State of Punjab vs Anant Ram

A.L. Bahari, J.

State of Punjab has filed this appeal challenging order of Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dated January 20, 1983, acquitting Anant Ram accused of charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Anant Ram accused married Smt. Veena on July 19, 1979. Out of the wedlock a male child was born. On April 4, 1982 Smt. Veena got burn injuries and on removal, to the hospital she died. Her condition was not fit to make statement and thus police could not record the same. After post mortem was conducted on the dead body, it was cremated in the presence of her father Ram Dittu. Subsequently Ram Dittu moved a complaint dated April 8, 1982 to Hon''ble the Prime Minister which was ultimately forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District and the case was registered on July 1, 1982. During investigation of the case statements of the father and brother of the deceased and some other witnesses were recorded which indicated maltreatment of Smt. Veena by her husband Anant Rem, the accused, during the married life. Anant Ram accused was charged and tried for committing offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

While acquitting the accused Sessions Judge recorded findings against the prosecution. It was not proved that Smt. Veena had committed suicide. The story of demand of dowry articles and on that account maltreatment meted out to her by the accused, was not believed as there were improvements in the statements of the witnesses recorded in the Court. There was also delay in approaching the police though at the initial stage father of the deceased was satisfied that it was not a case of suicide,

Shri S.K. Sharma, DAG appearing on behalf of the State, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Report 279 : AIR 1990 Supreme Court 209 , has argued that initially a presumption should be drawn that Smt. Veena committed suicide on account of maltreatment meted out to her under section 113A of the Evidence Act, as amended. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above wherein it was held that the amended section 113A of the Evidence Act would have retrospective effect and would be applicable to the pending cases. However, we are of the opinion that the ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in handSection 113A of the Evidence Act was amended by Act No. 46 of 1983 which came into force on December, 25, 1983. The Sessions trial in the present case was concluded by judgment on January 20, 1983 i.e. much prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act. There was thus no question of taking into consideration the amending provision by the Court while trying the accused. In case the trial was pending and the amendment had been made in the procedural law the trial Court was bound to take into consideration the amended provision as laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh''s case (supra). However in appeal with the aid of the amended provision (Sec. 113A of the Evidence Act) no presumption can be drawn as is contended by the DAG that the deceased committed suicide on account of demand of dowry or maltreatment within short span of time from the marriage.

Referring to the evidence produced in the present case, we find that the same has been properly appreciated by the Sessions Judge. Ram Dittu PW 3 father of the deceased, reached the hospital and thereafter postmortem on the dead body was conducted and the dead body was cremated. By that stage the story was that Smt. Veena had died on account of the bursting of the stove, No suspicion was raised at that time that Smt. Veena had committed suicide and had not died on account of accidental fire. No doubt, in court Ram Dittu PW 3 and Vinod Kumar PW 4 and Hakam Singh PW 5 deposed about the maltreatment meted out to Smt. Veena by Anant Ram accused. Hakam Singh PW is the brother of the deceased. The story of the father and brother of the deceased that Smt. Veena was given beating several times on account of inadequate dowry came to light at a very late stage of the case. A police constable had visited the hospital, but could not record the statement of the deceased. The Police Station is near the hospital. Either Ram Dittu or his son Hakam Singh could have straightaway approached the police. Their story that police was not taking any action is not acceptable as according to Ram Dittu he approached the S.S,P. who directed him to get the case registered at the Police Station but Ram Dittu did not visit the Police Station for registration of the case. Subsequently though application was sent to the Prime Minister and it was purporting to be dated as April 8, 1982, yet ultimately the case was registered on July 1, 1982. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in getting the case registered. It appears that the story of maltreatment was introduced at a later stage but factually it was not correct. PW 4 Vinod Kumar deposed about hearing noise in the house of Smt. Veena on two different occasions; one about 15 days prior to the occurrence and the other on April 2 1982. On both these occasions per chance he heard the noise and observed that Suit. Veena was given beating by the accused. The statement of this witness was recorded by the police at a much later stage. He could have disclosed the factum of maltreatment of Smt, Veena to her father. During crossexamination he admitted that the police visited the mohalla and he did not tell the police anything. Police Station Sangrur is just opposite his shop at a distance of about 20 yards only. He disclosed to the police the cause of the quarrel but when he was confronted with the statement made to the police it was noticed that there was no mention. He admitted having appeared as witness for the police for 8 or 10 times. No reliance can be placed on the evidence of such a witness.

The prosecution story that articles of dowry were demanded again cannot be accepted even if the statement of Ram Dittu is accepted that he had given a sewing machine and some other articles as presents on the occasion of the marriage of the sister of the accused. Anant Ram accused was not present in the house when Smt. Veena got the burn injuries. Thus he was not in a position to make any effort to save the life of Smt. Veena by promptly removing her to the hospital. The facts of Gurbachan Singh''s case (supra) were different where on the material produced it was held that the deceased had committed suicide but in the present case such a conclusion on the evidence produced is not possible. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting Anant Ram accused. The appeal is dismissed