IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.878 of 2010

Rohtash …..Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana …..Respondent

JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This rapist interest has been filed opposite a visualisation and sequence antiquated 11.1.2007 upheld by a High Court of Punjab & Haryana during Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 146-DB of 1994, wherein a High Court has topsy-turvy a visualisation and sequence of a Sessions Court in Session Case No. 44 of 1989 antiquated 3.8.1993, by that a appellant has been transparent of a charges underneath Sections 304-B and 498-A of a Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as `IPC’).

2. Facts and resources giving arise to this interest are that:

A. On 4.7.1989 during 8.00 p.m., Jiwan (PW.1) finished a matter (Ext.PC) before a military during Rohtak Chowk, Kharkohda to a outcome that his daughter Indro, aged about 21 years, was married to appellant Rohtash about one year behind and in a pronounced matrimony he had given sufficient dowry according to his capacity. However, her father and parents-in-law were not confident with a dowry. They always finished taunts for not bringing sufficient dowry. His son-in-law finished several final and a complainant had to give him a sum of Rs.10,000/-. He had perceived information by Gopi Chand and Ram Kishan that his daughter had died by immoderate unwholesome tablets and her upheld physique had been cremated in a morning. On a basement of a pronounced statement, FIR was available in P.S. Kharkhoda on 14.7.1989 during about 8.10 p.m. underneath Sections 304, 201 and 498-A of a IPC. S.I. Inder Lal accompanied Jiwan, complainant (PW.1) to encampment Mandora and went to a residence of a indicted persons. The indicted persons, namely, Smt. Brahmo Devi, Rajbir and Dharampal were found present. He finished a inquiries from them and, thereafter, came behind to a military hire and combined a corruption underneath Section 304-B IPC. The pronounced indicted as good as a appellant were arrested. The I.O. went to a cremation belligerent and took into possession a stays and skeleton in participation of Jiwan (PW.1), complainant and other witnesses and after putting them underneath hermetic cover sent a same for FSL report. He carried damaged pieces of potion bangles and prepared a liberation memo in participation of a witnesses. He serve available a matter of witnesses underneath Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.). After completing a investigation, a I.O. submitted a chargesheet and hearing commenced for a offences underneath Section 304-B and 498-A IPC.
B. The charge in support of a box examined Jiwan (PW.1) complainant, Suresh (PW.2), Fateh Singh (PW.3), Inder Lal (PW.4) and other grave witnesses, however, gave adult certain witnesses like Gopi Chand on a confinement that he had been won over by a indicted persons.
C. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., a indicted finished a matter that they had been secretly endangered in a case. Appellant was heading a happy married life and never ill-treated his mother for not bringing adequate dowry. Deceased was pang from fits, as a outcome of that she died. Accused persons had sensitive her kin by Rajbir indicted and cremation was finished after attainment of Jiwan (PW.1) complainant and his other relatives.
D. After appreciating a justification and deliberation a papers on record, a hearing justice reached a end that there were element inconsistencies in a depositions of Jiwan (PW.1), complainant, Suresh (PW.2) and Fateh Singh (PW.3), quite on a emanate of approach of dowry as they could not accurately indicate out a volume of approach and payment. Suresh (PW.2), yet deposed that he had purchased a residence of a complainant for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, however, no request could be constructed in honour of a same as land underneath a residence belonged to Wakf Board. The charge box has been that a complainant has been forced to sell his residence to accommodate a approach of dowry.
The hearing justice also drew inauspicious deduction for self-denial element witnesses, particularly, Gopi Chand who had sensitive a complainant about a genocide of his daughter. The hearing justice vide visualisation and sequence antiquated 3.8.1993 transparent all a indicted persons of all a charges.
3. Aggrieved, a State elite Criminal Appeal No. 146-DB of 1994 before a High Court. The High Court reappreciated a whole justification and came to end that there was zero on record to uncover that Indro, deceased, died of fits; no medical justification had been constructed to uncover that she had been pang from fits. There was sufficient justification on record to uncover approach of dowry by a appellant from his father-in-law. The appellant had been creation taunts and caused woe to a defunct on a belligerent of unsound dowry. The approach by a appellant had been entirely upheld by Suresh (PW.2) who purchased a residence of a complainant for a sum of Rs.12,000/-. Indro died within a duration of one and a half years of marriage. The High Court convicted a appellant underneath Section 304-B IPC and imposed a punishment of 7 years severe imprisonment, serve underneath Section 498- A IPC imposed a punishment of 6 months RI. In honour of other persons a sequence of exculpation upheld by a hearing justice was maintained.

Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri K.K. Kaul, schooled warn appearing for a appellant, has submitted that there has been no approach of dowry by a appellant. The High Court did not conclude a justification in scold perspective. There had been element contradictions in a deposition of a charge witnesses. Suresh (PW.2) could not squeeze a residence of a complainant as admittedly a land belonged to a Wakf Board and no request had ever been constructed in a justice to uncover a sale. Fateh Singh (PW.3) has no approach attribute with a family. He has upheld a charge box merely since he belonged to a encampment of a complainant. Appellant had furnished a acceptable reason while creation his matter underneath Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus, a interest deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Shri Sanjiv, schooled warn appearing for Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for a State, has vehemently opposite a appeal, contending that a Indro, deceased, died within a brief camber of one and a half years of her marriage. No justification has been constructed by a appellant to uncover that she had been pang from fits. There has been determined approach of dowry as stood valid from a depositions of Jiwan (PW.1), Suresh (PW.2) and Fateh Singh (PW.3), thus, interest lacks consequence and is probable to be dismissed.

6. We have deliberate a opposition acquiescence finished by schooled warn for a parties and perused a records.

It might be impending to make anxiety to a applicable partial of a deposition of witnesses. Jiwan (PW.1), complainant, deposed that her daughter had complained opposite a hurt given to her by her husband, his kin and his elder hermit Rajbir; they even taunted her that she belonged to “Bhukha-Nanga” family and that her father had not given adequate dowry. Rohtash indicted also visited him and asked him to give Rs. 10,000/- so that he could settle himself in some business. Six months after a marriage, he gave Rs.10,000/- to Rohtash indicted after offered his house. Her in-laws still continued to betray her and lifted a serve approach of Rs.5,000/- on a stratagem that they wanted to settle Rajbir, elder hermit of Rohtash, in some business. On a fatal day of incident, Gopi Chand and Ram Kishan of Village Mandora came to him and told that his daughter Indro had consumed unwholesome tablets and died.

He was confronted with his matter underneath Section 161 Cr.P.C. in honour of approach of Rs.10,000/- by appellant Rohtash as no such fact had been settled by him to a I.O. Even for a approach of Rs.5,000/- for Rajbir, he was confronted with his matter underneath Section 161 Cr.P.C. as no such fact had been mentioned therein.

He was also confronted with his matter underneath Section 161 Cr.P.C. as he had not settled before a I.O. that he had been sensitive about a genocide of his daughter by Gopi Chand and Ram Kishan. Regarding a sale of a residence to Suresh (PW.2), he has certified that land belonged to a Wakf Board and, therefore, he could not govern any purebred sale-deed in honour of a same.

7. Suresh (PW.2) deposed that he had purchased a residence from Jiwan (PW.1), complainant, for Rs. 12,000/-, however, no sale-deed could be executed in his foster as a land belonged to a Wakf Board.

8. Fateh Singh (PW.3) deposed that he had been told by Jiwan (PW.1) that he was underneath a good vigour to compensate Rs.10,000/- to a appellant to buy assent for his daughter and he had given Rs.10,000/- to a appellant. He was confronted with his matter underneath Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he has not told a I.O. about this transaction.

9. S.I., Inder Lal (PW.6), Investigating Officer, deposed that he went to a cremation belligerent and collected stays and skeleton in participation of witnesses and sent it for chemical analysis. In his cross- hearing he has settled that no eccentric declare was prepared to engage himself in a box apropos a charge declare as it was a family matter for a indicted persons.

