B.C. Kandpal, J.@mdashThis appeal u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2-12-1996 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge Haridwar in Sessions trial No. 189 of 1996, State v. Mukesh and Ors., whereby the accused-appellants Mukesh Bhatnagar, Rajesh Bhatnagar and Smt. Kailasho alias Kailashwati were convicted for an offence punishable u/s 304-B I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are that Vimla Devi Bhatnagar, a resident of Sikundarabad in district Bulandshahr, who is the mother of the deceased Renu and mother-in-law of accused-appellant Mukesh Bhatnagar lodged a written report (Ext. Ka-1) with the police of Police Station Gangnahar, Roorkee, on 17-2-1996 at 6-40 p.m. alleging therein that the engagement ceremony of the marriage of Renu was to be held on 25-5-1994. Sunder Swaroop Bhatnagar (P.W.1) is the real maternal uncle of Renu (deceased), while accused Rajesh Bhatnagar is the Jeth of the deceased and accused Smt. Kailasho alias Kailashwati is the mother-in-law of the deceased. At the time of engagement of the marriage, the accused persons insisted for Fridge towards demand of dowry and when they did not accede to their request then ultimately, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards demand for dowry was given to accused Rajesh Bhatnagar by the father of the deceased, who was alive at that time and the engagement ceremony was completed and thereafter the marriage of accused Mukesh was solemnized on 26-5-1994 at Roorkee. The accused Mukesh brought Renu to Sikundarabad after about one and half month of the marriage and there he asked the complainant that he was not given T.V. and Cooler in the marriage and until this demand is fulfilled, he would not take his wife to his house. The deceased also told her mother that her husband, Jeth and mother-in-law used to treat her with cruelty for demand of dowry and they used to commit Marpit with her. In order to settle the life of the deceased, the parents and other relatives of the deceased pacified the husband of the deceased and assured him that the demand of dowry would be fulfilled. Then the accused Mukesh took his wife with him. It is also alleged in the written report that deceased Renu had written few letters to her parents that she was being treated with cruelty in her in-laws house.
3. Further case of prosecution is that in April 1995, deceased Renu gave birth to a male child and in November 1995 she came to her Mayka at about 11 p.m. all alone without being accompanied by the infant son and she narrated the entire story with tears as to how the in-laws were demanding dowry and she was ousted from her house. Accused Mukesh came to Sikundarabad after about 20-25 days of this occurrence and his in-laws assured him to fulfill the demand of dowry, but Smt. Renu was not agreeable to return to her marital house on the pretext that the in-laws would kill her. Accused Mukesh took his wife to his house. On 17-2-1996, P.W.3 Anoop Sharma telephonically informed P.W.1 Sunder Swaroop Bhatnagar that Renu has met with an accident and asked to come to Roorkee. P.W.1 informed his sister Vimla Bhatnagar and other family members about it. The complainant accompanied by her brother P.W.1 Sunder Swaroop Bhatnagar, came to Roorkee and enquired about the incident. There they came to know that Renu was killed by the accused by burning her on pouring kerosene oil. P.W. 1 scribed the written report on the dictation of the complainant Vimla Devi and lodged it at the police Station. On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka-1), Check F.I.R. ( Ext. Ka-16) was prepared at the police station and a case was registered at Crime No. 32/96 u/s 304B of the I.P.C. and an entry to that effect was made in the general diary. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Circle Officer Sri M.L. Ghai.
4. Earlier, the information of this incident was given by somebody at the police station. An entry thereof was made in the General Diary at report No. 19 at 10-15 a.m. dated 17-2-1996 vide Ext. Ka-14 and thereupon S.I. R.P. Purohit (P.W. 5) accompanied by Head Constable Jagdish Prasad of P.S. Gang Nagar reached the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer had also reached there. From the place of occurrence, the police recovered an iron stove, a tin containing kerosene oil, empty plastic jar of kerosene oil marked Vital, bangle pieces of glass, a piece of rope, a half-burnt piece of quilt, burnt ashes etc. and prepared a memo thereof Ext. Ka-13 and obtained the signatures of witnesses thereon. The articles recovered from the place of occurrence are Ext. 18 to 27. The I.O. inspected the place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased was lying. P.W. 5 prepared the inquest report of the dead body by appointing Panchas (Ext. Ka-7) at about 1-30 p.m. Photo Lash (Ext. Ka-8) was prepared and the dead body was sealed and sample of seal was prepared (Ext. Ka-9). The photographs of the deceased were also taken by the police Exts. 1 to 3. The Investigating Officer sent the dead body for post mortem examination along with letters of request to Chief Medical Officer (Ext. Ka-11 and Ka-12).
5. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Renu was conducted on 17-2-1996 at 4-30 p.m. by Dr. V.K. Premi (PW 4), Medical Officer, District H.M.G. Hospital, Haridwar. The doctor found that the age of the deceased was about 25 years and the body was thin built. Rigor mortis was present in both the extremities. Body was not decomposed. Both eyes were closed. Mouth was half open with tongue in between teeth. The doctor found that reddish coloured watery fluid was coming out from nostrils. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- Whole body was having I to II degree burn injuries with singing of scalp hair, eyebrows and pubic hairs, except both feet and soles. Skin was blackened. No other sign of injury was seen over the dead body. On internal examination, the doctor found the brain and other organs of the body of the deceased congested. In the opinion of the doctor, duration of death was about one day back at the time of autopsy. The deceased died due to shock on account of ante mortem burn injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. R.K. Pandey has agreed with the post mortem report prepared by Dr. V.K. Premi.
6. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused persons on 18-2-1996 and entry of arrest was made in the G.D. No. 22 ( Ext. Ka-18). The I.O. found that there were a number of marks of injuries on the person of accused Mukesh at the time of his arrest. The accused Mukesh got himself medically examined on 17-2-1996 at Civil Hospital, Roorkee at 12-30 p.m. by Dr. D.D. Loomba (PW 8). The doctor had found as many as 12 injuries on his person. In the opinion of the doctor, injury Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 were caused by blunt object, while injury Nos. 3, 4 and 7 to 12 were caused by friction. All the injuries were found simple and fresh. No mark of burn was present on the banian and shirt of the accused. The banian was found partially torn. The Medical Officer prepared the injury report Ext. Ka-22.
7. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence vide Ext. Ka-19. The I.O. also took the letters, which were handed over by the complainant, in his possession and prepared memo thereof Ext. Ka-20. After recording the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and completing other formalities, a charge-sheet for the offence u/s 304-B I.P.C. was submitted against the accused persons in the court of the Judicial Magistrate concerned at Roorkee (Ext. Ka-21).
8. The case of the accused was committed to the court of Sessions by the Judicial Magistrate Roorkee on 14-5-1996 and ultimately, the Sessions Trial was transferred to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar for trial of the accused.
9. On 30-8-1996, the Additional Sessions Judge Haridwar framed a charge u/s 304B I.P.C. against the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
10. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Sunder Swaroop Bhatnagar, P.W.2 Vimla Bhatnagar, as witnesses of fact, P.W. 3 Anoop Sharma, who informed P.W.1 regarding the death of the deceased, Dr. V.K. Premi, P.W.4, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Renu, P.W.5, S.I. R.P. Purohit, who conducted inquest proceedings of the deceased Renu, P.W.6, Head Constable Prakash Beer, who accompanied the P.W.5 to the place of occurrence on 17-2-1996, and P.W. 7, Deputy S.P. Sri M.L. Ghai, the Investigating Officer.
11. The statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements, they have admitted the marriage of accused Mukesh with deceased Renu on 26-5-1994 but denied the prosecution case of dowry death as set up against them. They have however stated that Fridge was given by the in-laws out of their own free will on 24-5-1994. They have pleaded their false implication in the crime. No evidence was led by the accused persons in their defence.
12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the entire evidence available on record, found the accused persons guilty of the offence u/s 304B I.P.C. Accordingly, all the three accused-appellants were convicted u/s 304B I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment and order dated 2-12-1996.
13. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused-appellants have come up in appeal before this Court.
14. Although on 2.12.2008 the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri Lok Pal Singh has informed this Court that accused-appellant Smt. Kailasho @ Kailashwati had died during the pendency of appeal but her death could not be ascertained as the C.J.M. concerned from whom report was sought has informed that the accused persons have left the house where they used to live as tenants.
15. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the F.I.R. in the case is anti- timed, as P.W.2, Smt. Vimla has told that on the date of incident she did not see accused Mukesh and how the description of injuries on the person of accused Mukesh has been mentioned in the F.I.R.
