Rakesh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—Ram Swarup (PW 1) wrote a complaint to Station Officer, Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar, on 31.10.2004, in which it was stated that his sister, Saria (the victim), was married to appellant Raju about five years ago; Sarla did not beget any child; appellant Raju and the in-laws of Sarla started harassing her on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands since the very beginning; and they used to torture her physically and mentally. PW 1 further stated that he belonged to a poor family and, therefore, he and his father could not fulfill the demands of the in-laws of Sarla and they used to persuade the in-laws of Sarla not to harass her, but to no avail. PW 1 further stated that, about 5-6 days ago, his sister Sarla was killed by her husband appellant Raju; her Jeth (brother-in-law) appellant Rakesh; her another Jeth (brother-in-law) appellant Suresh; and her mother-in-law Rohli, and, they also cremated her dead body in the crematorium surreptitiously with the help of appellant Chetan. Thereafter, another Application, in the form of addendum, was given by PW 1 to the Circle Officer stating that his sister Sarla was, in fact, married to appellant Raju in June, 1995 and the fact that Sarla was married to appellant Raju five years ago was wrongly written in his earlier complaint.

On the basis of the said complaint, lodged by PW 1, a First Information Report was registered against the appellants and Rohli (mother-in-law of Sarla) for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during the course of investigation, the case was converted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and Rohli (mother-in-law of Sarla) for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Hence, trial commenced. Charges for commission of offences punishable u/s 302, read with Section 34, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against appellant Raju, appellant Rakesh, appellant Suresh and Rohli (mother-in-law of Sarla), and charge u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against appellant Chetan. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As many as 09 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and, thereafter, incriminating evidence was put to the appellants and Rohli (mother-in-law of Sarla) in statements u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All of (sic) their participation in the incident in question and said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was tendered on behalf of the defence. After hearing both the sides, the learned court below, by the judgment and order under appeals, convicted appellant Raju for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted appellants Rakesh, Suresh and Chetan for commission of the offence punishable u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned court below acquitted Rohli (mother-in-law of Sarla) of all the charges leveled against her giving her the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Raju was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three months; and, u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Raju was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Appellants Rakesh, Suresh and Chetan were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each, with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, each of them was directed to undergo further imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals were preferred.

Prosecution led the evidence through Sahi Ram (PW 2), Bhanwar Singh (PW 3), Parmeeta (PW 4) and Surendra Singh (PW 5). Let us examine their evidence in detail.

PW 2 stated that he knew appellant Raju and his wife Sarla. On 27.10.2004, when he was going towards the house of Raju, he came to know that Raju''s wife has died. PW 2 also stated that, on the selfsame day, at about 09:00-10:00 p.m., all the accused people were carrying the dead body of Sarla in a buggy (buffalo cart), which was owned by Isam Singh, to crematorium. PW 2 further stated that the family members of Sarla were not present there and Isam Singh, owner of buggy (buffalo cart) was present there.

PW 3 stated that Sarla was his sister-in-law, who was married to appellant Raju about 11 years ago (from the date of his deposition). PW 3 further stated that, when Sarla died, he was not informed. PW 3 also stated that the dead body of Sarla was cremated in the crematorium surreptitiously, after carrying the same to crematorium in a buggy (buffalo cart).

PW 4 stated that Sarla was married to appellant Raju about 10-12 years ago (from the date of her deposition). Appellant Raju was a resident of Sabatwali and Sarla died in appellant Raju''s house at Sabatwali. PW 4 further stated that, when she was going to fetch water, in the evening, she saw Rakesh, Rohli, Suresh and Raju standing on the way and she heard them saying that they have killed Sarla and have cremated her dead body after carrying the same in a buggy (buffalo cart). PW 4 further stated that she told about this incidents to her brothers, Surendra and Kawarpal, who had come to meet PW 4 in her house. PW 4 further stated that appellant Raju and others did not disclose anything to her relating to the death of Sarla. In her cross-examination, PW 4 stated that PW 1 was her cousin.

PW 5 stated that PW 4 was his Aunt. Sarla was the daughter of PW 4''s maternal Uncle. PW 5 further stated that, on 24.10.2004, PW 5 went to the house of PW 4 at Sabatwali and, on reaching there, PW 4 disclosed to him that Sarla was killed by appellant Raju and his family members, who had taken the dead body of Sarla in a buggy (buffalo cart) to crematorium and disposed of the same. PW 5 said that appellant Raju and his family members did not disclose anything to PW 4. PW 5 further stated that, when the dead body of Sarla was being carried in a buggy (buffalo cart), the same was seen by him and the villagers.

Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there was no evidence against the appellants and the judgment rendered by the learned court below was based only upon presumption. There is no dispute that the marriage of Sarla with appellant Raju took place 9 years ago from the date of filing of the complaint. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that Sarla died a natural death. No evidence was offered to show that Sarla was suffering from any ailment. No certificate of any doctor was produced to show that Sarla had some ailment and she died a natural death on account of the same. PW 2 was the most natural witness. In India, it is the quality of evidence which matters and not the quantity. PW 2, in no uncertain terms, said that the dead body of Sarla was lying inside the house of Raju and her dead body was surreptitiously disposed of on the same night by the accused people. In his cross-examination, PW 2 admitted that Rohli (mother-in-law of Sarla) was almost blind. PW 2 also admitted that he did not disclose to the Investigating Officer that some people carried the dead body of Sarla in the night and disposed of the same. PW 2 denied the allegation that he was tendering the evidence on account of enmity with appellant Raju and others. The evidence of PW 2 was believable to the extent he made aspersions against appellant Raju. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that the evidence of PW 2 was not believable, inasmuch as, he did not disclose about the incident to the Investigating Officer; the fact remains that the pivot of the prosecution story was still dependent upon the testimony of PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5, which was acceptable in relation to appellant Raju, the husband of the victim.

PW 4, although told about the death of Sarla in appellant Raju''s house, but her evidence against other appellants was based upon hearsay, inasmuch as, she heard Rakesh, Rohli, Suresh and Raju saying that they have killed Sarla and have cremated her dead body. Jyoti Ram (PW 6), although said that the dead body of Sarla was cremated by the accused people, but admitted in his cross-examination that neither did he see the dead body of Sarla, nor did he see the dead body being taken in a buggy (buffalo cart).

In this way, it was established by the prosecution that Sarla died an unnatural death in the house of her husband appellant Raju. PW 2 and PW 4 evidenced that they saw the dead body of Sarla in the house of appellant Raju, who was her husband. No evidence was offered to show, as argued by the learned Amicus Curiae, that Sarla died a natural death, for otherwise doctor''s certificate would have been made available on record. Appellant Raju, being the husband of Sarla, owed legal obligation to speak something about the death of Sarla and substantiate the same by producing some acceptable evidence. Although appellant Raju stated, in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that Sarla died a natural death, but no evidence in support thereof was furnished. It was also not evidenced that the parents or the brothers of Sarla cremated her dead body. The evidence tendered by the prosecution, as against appellant Raju, was dealt with elaborately by the learned court below. Prosecution was able to prove its case against appellant Raju beyond any reasonable doubt and, as a consequence thereof, the criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant Raju (CRLA No. 30 of 2008) is liable to be dismissed.

Insofar as the appellants in other criminal appeal (CRLA No. 486 of 2007) are concerned, there is not enough evidence against them so that it could be safely said that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellants for the offence complained of against them. The most important factor was that only the husband was present in the crematorium, when the dead body of Sarla was cremated. PW 2 although said that the accused persons were carrying the dead body in a buggy to crematorium, but who were those people was not disclosed by him. PW 2 named only Isam Singh and he was not arrayed as an accused. PW 3 also did not disclose as to who were the people, who carried the dead body of Sarla to crematorium. The evidence of PW 4 against the accused persons was based upon hearsay, inasmuch as, she deposed only on the basis of what was heard by her (from Rakesh, Rohli, Suresh and Raju). Likewise, PW 5 also deposed against the accused persons (sans Raju) only on the basis of hearsay. PW 5 said that he was deposing on the basis of what he heard from PW 4. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2007 beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, appellants Rakesh, Suresh and Chetan are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Giving them such benefit, they are liable to be exonerated of the charge that was leveled against them.

For the reasons as discussed above, Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2007, preferred by appellants Rakesh, Suresh and Chetan, is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded against them by the learned court below is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender.

For the reasons also discussed above, Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2008, preferred by appellant Raju, is dismissed. The conviction and sentences, recorded by the learned court below against appellant Raju, are hereby upheld. Appellant Raju is in jail. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of Jail, where appellant Raju is currently serving out the sentence. Appellant Raju shall serve out the remaining part of the sentences, as awarded to him by the learned court below and upheld by this Court. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the lower court records, be sent to the court concerned for ensuring compliance of this order.