Delhi High Court
Hari Chand & Ors. vs State on 2 September, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
R-86 & 87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 2nd September, 2009
+ CRL.A. 450/2001
HARI CHAND & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Advocate
CRL.A. 600/2001
NATHI DEVI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated
19.5.2001 appellant Nathi Devi has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also for the
offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Appellants Hari
Chand and Kishan Lal who are the sons of Nathi Devi have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A
IPC.
2. For the offence of murder, Nathi Devi has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in
sum of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
two months. For the offence punishable under Section 498A
IPC, all appellants have been directed to undergo RI for three
months and pay a fine in sum of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for one month.
3. Needless to state, sentences imposed upon Nathi
Devi have been directed to run concurrently.
4. Nathi Devi has been convicted for having poured
kerosene oil on the person of her daughter-in-law, Ms.Neetu,
and having set her on fire thereafter on 5.4.1997. Needless to
state the conviction of the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 498A IPC is based on the finding that
the appellants used to treat Neetu with cruelty on account of
dowry demands.
5. Neetu was married to Jagdish, the third son of Nathi
Devi; Hari Chand and Kishan Lal are her eldest and the second
born sons. The marriage was solemnized on 1.5.1996.
6. Neetu suffered burn injuries on 5.4.1997 at around
1:30 PM. The place where she suffered the burns was her
matrimonial house No.B-426, J.J.Colony, Inder Puri.
Information pertaining to Neetu being burnt was received at PS
Inder Puri and noted in the daily diary register vide DD No.13A,
Ex.PW-15/A at 13:32 hours.
7. SI Joginder PW-20 was entrusted the job of
investigating the matter. He left the police station in the
company of Const.Har Prashad PW-11. On reaching house
No.B-426, J.J.Colony, Inder Puri, SI Joginder Singh learnt that
the lady who had suffered burn injuries had been removed to
RML Hospital and thus he proceeded to said hospital where he
found Neetu admitted in the burns ward. He obtained the MLC
Ex.PW-5/A of Neetu but could not record her statement as she
was unfit for statement. He recorded the statement of
Bhanwar Lal PW-2, father of Neetu and made an endorsement
Ex.PW-20/A therein. The rukka was dispatched and the FIR
Ex.PW-16/A was registered.
8. Returning to the spot, SI Joginder Singh summoned
a photographer who took photographs Ex.PW-20/C1 to Ex.PW-
20/C5 of the place of the occurrence. He seized burnt pieces
of cloth and various other articles from the spot as recorded in
the seizure memo Ex.PW-20/E.
9. On the same day i.e. 5.4.1997 SI Joginder Singh
went back to RML Hospital in late evening and found that the
patient i.e. Neetu was fit for statement. Dr.Bibha Prasad PW-
21 was on duty and at 8:00 PM recorded a certification, Ex.PW-
21/A, on the MLC Ex.PW-5/A of Neetu to the effect that the
patient was fit for statement. He immediately contacted the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the concerned area namely
Sharad Chauhan PW-23 who immediately reached the hospital.
10. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate obtained another
endorsement under the signatures of Dr.Preeti Batra, being
Ex.PW-21/B, on the MLC Ex.PW-5/A of Neetu, certifying at
10:00 PM that the patient is fit for statement. Thereafter the
SDM recorded the statement Ex.PW-23/A of Neetu.
11. We may note at this stage that Dr.Bibha Prasad PW-
21 has proved the certification Ex.PW-21/B under signatures of
Dr.Preeti Batra and has deposed that Dr.Preeti Batra has left
the hospital and that she could identify the signatures and the
handwriting of Dr.Preeti Batra.
12. It is apparent that the certification Ex.PW-21/A was
recorded when the investigating officer reached the hospital
and obtained a certification by the doctor that the patient was
fit for statement. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate reached the
hospital later and since there was a time interval vis-à-vis the
time when the certification was obtained and when he
commenced recording the statement of Neetu, the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate took precaution to obtain fresh
certification pertaining to the continued evidence of Neetu to
make a statement.
13. Briefly noted, the statement Ex.PW-23/A of Neetu
records the time being 10:00 PM and the date being 5.4.1997.
As per the statement, in her matrimonial house besides her
husband and her parents-in-law, her jeths and jethanis were
also residing. After marriage, she was troubled on account of
dowry and sometimes used to be beaten. Her mother-in-law
Nathi Devi and her Jeth Hari Chand used to beat her and the
Jeth Kishan Lal used to abuse her. She stated that her father-
in-law and her husband were always good to her. Pertaining to
the circumstances of her receiving burn injuries she stated
that she was cleaning rice and all of a sudden her mother-in-
law poured kerosene oil on her and lit a matchstick as a result
whereof she caught fire. Her husband who had gone to effect
purchases returned at that moment and on hearing her cries
doused the flames and brought her to the hospital. She
clarified that only her mother-in-law set her on fire and no one
else was present with her.
