HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1067/2011
Bhera @ Bheru Lal S/o Shri Jeeva Meena, by caste Meena, aged
about 23 years, Resident of Nichal Karcha, P.S. Kherwada,
District-Udaipur.
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
—-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
Per Honble Mr. Vinit Mathur, J.
15/02/2019
The instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has
been preferred by the appellant Bhera @ Bheru Lal against the
judgment dated 19/12/2011, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.3, Udaipur Headquarter, Salumbar
in Sessions Case No.50/2011, whereby the accused-appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine In default
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 3000/- 3 months’ R.I.
304-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.3,000/- 3 months’ R.I.
498-A IPC Two and half years Rs.1,000/- 15 days R.I.
rigorous imprisonment
(2 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
The prosecution story as narrated in the written complaint
(Ex.P.5) filed by Narayan (PW.3), father of the deceased Reena on
01/03/2011 wherein he stated that his daughter Reena @ Veena
was married to the appellant Bhera ten months ago. When his
daughter came home on the occasion of Rakhi, she informed that
the appellant was harassing her with a demand of Rs. 20,000/-.
Since, he had no money, therefore, she went back empty handed
to her in-laws’ house after staying with him for five days. Again a
demand of Rs. 15,000/- was raised by the appellant but since he
had no money, the same could not be fulfilled. Two days prior to
the date of incident, his daughter came and took away her entire
jewelery. On being asked, she informed that her in-laws had asked
her to bring the same. A day later, brother-in-law of his daughter
Veena informed that she had sustained burn injuries. The same
was informed to him by his wife on telephone at Ahemadabad
where he was working as a labour. On getting the information, he
and his cousin brother Jeevat Ram etc. went to Udaipur. When
they saw Veena in the hospital, she was not in a position to speak.
He suspected that his daughter had been burnt by the appellant
when the demand of dowry was not fulfilled or she might have
committed suicide on being harassed by the appellant.
On the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR No.55/2011 was
registered against the accused for the offence under Section 304-
B IPC at the Police Station Kherwada, District Udaipur. During the
course of investigation, the police added Section 498A IPC in the
matter.
After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet
against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections
304-B and 498A IPC.
(3 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges for the offences under Sections 302, 304B and 498A of
I.P.C to the accused appellant who denied the charges and sought
trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10
witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Two witnesses Jeeva DW.1
and Bhera DW.2 were examined in defence and as many as 3
documents were exhibited .
The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against
him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that
he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both
the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the
documentary evidence and the statement of witnesses, convicted
and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated
19/12/2011. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted
that the appellant and the complainant belong to Meena
Community of Kherwada District Udaipur where there is no custom
of giving dowry. More over, in the present case, dowry was neither
asked for nor the same was given at the time of marriage by the
complainant. He further submits that the allegation of demand of
dowry as portrayed in the statements of PW.3 Narayan Lal, PW.4
Jeevat Ram and PW.5 Mani Devi is false and frivolous. He further
(4 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
submits that it has come on record that a Bajanti (traditional
ornament) was presented by the family of the appellant to father
of the deceased, Narain Lal. Besides this, other gifts were given to
the deceased Veena from the matrimonial side at the time of
marriage. Counsel submits that neither any complaint was made
nor any Panchayat was held with respect to demand of dowry
being raised or harassment being meted out to the deceased by
the appellant and his family. He, therefore, submits that the
allegation of harassment or demand of dowry is sheerly a false
and fabricated.
Learned counsel further argues that the deceased was
suffering from Epilepsy for which she was taken to Ahemdabad
and other places by the accused and expenditure of treatment was
borne mostly by the family of the appellant. The relationship
between the appellant and his wife and other members of the
family was cordial. Immediately on getting the information that
the deceased sustained burn injuries, it was the appellant and his
family members who rushed her to the hospital and informed the
mother and father of the deceased on telephone. Had there been
any ill-will on the part of the appellant, he would not have
immediately informed the parents of the deceased.
