Dev Karan vs State of Haryana

K.C. Gupta, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been directed by Dev Karan, accused against the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby he found him guilty and convicted him under Sections 498-A and 308 IPC and sentenced him to one and a half years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 498-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months; to undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 308 IPC. In default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Out of the fine realised Rs. 5,000/- were ordered to be paid to Sunita Devi, PW-7. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Briefly stated, the facts are that Sunita Devi d/o Roop Chand, complainant, was married with Dev Karan, appellant, at Village Dudla about one year prior to the occurrence. Roop Chand had spent upon the marriage beyond his means but the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry given and right from the day one, started harassing her on account of dowry. He put up a demand for scooter or Rs. 25,000/- in cash but the father of Sunita Devi could not pay the same or provide a scooter.

It is next alleged that on one occasion, the appellant tried to strangulate Sunita Devi, as a result of which blood had flown from her eyes, mouth and anus and on alarm raised by her, she was rescued by her neighbours. On other occasion, the appellant had tried to give poison to her.

Roop Chand, father of Sunita Devi, approached the police but the police did not register the case and ultimately he approached the Chief Minister of Haryana and on his orders, the case was registered u/s 498A IPC.

PW-10 Simru Ram, ASI to Police Station Sadar, Thanesar, conducted investigation. He went to Village Aurangabad on 15.7.1995 and recorded the statement of Shakuntla Devi wife of Roop Chand, on 19.7.1995, Roop Chand, Sunita Devi and Shakuntla Devi visited Police Station, Pipli and he alongwith them went to Village Dudhla and recorded the statements of Darshana Devi, Phoolo Devi and Ram Dhari. He also prepared rough site plan, Ex.PE. The appellant and his co-accused were arrested.

After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

Having made out a prima-facie case, the appellant was charged under Sections 498-A/308 IPC, while his co-accused were charged u/s 498-A IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Smt. Darshana Devi, Phoolo Devi and Ram Dhari were given up as won over.

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellant and his co-accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., where they denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that Roop Chand wanted Dev Karan, appellant, to shift to Yamuna Nagar alongwith Sunita Devi and he promised to arrange some employment for him and Sunita Devi but Dev Karan refused and as such, falsely implicated in this case.

After hearing the learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the Additional Sessions Judge, vide his judgment dated 23.2.1996 found Dev Karan Guilty under Sections 498-A and 308 IPC, while he acquitted the remaining persons giving benefit of doubt and sentenced Dev Karan as stated above vide order of even date.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, Dev Karan, accused, has filed the present appeal.

I have heard Shri R.S. Mamli, counsel for the appellant, Shri Sudhir Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for the State and carefully gone through the record.

PW-7 Sunita Devi had stated that the appellant tried to strangulate her with a cord and as a result of strangulation, blood had flown from her eyes, mouth, ears and anus and she cried and attracted Phoolo and her daughter-in-law. This occurrence, according to her, had taken place on 25.3.1995 at 12 Noon. Smt. Phoolo and her daughter-in-law have not been produced to corroborate the version as stated by Sunita Devi as they were given up as won over. The only inference is that if they had been produced, they would not have supported the prosecution version. PW-3 Dr. Arvind Gupta, Medical Superintendent of General Charitable Hospital, Village Jourian, District Yamuna Nagar, stated that Smt. Sunita Devi, daughter of Roop Chand, visited his hospital on 31.3.1995 and he found redness in both of he eyes which was alleged to be caused by strangulation. He further stated that the said redness could be due to strangulation. He did not state that blood had come from her eyes, mouth, ears or anus. Simply because there was redness in the eyes of Sunita Devi, it cannot be said that the same was due to strangulation. Admittedly, he did not find any mark of violence on the neck of Sunita Devi.

PW-10 Investigating Officer had admitted in his statement that during investigation it had not come to his notice that the appellant had tried to strangulate Sunita Devi and blood had flown from her eyes, ears, mouth and anus. Thus, the allegation regarding strangulation appears to be false and it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted u/s 308 IPC.

Now, further question to be seen is whether the appellant had committed an offences punishable u/s 498-A IPC. PW-7 Sunita Devi categorically stated that soon after the marriage, the appellant had started mal-treating her on account of demand of additional dowry i.e. scooter or Rs. 25,000/- in cash but her parents could not pay the same and as such, she was constantly harassed. Her evidence is supported by PW-8 Roop Chand. Thus, it is proved that she was being harassed on account of demand of dowry and thus, he has been rightly convicted u/s 498-A IPC.

Counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal on merits as far as Section 498-A IPC is concerned. He contended that the appellant had remained in custody for about one year and three months and as such, he be released after taking into consideration the above mentioned imprisonment.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant has been suffering the agony of the trial for the last about 8 years, I take a lenient view and sentence him to the imprisonment already undergone. However, the appellant has undertaken to deposit the fine within one month. It the fine is not paid within the stipulated time, then he will suffer one month R.I.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.