Ravi Prakash @ Ravi vs The State (Govt. Of Nct, Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 5152 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              RESERVED ON : 14th AUGUST, 2013
                              DECIDED ON : 11th NOVEMBER, 2013

+                        CRL.A. 553/2011

       RAVI PRAKASH @ RAVI                      ....Appellant
                Through : Ms.Puja Shrivastava, Advocate.

                                versus

       THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI)        ....Respondent
                Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Ravi Prakash @ Ravi (The appellant) challenges the

correctness and legality of a judgment dated 26.02.2011 of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 58/09 arising out of FIR No. 4/09

PS Anand Parbat whereby he was held guilty for committing 'dowry

death' punishable under Sections 498A/304-B IPC. By an order dated

28.02.2011, he was awarded RI for ten years under Section 304-B IPC

and RI for three years with fine ` 10,000/- under Section 498-A IPC. The

substantive sentences were to operate concurrently. The prosecution case

as emerged out from the record is as under :

2. Meenu @ Meena was married to Ravi Prakash @ Ravi on

14.04.2008. After the marriage initially they lived together for about eight

days in village Itawa Bhadhath (Rajasthan) and thereafter, at F-94,

Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi. On 28.01.2009, she

suffered a suicidal death in the matrimonial home. Daily Diary (DD) No.

30 A (Ex.PW-14/A) was recorded at PS Anand Parbat at 08.28 P.M. on

getting information of the occurrence. The investigation was assigned to

SI Hukam Singh who with Const. Rakesh went to the spot. Meenu @

Meena was found hanging by the hook of a ceiling fan in a room on the

first floor. SI Hukam Singh conveyed the information to PW-1 Pramod

Kumar (Sub Divisional Magistrate) who went to the spot. Crime team

took photographs of the crime scene. Intimation was sent to the

deceased's parents. On 29.01.2009, Mukesh Kumar Bhargava, deceased's

elder brother recorded statement (Ex.PW-1/A) before the SDM and First

Information Report was lodged. During the course of investigation, post-

mortem examination of the body was conducted and statements of the

witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Ravi Prakash @ Ravi

(husband), Om Prakash Sharma (father-in-law), Deepak Sharma @ Vicky

(brother-in-law) and Vijay Laxmi @ Pooja (sister-in-law) arrayed as

accused were arrested. Efforts were made to find out the whereabouts of

Sahi Devi, deceased's mother-in-law but in vain. She was declared

Proclaimed Offender on 21.07.2009. After completion of investigation, a

charge-sheet was submitted in the Court. The prosecution examined

seventeen witnesses to establish the charges. In their 313 statements, the

accused persons facing trial denied their involvement in the crime and

pleaded false implication. They claimed that Meenu @ Meena used to

insist Ravi Prakash @ Ravi to give money to her brother, Mukesh

Bhargava who was in dire need of it. She used to remain tense on that

count and committed suicide. DW-1 (Damodar Kumar Sharma) and DW-

2 (Ramakant Jha) were examined in defence. On appreciating the

evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the

Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held Ravi Prakash @ Ravi guilty

of the offences mentioned previously. It is relevant to note that other

accused facing trial were acquitted of the charges and the State did not opt

to challenge their acquittal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the

impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it is based upon conjectures

and surmises. The Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true

and proper perspective and ignored vital discrepancies and improvements

in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses without sound reasons. The

prosecution was unable to establish that the appellant was persecuting

Meenu @ Meena with the demand of dowry. The allegations emerged

only after Meenu @ Meena's death to extract money. Prior to the

occurrence, neither the deceased nor her parents had ever complained

about appellant's conduct and behaviour. Meenu lived happily in the

matrimonial home and was never forced to bring any dowry article from

her parents. No independent public witness was associated during

investigation. The call-details were not proved. In any case essential

ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were lacking to prove cruelty on

account of non-fulfilment of dowry demands 'soon' before the death. No

physical injuries were ever caused to the deceased. It is admitted case of

the parties that there was no demand of dowry prior to the solemnization

of the marriage. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while supporting the

findings urged that Meenu @ Meena was forced to commit suicide as she

was harassed and tortured on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demands

including motorcycle. Even on the day of incident in a telephonic

conversation with her parents and brother, Meenu @ Meena had apprised

them that she was being beaten like a dog and was harassed for dowry

demands.

