REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1327 OF 2003
SUDHIR KUMAR
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB
.. RESPONDENT(S)
O
RDER
The prosecution story is as under:
Kamlesh Rani deceased, daughter of PW.3-Tej Ram was
married to Sudhir Kumar, the appellant herein, on 28th July,
1989 at Maur Mandi, District Bhatinda. At the time of
marriage, ornaments and cash befitting the status of the
families, were given in dowry. A month after the
marriage, however, the appellant and his parents Angoori
Lal and Kaushalya Devi and sisters Neelam Kumari and Urmila
Devi started maltreating Kamlesh Rani for having brought
insufficient dowry. Sudhir Kumar also demanded a scooter
for himself and a gold ring each for his sisters Neelam and
Urmila. The demand was duly conveyed by Kamlesh Rani to her
parents at Maur Mandi. Tej Ram promised to fulfill the
demand on which Kamlesh Rani returned to her matrimonial
home and was immediately questioned by her mother-in-law as
to the scooter and the gold rings. Bhim Sain, brother of
Kamlesh Rani, however, told them that the family was not in
a position to fulfill the demand on account of financial
difficulties. He, however, returned to Maur Mandi after
leaving Kamlesh Rani in the matrimonial home. About 10 days
prior to the incident Ramji Das-PW.2, Tej Ram's younger
brother, came to Maur Mandi and told Tej Ram that the
accused had given slaps to Kamlesh Rani in his presence on
which he had promised that the demand for a scooter and
gold rings would be fulfilled within a few days. Sudhir
Kumar also came to Maur Mandi and once again reiterated the
demands to his father-in-law failing which he threatened
dire consequences for Kamlesh Rani. On 30th November, 1989,
Bhim Sain went to the house of the accused and found the
outer gate shut. On persistent ringing of the bell, Angoori
Lal came out but moved away and when Bhim Sain entered the
house he noticed Kamlesh Rani's dead body lying in the
latrine. Bhim Sain immediately came to the house of his
uncle Ramji Das PW.2 and the two then went to the police
station where the former lodged the report Exh. PD on the
basis of which an FIR was registered. Sub-Inspector
Santokh Singh thereupon reached the place of incident and
made the necessary inquiries. On completion of the
investigation a challan was duly presented against Angoori
Lal, Kaushalya Devi and Neelam and Urmila for an offence
punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and the matter
was brought for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Court
of Sessions, however, charged the accused under Sections
302/149 IPC read with Section 304(B) of the IPC in the
alternative.
The prosecution in support of its case relied on the
evidence of PW.1 Dr. S.S. Malik who had performed the post-
mortem on the dead body, the three primary witnesses PW.2-
Ramji Das, PW.3-Tej Ram and PW.4-Sat Paul, also an uncle of
the deceased, in addition to the formal evidence of Santokh
Singh the I.O. The statements of the accused were
thereafter recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and
they denied the allegations simplicitor. Sudhir Kumar,
however, took up additional plea:
”I am innocent. I have been falsely
involved. This occurrence has taken place before
noon time and at that time myself and my father
Angoori Lal were present at our medical store while
my sister Neelam Kumari was teaching at private
school and Urmila was at her in-laws house. I was
suffering from Epilepsy and used to be treated by
Dr. Sohan Lal Grover and other senior doctors
before and after marriage and due to the effect of
the drugs I was unable to perform the sexual
intercourse and for that reason my wife used to
remain under depression. After the occurrence we
were summoned from the shop. I never maltreated or
demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased.”
They also produced some evidence in defence. The
trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence convicted
the appellant and Kaushalya Devi, his mother under Section
304-B of the IPC and sentenced them to R.I. of seven years.
Angoori Lal, Urmila and Neelam were, however, acquitted.
An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court which in
its judgment dated 7th April, 2003, which has been impugned
in the present proceedings, allowed the appeal of Kaushalya
Devi as well. This appeal by way of special leave is,
therefore, confined only to Sudhir Kumar, the husband of
the deceased.
We have heard Mr. A. Sharan, the learned senior
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned
counsel for the State of Punjab. We find that the
prosecution story is fully proved by the evidence of PW.2-
Ramji Das, the uncle of the deceased, PW.3 Tej Ram, her
father and PW.4. Sat Paul, another uncle of the deceased.
The medical evidence shows that the deceased had suffered
95% burn injuries and the dead body had been found in the
bathroom of the house. Keeping in view the fact that the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has to
be raised in such matters, it is for the defence to dispel
the presumption. We find that the trial Court and the High
Court have gone through the evidence and given the benefit
of doubt to three of the accused while maintaining the
conviction only against one i.e. the husband of the
deceased. We also see from the evidence that the marriage
had been performed on 28th July, 1987 and death had occurred
on 30th November, 1987, that is just four months after the
marriage.
Mr. Sharan, the learned counsel for the appellant
has, however, submitted that in the light of the fact that
the prosecution story had been disbelieved with respect to
four of the five accused, the presumption under Section
113-B of the Evidence Act had been rebutted and as such the
appellant was entitled to acquittal on parity with the
other accused. It is true that four of the five accused
have been acquitted but we find that primary evidence is
against Sudhir Kumar, the appellant herein. A reading of
the evidence shows that it was the appellant who had, just
a few days' before the incident, visited the house of his
father-in-law and threatened Kamlesh Rani with dire
consequences if his demand for a scooter and two gold rings
was not fulfilled and Bhim Sain, the brother of the
deceased had told him that his father Tej Ram was not in a
position to meet the demands on account of financial
difficulties. A few days later Ramji Das (PW.2) too had
visited Kamlesh Rani's in-law's home and had also informed
Tej Ram thereafter that the appellant had been found
beating his wife at that time and had once again threatened
that if the demands were not satisfied Kamlesh Kaur would
pay dearly for it.
It is true, as contended by Mr.
Sharan, that in a case where the peculiar evidence has been
discarded with respect to four of the five accused, the
presumption under Section 113-B could to some extent be
said to be dispelled, but on an over view we find that the
primary role and the weight of the evidence has been on
the appellant herein.
We, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
.................J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)
New Delhi,
January 14, 2010.