Mange Ram and ors. vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Mange Ram, his wife Ganga Devi and his son Bijender Singh were tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, for charges under Sections 302, 201/34 and 498A, Indian Penal Code, for subjecting Shiksha Devi to cruelty by torturing her during the period of three years preceding 18.5.1984 and committing her murder during the night intervening 17th and 18th May, 1984, and also for destroying the evidence of murder by secretly cremating her dead body in the night hours. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them of the charges under Sections 302 and 201/34, IPC, but convicted them under Section 498A, IPC and sentenced each of them to three years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed this appeal.

Smt. Shiksha Devi deceased was the daughter of Chand Ram PW 7 Bijender Kumar PW 1 is the brother of the deceased. About 3 years prior to her death, i.e., 18.5.1984, she was married to Bijender Singh appellant. He was serving in the Army. Mange Ram is the father and Ganga Devi is the mother of Bijender Singh appellant.

After the marriage, Shiksha Devi deceased had been residing with the appellants at their house at village Kultana. Bijender Singh appellant used to visit the village whenever he used to come on leave and stayed with his wife and his parents. The deceased was maltreated and she used to complain against the appellants to her brother Bijender Kumar PW 1 whenever he used to visit her at the house of the appellants. She also complained against the appellants to her father Chand Ram PW 7 and uncle Deep Chand PW 9 whenever she went to the house of her parents. Her parental side used to impress upon her to tolerate the behaviour of the appellants as it will improve in due course of time. A son named Deepak was born to Shiksha Devi in 1983. It is further in evidence that, after the birth of her son, she stayed with her parents for about nine months and her parents had given chhuchhak worth about Rs. 6,000/ or Rs. 7,000/ on the birth of her son when she was sent to the house of the appellants. She had visited her parental house on or about 30.4.1984 to attend the marriage of her cousin brother Jai Bhagwan inspite of the fact that none else from her inlaws had attended the marriage.

On 15.5.1984, Bijender Kumar PW 1 came to the house of the appellants in village Kultana to take Shiksha Devi again to his house but Mange Ram and Ganga Devi, appellants, did not allow her to go and informed Bijender Kumar PW that the husband of Shiksha Devi, i.e., Bijender Singh, was expected shortly to come on leave.

The prosecution case further is that, during the night intervening 17th and 18th May, 1984, the three appellants alongwith Shiksha Devi, and Krishna PW/6 wife of Rishi Kumar, another son of Mange Ram and Ganga Devi appellants, were present in the house when the three appellants secured Shiksha Devi while she was asleep. Mange Ram appellant cause hold of her legs, Ganga Devi appellant caught hold of her arms while Bijender Singh appellant throttled her to death. Krishna PW 6 saw the appellant committing the crime as she was awakened by the shrieks of the deceased. Thereafter, the appellants cremated the dead body of Shiksha Devi. Krishna PW 6 was threatened by the appellants that, in case she disclosed about the occurrence to any one, she would also meet the same fate. Due to fear, she did not talk about the occurrence to any one.

An entry regarding the death of Shiksha Devi was got made in the Death Register by Chowkidar Zile Singh PW, wherein it was mentioned that the cause of death of Shiksha Devi could not be ascertained.

On 20.5.1984 the appellants accompanied by Risal Singh visited PW 4 in Vill Kahrawar and made confessional statements before Ram Mehar PW 4 amd Ram Kumar PW 5, stating that they had committed the murder of Shiksha Devi during night intervening 17th & 18th May, 1984 and cremated the dead body. The appellants requested Ram Mehar and Ram Kumar, PWs, that they should use their good offices to get the matter compromised and see that no legal action is taken against them. Ram Mehar and Ram Kumar, PWs, informed Deep Chand PW 9 about the murder of Shiksha Devi. Deep Chand PW 9 deputed his son Ashok Kumar PW 3 on 21.5.1984 to inform the parents of Shiksha Devi about her murder. On receipt of the information of murder from Ashok Kumar PW 3, Chand Ram PW 7, father of the deceased, came to village Kahrawar and from there they, after taking Deep Chand PW 9 and Karam Singh with them, went to village Kultana, ie.e, the village of the appellants. The appellants were not found present at their house. However, Kali Ram, brother of Mange Ram appellant, met them and he confirmed about the death of Shiksha Devi and cremation of her dead body during the night intervening 17th and 18th May, 1984, Bijender Kumar PW 1 came to Police station, Bahadurgarh, and lodged First Information Report Exhibit PA at 1.30 p.m. on 21.5.1984 regarding the murder of Shiksha Devi.

S.I. Om Parkash PW 11, after registration of the case, visited the spot, prepared rough site plan Exhibit PM of the place of occurrence and lifted some bones and ashes from the cremation ground and sealed them into a parcel and took them into possession vide memo Exhibit PJ. The rough site plan of the cremation ground was also prepared and is Exhibit PN. Letters, Exhibits P6, P7, P8 and P10, envelop Exhibit P9, and the photostat copies of letters Exhibits P1 to P3 and P4, were also taken into possession from the parents of the deceased. Mange Ram and Ganga Devi, appellants, were arrested on 27.5.1984 while Bijender Singh appellant was arrested on 30.7.1984. After the completion of the investigation, the appellants were challaned, tried and convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined a large number of witnesses.