16. We do not find any force in the above submission of learned Counsel for the appellants. The incident is said to have taken place at about 10AM on 17-2-1996 and the written report Ext. Ka.1 was lodged at the Police Station at 6-40 P.M. the same day. The complainant has got scribed the detailed F.I.R. from her brother P.W.1, Sundar Swaroop and during this process if some one had told about the injuries of accused Mukesh to the scribe, the same would not render the entire F.I.R. as false and anti-timed. Further P.W.6, Head Constable Prakash Beer, has deposed that on the basis of F.I.R. Ext. Ka.1 he has prepared chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka. 16 and registered a case u/s 304-B I.P.C. against the accused vide G.D. entry Ext. Ka.17 dated 17-2-1996. It has also been mentioned in the written report that on 17-2-1996 after receiving the telephonic message from Anoop Sharma about the death of deceased, the complainant along with her brother Sundar Swaroop went to Roorkee and there they came to know that the deceased was killed by the accused persons by burning her after sprinkling the kerosene on her body and then they prepared the written report and lodged it at the police station. In the above facts and circumstances of the case the F.I.R. in the case cannot be said to be lodged with consultation and due deliberations.
17. The second contention of learned Counsel for the defence was that the deceased has died to accidental death and the accused persons have been implicated falsely in the case.
18. This submission of defence counsel is also not acceptable. P.W.5, Sub Inspector R.C. Purohit was posted at P.S. Gangnahar at the time of incident. On receiving information on telephone he went at the spot and conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body and prepared inquest report Ext. Ka.7. In the inquest report it has been mentioned that the dead body was covered by a blanket. He also found a tin jeriken containing kerosene oil and an empty plastic jar of kerosene oil having smell of kerosene oil. Match box was also found at the spot. Heater was also found there but it was neither on nor was in burnt condition. Site plan Ext. Ka. 19 prepared by the I.O. also shows the presence of match box, 5 liters tin jeriken of kerosene oil, heater, stove and 5 liters plastic jeriken of kerosene oil at the spot. This witness P.W.5, R.C. Purohit, also deposed that when he reached at the spot he found that smell of kerosene oil was coming out from the body of the deceased as well as from the floor at the spot. This witness has not been cross examined on this point. Further the stove found at the spot was not in working condition otherwise the pin of the stove would have been intact. Therefore, the defence version that the synthetic clothes worn by the deceased caught fire from the stove or heater and met to accidental death, is untrustworthy. It is also not the case of the defence that the deceased was cooking food by closing the doors of the kitchen. P.W.7, Sri M.L. Ghai, the I.O. of the case, has deposed that where the dead body was lying there the entry was from door-less bedroom and the items placed in the kitchen were not disturbed. Some bangle pieces were also found at the spot and presence of these bangle pieces clearly establishes that before killing her by burning with kerosene oil she also used force with the accused and during this process her bangles were broken. Therefore, the spot situation clearly establishes this fact that the death of the deceased was not accidental but she was killed by the accused persons by burning her after sprinkling kerosene oil on her body.
19. The learned defence counsel also argued that no demand of dowry was made and no cruelty was committed by the accused persons with the deceased before her death.
20. The above submission is also not acceptable. P.W.1, Sundar Swaroop Bhatnagar and P.W.2, Smt. Vimla Devi have deposed that the engagement ceremony of the deceased with accused Mukesh was performed on 25.5.94 and on that day accused Mukesh told them until Fridge is given in dowry he would not be ready for engagement. The mother and brother of Mukesh also demanded Fridge. These witnesses further deposed that in lieu of Fridge they have given Rs. 10,000/- to the accused persons and thereafter the marriage was performed on 26.5.1994. After about one and half months of marriage Mukesh came to Sikandarabad along with the deceased Renu and told her mother until Cooler and T.V. is given he would not fetch the deceased along with him. The accused persons have admitted that Fridge was given to them by the mother of the deceased at her own free will on 25.4.1994. P.W.1, Sundar Swaroop Bhatnagar also deposed the deceased had told him that her husband, jeth and mother in law use to treat her with cruelty for their unlawful demand of Cooler and T.V. P.W.2, Smt. Vimla also deposed that after one and half month of marriage her daughter came to her and told her that the accused persons used to beat her for their unlawful demand of Cooler and T.V. She further deposed that in May 1995 when the deceased gave birth to a baby, the accused snatched the baby from her and turned her out of house and she had come to her house in the night at about 11 P.M. Some letters written by the deceased have been filed on record. Letter Ext. Ka.5 has been proved by P.W.1, Sundar Swaroop in which the deceased has written about her distress and asked her mother to fetch her from her in-laws house. She further wrote that often her in-laws used to treat her with cruelty and turned her out of house in the night. The accused did not dispute the reliability of the letter by giving any suggestion in this regard. Therefore the entire evidence available on record clearly shows that the accused persons were making unlawful demand of dowry and used to ill-treat the deceased.