10. So distant as a matter of a appellant underneath Section 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned, he replied that a contribution and resources put to him were not correct. In respond to Question No. 10, he settled that his mother Indro did not dedicate self-murder and a claim of self-murder was concocted version. In respond to para 21, he settled as under:

“The defunct Smt. Indro was heading a happy married life with me and we never ill-treated her, most reduction on comment of any dowry. The defunct was pang from fits as a outcome of that she had died. We had sensitive a kin of a defunct by Rajbir indicted and after Jiwan P.W. and his other family had come to a village, we had cremated a upheld physique of a defunct in their participation in a village. There was no doubt of a perfectionist any dowry, most reduction ill- treating a defunct on that comment since a financial position is really sound.”
11. The aforesaid depositions make it transparent clear that a chronicle given by a charge witnesses per approach of Rs.10,000/- by a appellant did not find discuss in a matter underneath Section 161 Cr.P.C. of possibly of a witnesses. The contribution per a sale of residence by Jiwan (PW.1) to Suresh (PW.2) does not also enthuse certainty as a land belonged to Wakf Board. More so, a approach of Rs.5,000/- for investiture of a business of Rajbir was finished by a in-laws of a defunct Indro, and not by a appellant, who had been transparent by both a courts below, therefore, that emanate can't be deliberate by us.

Only doubt stays for a care is as to either there was a dowry approach by a appellant and for that purpose a defunct Indro had been ill-treated to a border that she had to take a extreme step of committing suicide.

12. This Court in Appasaheb v. State of Maharasthra, (2007) 1 SCC 721, while traffic with a identical emanate and clarification of a word `dowry’ hold as under:

“A approach for income on comment of some financial rigidity or for assembly some obligatory domestic losses or for purchasing fertiliser can't be termed as a approach for dowry as a pronounced word is routinely understood.”
13. The aforesaid visualisation was reconsidered by this Court in Bachni Devi v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 427, wherein this Court hold that a aforesaid visualisation does not lay down a law of concept application. Each box has to be motionless on a possess contribution and merit. If a approach for skill or profitable security, directly or indirectly, has sequence with marriage, such approach would consecrate approach for dowry. The means of lifting of such approach stays immaterial.

14. In perspective of above, we have to inspect as to either a approach by a appellant for investiture of his tailoring business could be hold to be a approach for dowry and serve either for that demand, a ill- diagnosis given by a appellant to his mother was so grave that she had been driven to a border that she has to dedicate suicide.

The charge box has been that Indro, deceased, committed self-murder by holding pills/poison. There is plenty justification on record and it has privately been mentioned by a charge witnesses, particularly, Jiwan (PW.1), Fateh Singh (PW.3) and S.I., Inder Lal, I.O., (PW.6), that some damaged pieces of bangles had been collected by a I.O. from a place of occurrence and damaged skeleton and articles were collected from a cremation site and sent for chemical research to Forensic Science Laboratory. Unfortunately, nothing of a courts next has taken note of a FSL news yet a papers had been noted as Ext.PH and Ext. PH1. The initial request is news No. FSL(H) antiquated 29.5.1990 by a Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal, wherein a outcome of hearing of skeleton and stays is as under:

Ext.1 – some burnt skeleton alongwith charcoal (Approximately 1 Kg.) Result of a hearing – no common lead poison could be rescued in Ext. 1.
Ext. PH1 antiquated 16.8.1989 suggested that a fragments of skeleton in Ext. PH1 were identified that they belonged to tellurian individual.
The aforesaid reports do not support a box of a prosecution, rather leans towards a counterclaim taken by a appellant.
15. The High Court interfered with a sequence of exculpation available by a hearing court. The law of interfering with a visualisation of exculpation is well-settled. It is to a outcome that usually in well-developed cases where there are constrained resources and a visualisation in interest is found to be perverse, a appellate justice can meddle with a sequence of a acquittal. The appellate justice should bear in mind a hypothesis of ignorance of a indicted and serve that a hearing court’s exculpation bolsters a hypothesis of innocence. Interference in a slight demeanour where a other perspective is probable should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Talevar & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2271; and Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station & Anr., (2012) 4 SCC 722).

16. In perspective of above, we are of a deliberate opinion that in a present box there had been vital improvements/embellishments in a charge box and approach of Rs.10,000/- by a appellant does not find discuss in a statements underneath Section 161 Cr.P.C. More so, even if such approach was there, it might not indispensably be a approach of dowry. Further, a chemical research news falsifies a speculation of self-murder by defunct holding any pills. In such a fact-situation, a counterclaim taken by a appellant in his matter underneath Section 313 Cr.P.C. could be plausible.

Thus, interest succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is given a advantage of doubt and a impugned visualisation of a High Court antiquated 11.1.2007 is set aside. The appellant is transparent of all a charges.

………………………..J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) ………………………..J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi, May 22, 2012