4. Factum of marriage between the parties on 14.04.2008 is not

under challenge. It is undeniable that after the marriage both the appellant

and Meenu @ Meena lived together for about eight days in village Itawa

Bhadhath (Rajasthan) and thereafter, at house No. F-94, Punjabi Basti,

Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi as a joint family. It is also on record

that on 28.01.2009 within nine and a half months of marriage Meenu @

Meena committed suicide in the matrimonial home by hanging. Parents of

the deceased resided far away in village Malikpur, Distt. Jaipur

(Rajasthan). PW-13 (Sampat Kumar Bhargava), R/o. Village Bhadhath

(Rajasthan) from the appellant's native place was mediator in the

marriage. No other relative of the deceased lived in the vicinity of the

matrimonial home. It is unclear at what time and in whose presence the

incident occurred. Since the death had taken place other than under

normal circumstances in the matrimonial home within nine and a half

months of the marriage, it was the boundened duty of the appellant, her

husband, to divulge the circumstances forcing Meenu @ Meena to put an

end to her life under Section 106 Evidence Act. However, the appellant

did not elaborate at what time Meenu @ Meena committed suicide and

what were the surrounding circumstances that day which prompted her to

take the extreme step suddenly. The appellant did not examine any

neighbour in defence to throw light whether the relations with the

deceased were cordial and she had no complaint whatsoever against his

conduct and behaviour. He did not explain the delay in giving intimation

to the police about the incident. In 313 statement, a specific plea was

taken that Meenu @ Meena used to remain tense due to demand of money

by her brother - Mukesh Kumar Bhargava. However, the appellant was

unable to prove this allegation and the defence was rightly rejected by the

Trial Court for cogent reasons. The appellant did not elaborate as to when

any specific demand of money was raised by deceased's brother or the

said demand was ever met. In the cross-examination, Mukesh Kumar

Bhargava categorically denied any such demand for the treatment of his

wife. PW-5 (Vimla) and PW-12 (Babu Lal Bhargava), deceased's parents

were categorical to deny any demand of money by their son - Mukesh

Kumar Bhargava from the appellant or Meenu @ Meena. They informed

that he (Mukesh Kumar Bhargava) had sufficient income and used to

contribute ` 3,000/- or ` 4,000/- every month to them. In the absence of

cogent evidence, it cannot be inferred that Meenu @ Meena used to

remain depressed or stressed on account of demands by her brother. It

appears that the appellant has taken false excuse to wriggle out of the

proceedings and has not presented true reasons for her death. In

'S.Govindaraju vs. State of Karnataka', 2013(10)SCALE454, Supreme

Court observed:

"23. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence in order to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances.

24. This Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0573/2013 : JT 2013 (8) SC 181 held as under:

Undoubtedly, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in certain circumstances, the accused has to furnish some explanation to the incriminating circumstances, which has come in evidence, put to him. A false explanation may be counted as providing a missing link for completing a chain of circumstances.

(Emphasis added)

25. The prosecution successfully proved its case and, therefore, provisions of Section 113 of the Evidence Act 1872 come into play. The Appellant/accused did not make any attempt, whatsoever, to rebut the said presumption contained therein. More so, Shanthi, deceased, died in the house of the Appellant. He did not disclose as where he had been at the time of incident. In such a fact-situation, the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act may also be made

applicable as the Appellant/accused had special knowledge regarding such facts, though he failed to furnish any explanation thus, the court could draw an adverse inference against him."