14. Neetu's brother Narender deposed as PW-1. Her
father Bhanwar Lal deposed as PW-2. Her mother Mooli Devi
appeared as PW-3.
15. Two uncles of Neetu namely Jagdish and Mam
Chand have deposed as PW-4 and PW-7. As per the testimony
of Narender and Mooli Devi, i.e. brother and mother of the
deceased, after 2-3 months of the marriage Neetu complained
that her mother-in-law and her two brothers-in-law (Jeth) used
to beat her on account of insufficient dowry brought by her.
We note that both of them have not disclosed any particulars
pertaining to the nature of dowry demand, the day, the week
or even the month on which dowry was demanded. Bald
statements have been made by the two that Neetu told them
of being beaten on account of dowry by her mother-in-law and
her brothers-in-law.
16. Bhanwar Lal PW-2 gave a clean chit to the in-laws
of his daughter with respect to the demand of dowry. He
stated that his daughter never complained to him pertaining to
any kind of harassment relatable to the dowry which he gave
at the time of the marriage but stated that his daughter had
told him of having a matrimonial problem with her mother-in-
law pertaining to house hold work.
17. Jagdish PW-4 reiterated the language of the mother
and brother of Neetu by generally stating that Neetu used to
complain of harassment on account of inadequate dowry. He
made an addition by stating that demand in sum of
Rs.20,000/- was made so that a separate room for Neetu could
be constructed on the second floor of the house.
18. PW-7 Mam Chand, the uncle of Neetu parroted the
testimony of the brother and mother of Neetu by stating that
Neetu complained of harassment on account of dowry at the
hands of her mother-in-law and the two brothers-in-law.
19. The learned Trial Judge has convicted the
appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC
on the basis of the testimony of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7
ignoring the fact that the father of the deceased has
categorically stated that his daughter never complained
harassment on account of dowry. As per him, the complaint of
the daughter was of being harassed on the issue of domestic
work. That apart, the learned Trial Judge has ignored the fact
that the testimony of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7 is most
uninspiring vis-à-vis the dowry demand. Save and except PW-
4 who has talked of one incident with respect to the particulars
of the dowry demand, the other witnesses have disclosed
nothing.
20. Who would be required to satisfy the dowry
demand? Obviously, father or may be the brother of Neetu.
Their knowledge would be better than the knowledge of other
relatives of Neetu. Neither the brother nor the father of Neetu
have spoken of Rs.20,000/- being demanded to enable the in-
laws of Neetu to construct a separate room on the second floor
of their hosue in which Neetu and her husband could reside.
21. Under the circumstances, we concur with the
submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that
the evidence on record is of a very weak kind and is
insufficient to prove the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 498A IPC.
22. We may note that even in her dying declaration
Neetu has referred in very vague language to harassment on
account of dowry. She has alleged that her mother-in-law and
her Jeth Hari Chand used to beat her and Kishan Lal used to
abuse her. Even she has not disclosed any particulars of the
dowry demand.
23. Pertaining to the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC, the law pertaining to dying declaration is clear.
24. In the case of bride burning, where the young bride
makes a dying declaration and there is no evidence of her
being tutored or being motivated to tell lies and there being no
infirmity found in the dying declaration, it would be safe to
sustain a conviction on a dying declaration without it being
corroborated.
25. Nothing has been shown to us during argument of
the appeal wherefrom it can be inferred that relatives of Neetu
influenced her to make a false statement. No motive on the
part of Neetu to falsely implicate her mother-in-law has been
shown to us. The truthfulness of the statement of Neetu is
deeply embedded in her statement. Having disclosed that she
was troubled by her mother-in-law and her Jeth Hari Chand
who even used to beat her and having disclosed verbal abuses
at the hands of her other Jeth Kishan Lal; having a golden
opportunity to ensnare her two brothers-in-law and have them
in the clutches of the law, Neetu has shown nothing of that
sort. She has only inculpated her mother-in-law. This fact
itself lays an assurance and credibility to the truthfulness of
the statement of Neetu.
26. We note that Neetu died on 10.4.1997 as a result of
the burn injuries suffered by her. The post-mortem report
Ex.PW-6/A shows that 90% of the body of Neetu was burnt, a
fact which if not conclusive but certainly determinative and
indicative of the fact that in all probability Neetu could not
have suffered accidental burns.
27. Be that as it may, the dying declaration of Neetu is
without any blemish and the guilt of Nathi Devi can be inferred
therefrom.
28. Crl.A.No.600/2001 is partially allowed in that her
conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is
set aside. Her conviction for the offence of murder is
sustained. Crl.A.No.450/2001 filed by Hari Chand and Kishan
Lal is allowed. They are acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 498A IPC.
29. All appellants are on bail. The bail bonds and
surety bonds furnished by Hari Chand and Kishan Lal are
discharged in view of the fact that they have been acquitted.
The bail bond and surety bond furnished by Nathi Devi are
cancelled. She is directed to surrender and suffer the
remaining sentence.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2009
mm
