REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282 OF 2008
RAKESH CHAND & ANR.
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB
.. RESPONDENT(S)
O
RDER
The facts are as under:
Neelam Kumari and Anil Kumar were married on 4th
December 1998 and as per the prosecution story sufficient
dowry had been given to the accused at the time of the
marriage. They were however dissatisfied with what had
been given to them and in July 2000, a demand was made for
Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of buying a motor cycle or
scooter. As this demand was not satisfied Neelam Kumari
was turned out up her matrimonial home although she was
in an advanced stage of pregnancy. A motor cycle was
thereafter purchased for Anil Kumar. It is further the
prosecution story that on 22nd April, 2003 Neelam Kumari and
Anil Kumar visited Rajni Bala (PW.16), sister of Neelam
Kumari, also a resident of village Ladda Kothi, where
Neelam Kumari told her sister that her husband was now
demanding Rs.50,000/- in order to construct a room in the
house and was misbehaving with her as this amount was not
being provided by her parents. As per the prosecution story
Neelam Kumari's dead body was spotted on the embankment of
a seepage drain in the area of Barnala by one Komal Singh
on 25th April, 2003. A FIR was duly registered and after
investigation a charge sheet was filed and a charge under
Sections 302/34 and 201 and in the alternative 304-B/34 &
201 of the IPC was framed against Anil Kumar and his
parents, the appellants herein.
The Trial Court relying on the evidence of Chunni
Lal (PW.15), the father of the deceased, her mother Sudesh
Kumari (PW.1) the complainant and Rajni Bala, (PW.16)
convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 304-B and 201 of the IPC but acquitted them of the
offence of murder and they were sentenced accordingly.
An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court.
The High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
A special leave petition was filed by the three accused but
leave was granted qua the appellants only. We have
accordingly heard this appeal today assisted by the learned
counsel for the parties.
Mr. Rajeev Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the
appellants, has pointed out that one of the essential
ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B was that the
demand for dowry had to be made soon before the death of
the deceased. He has referred us to the evidence of Chunni
Lal, Rajni Bala and Sudesh Kumari and pointed out that
there were two sets of demands allegedly made by the
accused; the first one in the year 2000 being a demand for
Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of buying a motor cycle and
there appeared no demand thereafter by the appellants as
the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been made by Anil Kumar
alone shortly before the death of Neelam Kumari and the
appellants thus had no roll to play on this score. We find
merit in this submission. In their examinations-in-chief,
PW.1- Sudesh Kumari and PW.16-Rajni Bala have deposed that
the demand for Rs.50,000/- had also been made by Rakesh
Chand and Pushpa Devi. They were however confronted with
their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. wherein
no such details had been spelt out and the demand for
Rs.50,000/- had been confined only to Anil Kumar. Likewise
we have gone through the statement of Chunni Lal. Even
in his examination-in-chief he very categorically stated
that the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been made only by Anil
Kumar and not by the two appellants. In the light of the
fact that the only demand that could be foisted on the two
appellant was of the year 2000, it could not be said that
the appellants had made any demand soon before the death of
the deceased so as to be liable for conviction under
Section 304-B of the IPC.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, the learned State counsel has
however very vehemently argued that even if there was no
evidence with respect to the offence under Section 304-B
there was ample evidence to maintain the conviction of the
appellants for the offence under Sec.201 of the IPC. In
this connection he has referred us to the statement of PW.6
Dildar Khan who deposed that sometime before the 10th May
2003 he had seen Anil Kumar carrying something in a gunny
bag on his motor cycle. This story is, in the facts,
unacceptable. The incident happened on 24th April 2003 and
Dildar Khan's vague statement that he had seen something
amiss before 10th of May, 2003, is an absurdity and cannot
be accepted. We accordingly feel that the conviction of
the appellants was not justified on the evidence. We
accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of
the Trial Court and the High Court vis.a-vis. the two
appellants herein and order their acquittal.
In the meantime, we direct that the appellant-
Rakesh Chand, who is in custody, shall be released
forthwith if not required in connection with any other
case. As regards Pushpa Devi, her bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
.................J.
(C.K. PRASAD)
New Delhi,
August 11, 2010.