After the close of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal procedure. They denied the prosecution allegations. Bijender Singh appellant pleaded as under :

"I have been falsely involved in this case. I very much loved my wife Shiksha Devi and also our son Deepak. When I used to come to my house in village Kultana on leave, then I used to give handsome amount to my wife and also my parents. I had also got postal insurance policy for Rs. 7,000/ issued in the name of my wife Shiksha Devi. I was away on duty in my Unit on the date of the alleged occurrence. Whenever I used to come on leave, I used to visit my inlaws and stay with them for a day or two. I had also availed one month''s leave on or about 13.3.1984. Then I had taken along my wife Shiksha Devi for sight seeing etc. to Agra. I had again come to my village Kultana on leave on 26.5.1984. It was seven days'' leave, My C.O. had received telegraphic information about the death of my wife and had advised me to proceed on leave. After the rail warrant was prepared, then my C.O. had information that my wife was dead. I reached Kultana on the evening of 28.5.1984. Then I learned from Layak Ram who is my uncle in neighbourhood that my inlaws had demanded payment from my parents and since that amount was not paid, hence, the case has been got registered against me and my parents etc. Since my wife used to spend more time with her parents than the time she used to spend with us and was also not rendering devoted service to my parents, hence I had been pulling her up and writing harsh letters to her and to her parents and also to my parents. It is a false case. I am quite innocent."

The appellants examined Ram Phal DW 1, Layak Ram DW 2 and A.S. Bhambhi DW 3 in their defence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence. The prosecution, in support of its case, had examined Bijender Kumar PW 1, who deposed that his sister Shiksha Devi was maltreated by the appellants.

Zile Singh PW 2 made the entry of death in his register. Ashok Kumar PW 3 stated that he was sent by his father Deep Chand to inform the parents of the deceased about the murder of the deceased during the night intervening 17th and 18th May, 1984. Ram Mehar PW 4 and Ram Kumar PW 5 stated that the appellants came to them and made extrajudicial confessions before them. Krishna PW 6, the alleged eyewitness of the occurrence, did not support the prosecution case and stated that the deceased died due to an attack of cholera. She was declared hostile and crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. Chand Ram PW 7, father of the deceased supported Bijender Kumar PW 1 and stated that the deceased was maltreated. karan Singh PW 8 is the draftsman who prepared the siteplan. Deep Chand PW 8 who, according to the prosecution had deputed his son Ashok Kumar to inform the parents of Shiksha Devi about her murder, did not support the prosecution case and was, therefore, declared hostile and crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. Inspector Prithi Singh PW 10 is the Investigating Officer.

The learned trial Court did not accept the evidence of extrajudicial confession as Krishna PW 6 had not supported the prosecution case. There was no evidence to connect the appellants with the charges under Sections 302 and 201/34, Indian Penal Code, and they were acquitted of these charges. It, however, accepted the evidence of Bijender Kumar PW 1 and chand Ram PW 7 as to maltreatment of the deceased by the appellants and convicted them for the offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, Section 498A, IPC, reads as under :

"Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

EXPLANATION : For the purposes of this section `cruelty'' means "

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

According to Krishna PW 6, the solitary eyewitness of the occurrence, the deceased died due to an attack of cholera. The prosecution has not led any evidence which may show that the deceased died an unnatural death. Zile Singh PW 2 has proved the entry of death made by him in the Death Register which also does not show that Shiksha Devi died an unnatural death. In fact, there is no evidence led by the prosecution which may suggest that the deceased died unnaturally. The solitary eyewitness Krishna PW 6 has supported the defence version that the deceased died due to an attack of cholera. The trial Court has acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 302 and 201/34, Indian Penal Code. The defence plea that the deceased died of cholera in supported by Krishna PW 6, Ram Phal DW 1 and Layak Ram DW 2. In the circumstances of the case, the plea of the defence that the deceased died of cholera cannot be rejected out of hand. There may be some substance in the same.

To maintain a conviction under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, a wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide, is required. The prosecution, to prove this wilful conduct of the appellants, is depending upon the statements of Bijender Kumar PW 1 and Chand Ram PW 7 and a few letters written by Bijender Singh appellant. The testimony of Bijender Kumar and Chand Ram, PWs, when seen in the light of the fact that they had tried to implicate the appellants in a charge of murder cannot be accepted without corroboration. A perusal of the letters reveals that Bijender Singh appellant was very keen that his wife should serve his parents and stay in his parental house. There is no mention of any demand of dowry or any maltreatment or harassment on account of demand of dowry or even any suggestion in that direction. The statements of Bijender Kumar and Chand Ram, PWs, suggest cruelty due to lack of dowry but the letters do not corroborate that plea. The letters only suggest that Bijender Singh appellant wanted that the deceased should not visit her parental house. The fact remains that the testimony of Bijender Kumar and Chand Ram, PWs, remained uncorroborated. Inspector A.S. Bhambi DW 3 has proved an insurance policy Exhibit DA wherein Bijender Singh appellant had shown Shiksha Devi deceased as his nominee. If Bijender Singh appellant was unhappy on account of deficiency in dowry, it is not expected of him that he will appoint Shiksha Devi deceased as his nominee in the insurance policy.

Taking all these circumstances into consideration, it cannot be said that the prosecution has led evidence which may be sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. The testimony of Bijender Kumar PW 1 and Chand Ram PW 7, being uncorroborated, is not sufficient to bring the guilt home.

In view of these circumstances, I give the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquit them of the charge under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. This appeal is allowed.