5. PWs-4, 5 & 12 have given consistent version that after about

one or two months Meenu @ Meena was harassed and sent to her parents'

house where she had to stay for a month. When Om Prakash Sharma and

his father went to bring her back to the matrimonial home, assurance was

given by them to deceased's parents not to harass her in future. In the

cross-examination, these assertions of the prosecution witnesses remained

unchallenged. In the statement (Ex.PW-1/A), Mukesh Kumar Bhargava,

deceased's brother gave graphic details as to how and in what manner, his

sister was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demands. He also

stated that during conversation on phone on 28.01.2009, Meenu @ Meena

informed them that she was being beaten like a dog by her in-laws. Had

the relations with the deceased been cordial prior to the occurrence, there

was no reason for her family members to implicate the appellant. After the

post-mortem examination, the body was taken for cremation to the village

by her parents and last rites were performed there. The appellant has not

given explanation as to why he did not offer to perform the last rites in

Delhi. In the Court statement PW-4, Mukesh Kumar Bhargava proved the

version given to the SDM at the first instance without major variation or

improvements. PW-5 (Vimla) and PW-12 (Babu Lal Bhargava),

deceased's parents from Rajasthan corroborated PW-4's testimony on all

material facts. All of them gave consistent statement that the appellant

used to demand motorcycle and due to non-fulfilment of the demand, the

deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty. In the cross-

examination, no suggestion was put to the witnesses to challenge their

specific assertions. No ulterior motive was assigned for false implication.

The defence was unable to shatter their testimony and elicit any material

contradictions to disbelieve their version. They did not nurture any

grievance or inimical feelings towards them and had not lodged any

complaint during Meenu's stay in the matrimonial home.

6. Medical evidence is in consonance with ocular testimonies of

PWs. In the post-mortem examination report (Ex.PW-15/A) proved by

PW-15 (Dr.B.N.Mishra), injury i.e. ligature mark was found on the

deceased's neck. Another injury on the right ear in size of 2x2 cm was

also found. The appellant did not explain as to how the victim sustained

the injury on her right ear. Apparently, on the date of death also, the

deceased was subjected to physical torture. The beating given to the

deceased and harassment to which she was subjected had direct bearing

on her committing suicide. PW-13 (Sampat Kumar Bhargava), mediator

in the marriage deposed that in the month of Sawan in a telephonic call,

Meenu @ Meena informed that her family had given all the articles in the

marriage except motorcycle and her husband Ravi Prakash @ Ravi was

demanding the motorcycle as 'dowry'. She further informed him that her

in-laws were not happy due to non-giving of sufficient dowry in the

marriage. In the cross-examination, he was fair to admit that at the time of

marriage there was no dowry demand from the side of accused persons.

7. DW-1 (Damodar Kumar Sharma) & DW-2 (Ramakant Jha)

were examined to prove payment of ` 2.5 lacs on 12.09.2009 in a

settlement to the deceased's father. The alleged compromise has no

foundation and was pleaded for the first time only in defence evidence.

PW-Babu Lal Bhargava was not confronted with any such compromise

during his Court statement. Ganeshi Lal, appellant's maternal uncle who

had arranged the alleged meeting was not examined. The appellant has

failed to explain as to why they had agreed to pay ` 2.5 lacs to the

deceased's father when they were not instrumental in her death. The

defence version inspires no confidence and needs outright rejection. Once

it is established by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by the appellant for or in connection with the

demand for dowry including motorcycle, it was permissible to take

recourse to the legal presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence

Act. The rule of evidence is prescribed in law to obviate the prosecution

of the difficulty to further prove that the offence was perpetrated by the

husband. The appellant could not rebut the presumption. Minor

contradictions and discrepancies highlighted in the testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses are not fatal as they do not affect the core of the

issue and are of inconsequential nature. All the relevant contentions of the

appellant have been dealt with minutely in the impugned judgment with

cogent reasons. The findings of the Trial Court based upon fair and proper

appraisal of the evidence need no interference and are confirmed.

8. The appeal is unmerited and is dismissed. Trial Court record

be sent back forthwith. Copy of the order be sent to Superintendent jail.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 11, 2013/tr