Learned counsel on the strength of these arguments submits
that the prosecution could not prove beyond the pale of doubt that
present appellant was guilty of the offences alleged in the present
case and therefore, the learned trial court committed grave factual
and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused-
appellant for the alleged offence as above vide Judgment dated
(5 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
19/12/2011, which warrants interference by this Court and the
accused-appellant may be acquitted from the charge levelled
against him.
On the contrary, learned public prosecutor submits that
within a short span of ten months of marriage, Smt. Veena wife of
the appellant died in unnatural circumstances, therefore, the
presumption of an unnatural death within a period of seven years
clearly brings the appellant within the ambit of Section 304B IPC.
He further submits that the allegation that the deceased was
harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of
demand of dowry is proved conclusively by the evidence of PW.3
Narayan Lal, father of the deceased; PW.4 Jeevat Ram, uncle of
the deceased; PW.5 Smt. Mani Devi, mother of the deceased and
PW.6 Mani Lal, uncle of the deceased. Thus, as per him, the
prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against
the appellant by clinching evidence and by virtue of the
presumption under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act. The
testimony of these witnesses is thoroughly corroborated by the
medical evidence in the form of statement of PW.9 Dr. Anupam
Johari who conducted the autopsy of deceased Veena and stated
that the cause of death was shock and secondary bacterial
infection which developed in the extensive burn injury sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Besides this, the
postmortem report (Ex.P.9) also shows the cause of death was
shock due to septicemia caused by secondary bacterial infection
over the extensive burn area sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature. He urged that the learned trial Court, after
analyzing the evidence on record and appreciating the facts of the
(6 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
case, has rightly convicted the appellant vide judgment dated
19/12/2011 which calls for no interference by this Court.
We have considered the submissions made at bar and closely
scrutinized the record of the trial Court.
PW.3 Narayan Lal, being the father of the deceased stated
that Reena was married to the appellant ten months before the
incident and all throughout this period, she was harassed by the
appellant for bringing Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. She was
assaulted on three occasions and on each time, Reena came to his
house and was counselled and sent back. Last time when she
came, she took away the ornaments. She was burnt alive after
pouring kerosene on her body. When the incident happened and
his wife informed him about the same, he was at Ahmedabad. He
lodged the report to the police under his signatures.
In the cross-examination, this witness deposed that at the
time of marriage, he asked the appellant for a Bajanti (traditional
ornament). He further stated that although there was custom of
taking Dapa from the groom’s family but he did not take any Dapa
in the marriage and, no other custom was prevalent in their
community. His daughter was quite fair and beautiful but the
accused was very ordinary looking and had her daughter seen the
appellant Bhera beforehand, she would not have married him.
Neither any complaint was lodged for harassment being meted out
to his daughter for not bringing dowry nor any Panchayat was held
for the same.
PW.4 Jevat Ram, being the uncle of the deceased stated
almost on the same lines as stated by PW.3 Narayan Lal. He
stated that neither any complaint was lodged against the appellant
(7 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
or his family for harassing the deceased Veena nor was any
Panchayat held for such allegations.
PW.5 Smt. Mani Devi, mother of the deceased also stated
almost on the same lines as deposed by PW.3 Narayan Lal.
However, in the cross-examination, she stated that when her
daughter Veena went to her matrimonial home, she was not
keeping well. For treatment of Veena, she was taken to Village
Godi where her in-laws also accompanied them and they also
spent about Rs.700-800. Thereafter, there was significant
improvement in her health. She was taken to different temples
and offerings were made.
PW.6 Manilal, uncle of the deceased also deposed on the
same lines as stated by PW.3 Narayan Lal. He also admitted that
no complaint was ever lodged before any authority regarding
harassment against her in-laws.
PW.9 Dr. Anupam Johari who conducted the postmortem
stated that body of deceased Veena was 95% burnt and cause of
death was shock and infection because of excessive burn injury
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature.
