila was admitted in Civil

Hospital, Narwana. Her statement was recorded in that hospital while she was declared fit to make statement by the doctor. She was medically

examined by Dr. P.K. Gupta on 20.11.1985, who found the following injuries on her person : (1) Superficial slought of burn present on forehead

both cheeks, both ears, anterior part scalp. Slough is partially separated. Only epidermis is involved. Hair have been cut. (2) Bur injury of size 9x4

cm on right side of back on lumber region. Only epidermis is involved. Superficial slough was partially separated. �

Investigation in the case was made and burnt clothes of Sushila were taken into possession from the doctor incharge, Civil Hospital, Narwana.

From the spot one bottle containing some kerosene oil and a match box were recovered.

Darshan Kumar and his mother Lachhmi Devi were charged for offences under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 511/34 of the Indian

Penal Code by Shri T.P. Garg, the learned Sessions Judge, Jind. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Sushila complainant appeared as PW 13 and her father Panna Lal supported her

version 3. that she was being harassed and tortured by the accused. Contention of Darshan Kumar accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was

that he never maltreated his wife nor in any way instigated her to commit suicide. He admitted that Sushila Devi filed an application u/s 125 of the

Criminal Procedure Code at Karnal but the same was dismissed, when he made a statement that he was willing to keep Sushila Devi with him.

Regarding the occurrence he deposed that he had gone to see off the sister of Sushila and her husband at Bus Stand of village Batta and when he

was coming back he learnt that Sushila Devi had set herself on fire. He ran to the house and took her to the hospital at Kalayat and from there to

Narwana for treatment. He further deposed that Sushila in fact did not like him and wanted a divorce. He agreed to divorce her and a joint petition

was filed. He or his mother never demanded any dowry nor they ever maltreated her. Sushila often went to her parents house as she did not want

to live in village Batta but her father forced her to live with him against her wishes. The other accused Lachhmi Devi contended that she lived

separately from Sushila with her other sen namely Ved Parkash and she had never taunted Sushila.

After perusing the evidence and hearing the Counsel for the parties the learned Sessions Judge, Jind held the accused guilty of the offences with

which they were charged. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each

for the offence u/s 498A of Indian Penal Code and they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine

of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence u/s 306 read with Section 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were to run concurrently and the

amount of fine was to be paid to Sushila Devi by way of compensation. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 5.5.1986 recording their conviction, the

accused filed the present appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri G.S. Bawa argued that there was no cogent and reliable evidence to prove that Sushila was treated

in a cruel manner by the accused-appellants nor the charge under Sections 306/511/34 of Indian Penal Code was substantiate by any truthful or

convincing evidence. The only evidence regarding the occurrence consisted of the statement of Sushila Devi complainant who was not having good

relations with the appellants and did not want to reside with them. It was further argued that although the prosecution had produced various

applications submitted by Sushila or by her father levelling accusations against Darshan Kumar regarding demand of dowry vet those applications

could not establish that in fact there was any demand for dowry and Sushila was subjected to maltreatment on that account. I find that the

contention of the learned Counsel is well merited. Marriage of Sushila was solemnised on 13.6.1980 and for about four years no complaint was

filed by Susbila or by her father. The first application that was presented by Sushila is Ex. PA. It was addressed to Chief Minister, Haryana and is

dated 17.4.1984. An enquiry was made into the allegations whether there was any demand for a scooter, refrigerator etc. by Darshah Lal and the

report was submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narwana which is Ex. PB/2 which showed that the Panchayat had got effected a

compromise and Sushila Devi was living with her husband in village Batta. Subsequently another application Ex. PB was submitted by the father of

Sushila Devi. Inspector Mange Ram conducted enquiry and made report Ex. PB/2 wherein he mentioned that there was no dispute regarding

demand of dowry and Sushila Devi was living with her husband. Deputy Superintendent of Police Zile Singh also submitted his report Ex. PB/3 in

similar terms. Application Ex. PB/8 shows that if there was any 7. dispute between the husband and wife that was settled by the intervention of the

Panchayat and Sushila agreed to live with her husband. The application presented to the police for enquiry by Panna Lal was withdrawn. A report

to that effect was also submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, which is Ex. PB/9. The various documents

placed on record by the prosecution simply show that there was some dispute between Sushila Devi and her husband and the relations between

them were not cordial and smooth. But so far as the allegations regarding demand of dowry were concerned, the same were never established and

were rather found to be false on enquiry.

The next question to be determined in the case is whether It was at the instigation of the appellants that Sushila tried to commit suicide. There is

no dispute regarding the proposition that conviction can be based even on solitary statement of a witness if the witness is truthful and his testimony

inspires confidence, but when the statement of a single witness of the incident is irretrievably mutilated no reliance can be placed on that testimony

and it will not be safe to maintain conviction on the basis of the same. Sushila Devi made material improvements in her statement in Court. There

were specific allegations In the first information report that she set herself ablaze on account of conduct of the appellants but while making

statement in Court she deposed that Darshan Kumar put kerosene oil from a bottle on her head while her mother-in-law Lachhmi set her on fire by

lighting a match stick and at that time they were saying that she should die as she had not brought any dowry. She was confronted with her

statement Ex. PS where she had not deposed so and she contended that when she made statement Ex. PS she was not fully conscious. This

statement was, however, belied by the medical evidence as according to the doctor she suffered only simple injuries which involved the skin and

she was fit to make a statement. Her case in first information report was that her husband wanted to re-marry and there were no allegations

regarding demand of dowry but in her application Ex. PA which was addressed to the Chief Minister she had neither mentioned this fact that her

husband wanted to re-marry nor the fact that her mother-in-law used to taunt her that she was not bearing a child. She admitted that except the

demand for money Darshan Kumar never demanded any other article. While in application Ex. PA she alleged that there was a demand for

scooter, refrigerator and other articles. There were no allegations of beating given to her by her husband in the earlier complaints. This will show

that the complainant was in the habit of making allegations irrespective of their truth just to suit her own ends. Originally the case of the complainant

was that on account of misbehaviour of the accusep and harassment suffered by her at their hands she tried to finish her life but in Court she

changed completely the nature and character of acts attributed to the accused and tried to introduce a case of deliberate murder by saying that her

husband poured kerosene while her mother-in-law set her ablaze. She modulated her evidence to suit the prosecution and secure conviction of the

accused. This difference in the case that was earlier set up and that was introduced while appearing in Court goes to the root of the case and

rendered the testimony of Sushila Devi unreliable. Her explanation that she was not fully conscious when her statement was recorded by the police

official cannot be accepted. As soon as her father went to Civil Hospital, Narwana he found his daughter capable of talking and she disclosed the

incident to him. But even he in his statement before the police which is Ex. DA and with which he was duly confronted did not state that Darshan

Kumar sprinkled kerosene oil on her head and the other accused set her on fire. A close scrutiny of the evidence on record leads to a conclusion

that the testimony of Sushila and her father is not reliable as there was serious departure from the version given first information report. In these

circumstances it cannot be said that the prosecution version as set forth was true and was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the

accused, therefore, cannot be sustained.

As a result of the above findings, I accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and acquit them of the offences

with which they were charged. The fine, if recovered from the appellants, be refund ed to them.