21. Learned Counsel for the appellants also tried to argue that the accused Mukesh also sustained injuries on his person when he was trying to save the deceased and the prosecution has cooked up a false case against the accused persons.
22. P.W.8, Dr. D.D. Loomba has examined the injuries of accused Mukesh Bhatnagar and found 12 injuries on his person. The injuries are abraded swelling, abrasions, contusions and they are not burn injuries. The doctor has opined that injuries 1,2,5,6 could be caused by blunt object, injury Nos. 3,4,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 could be caused by friction and all the injuries are simple and fresh in nature. Had the death of deceased been an accidental death and she would have caught fire by accident, and the accused Mukesh had tried to save her, then accused Mukesh would have sustained burn injuries on his person. The doctor has denied this suggestion that the injuries could be caused in breaking open the door. As stated above the entry to the kitchen was from door-less bedroom and no door was found broken at the spot, and this possibility is ruled out that the accused Mukesh in order to save the deceased sustained injuries while breaking open the doors of the kitchen. Rather the prosecution case finds support that when the accused Mukesh tried to pour kerosene oil over the deceased some resistance would have shown by the deceased and during this process the accused would have sustained these abrasions and contusions.
23. Here it may also be noted that the conduct of the accused/appellants was not found reasonable. When the accused came to know that case has been lodged against them they got absconded. P.W.7, M.L. Ghai has deposed that on 17.2.96 when he reached at the spot at 8 P.M. accused persons were not at their house. The house was closed and accused have absconded and the Havaldar of Chauki Tehsil had locked the house. He had taken key from that Havaldar and then has inspected the house. Further the information of the death of the deceased was not given by the accused persons and one Anup Sharma has informed the mother of the deceased about her death. This conduct of accused also shows their guilty conscience. It would also be significant to note here that the death of deceased took place in the house of accused persons in suspicious circumstances and this aspect clearly indicates that it were accused and none else who committed this crime.
24. The post mortem report Ext. Ka.6, fully corroborates the prosecution version. The Medical Officer has found that whole body was having Ist to IInd degree burn injuries with singing of scalp hair, eyebrows and pubic hairs, except both feet and soles. Skin was blackened. No other sign of injury was seen over the dead body. Therefore, we find that the medical version fully supports the prosecution case that the accused persons caused the death of the deceased by burning her after sprinkling kerosene oil on her person.
25. As stated above the eyewitnesses examined in the case are reasonable and trustworthy. P.W.1, Sundar Swaroop Bhatnagar and P.W.2, Smt. Vimla Devi have deposed that the engagement ceremony of the deceased with accused Mukesh was performed on 25.5.94 and on that day accused Mukesh told them until Fridge is given in dowry he would not be ready for engagement. They also stated that the mother and brother of Mukesh also made demand of Fridge. These witnesses further deposed that in lieu of Fridge they have given Rs. 10,000/- to the accused and thereafter the marriage was performed on 26.5.1994. After about one and half months of marriage Mukesh came to Sikandarabad along with the deceased Renu and told her mother until Cooler and T.V. is given he would not fetch the deceased along with him. The accused persons have admitted that Fridge was given to them by the mother of deceased at her own free will on 25.4.1994. P.W.1, Sundar Swaroop Bhatnagar also deposed the deceased had told him that her husband, jeth and mother in law use to treat her with cruelty for their unlawful demand of Cooler and T.V. P.W.2, Smt. Vimla also deposed that after one and half month of marriage her daughter came to her house and she told her that the accused persons used to beat her for their unlawful demand of Cooler and T.V. She further deposed that in May 1995 when the deceased gave birth to a baby, the accused snatched the baby from her and turned her out of house and she had come to her house in the night at about 11 P.M. The written report in the case has been lodged promptly and in this F.I.R. the mother of the deceased has given all the details of dowry demand of the accused, cruelty committed towards the deceased etc and there was no occasion for consultations and deliberations to lodge a false case against the accused. We find that the eyewitnesses examined in the case are reliable and trustworthy.
26. For the discussion made above, we come to the conclusion that the deceased/ appellants have committed the dowry death of the deceased by burning her after sprinkling kerosene oil on her body for not fulfilling their unlawful demand of dowry. We are of the view that the trial Judge has rightly held guilty the accused/appellants for the offence u/s 304B I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and the same is liable to be upheld.
27. The appeal having no force, is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused/appellants by the trial court, is upheld.
28. The accused/appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They be taken into custody forthwith so as to serve out the sentence awarded to them.
29. Let the record be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.