PW.10 Jeevan Singh is the Investigating Officer who
investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he
recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples, prepared
memos in accordance with the provisions of law and submitted the
charge sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
D.D.1 Jeeva, father of the accused appeared and deposed
before the Court that Veena was suffering from illness right from
inception of her marriage. The illness was something like Epilepsy
due to which she used to suffer from convulsions and would often
(8 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
fall down while walking. He took her to Ahemdabad for treatment
along with her father and his son. She was also taken to different
temples including one at Village Godi. The relationship between
her and her husband was quite normal and cordial. At the time of
incident, he was in Ahemdabad and on getting the information, he
reached to the hospital at Udaipur where he was informed that
Veena had caught fire while preparing tea and was burnt.
D.D.2 Bheru also stated similar to the statement made by his
father D.D.1. He further stated that while preparing tea on stove,
his wife caught fire and sustained burn injuries. He took her to the
hospital and informed his in-laws.
Postmortem Report is Ex.P.9 wherein the cause of death was
shown as “shock due to septicemia caused by secondary bacterial
infection over extensive burnt area sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature by its own”.
On a close scrutiny of the testimony of PW.3 Narayan Lal and
PW.5 Mani Devi, we note that the allegation of demand of dowry
is wholly unfounded because no custom of dowry is prevalent in
the community to which the parties belong and on the contrary it
has come on record that at the time of marriage, the family of the
boy brings and offers ornaments, clothes etc. for the girl i.e. bride
and this custom is called ‘Dapa’. Therefore, the allegation of
demand of dowry is not really made out. It has also come on
record that father of the deceased asked the appellant to bring
Bajanti (traditional ornament) for his daughter Veena.
We further note that because of the illness of deceased
Veena, she was taken for treatment at different places. It has
come in the statement of PW.5 Smt. Mani Devi that the in laws not
(9 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
only accompanied Veena but they also spent certain amounts for
her treatment. Therefore, it can reasonably be inferred that the
relationship between deceased Veena and her in-laws including
her husband was not strained on account of demand of dowry as
alleged in the statements of prosecution witnesses. On a conjoint
reading of the statements of PW.3 Narayan Lal, PW.4 Jeevat Ram
and PW.6 Mani Lal, it is also clear that no complaint was ever
made for subjecting the deceased to maltreatment by appellant
and his family members. Not only this, no Panchayat was held for
the purpose in their Village or Society. Hence, we are persuaded to
take a view that never was any dispute between the two families
on account of demand of dowry.
We note that Veena was fair and beautiful and whereas the
appellant was of dark complexion and, therefore, it was probably a
mismatch of personalities between husband and wife, on account
of which there might have been altercations and possibility of
disputes and quarreling between the husband and wife on trivial
issues cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, the fact that the
deceased was suffering from an epilepsy type illness and the her
parental family members tried to hide this fact is also a significant
circumstance which creates a doubt on the bonafides of the
prosecution case. The possibility of strained relationship between
the appellant and his wife because of her illness which caused her
to suffer frequent bouts of convulsions and fainting can also not
be ruled out. To say the least, we are not convinced that the
prosecution has been able to bring home the allegation of
harassment to the deceased Veena for demand of dowry or not
meeting the demand for payment of cash.
(10 of 10) [CRLA-1067/2011]
In this background, we feel that rather than it being a case
of suicide committed by the deceased owing to harassment for
demand of dowry, it is a case wherein, the apparent disparity in
the build and complexion of the spouses and the ailment being
suffered by the deceased led to some altercations and the things
went beyond tolerance of the deceased who took the extreme step
of ending her life by self immolation. Thus, the case at best travels
within the preview of instigation meted out by the accused to the
deceased for committing suicide punishable under Section 306
IPC. Further the presumption of Section 113-A of the Evidence
Act supports our observation in the present case.
For the foregoing reasons, we feel persuaded to convert the
conviction of the appellant from the charges under Sections 302,
304-B to one under Section 306 IPC.
In view of the discussion made herein above, the present
appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated
19/12/2011 is modified and while acquitting the appellant from
the charge under Sections 302/304 B IPC, his conviction is altered
to the offence under Section 306 IPC and he is sentenced to seven
years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default
to payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months rigorous
imprisonment. His conviction and sentence for the offence under
Section 498A IPC is maintained. The record of the trial court be
returned forthwith.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
1-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)