Delhi High Court
Sohan Lal & Ors. vs The State Of Delhi on 19 July, 2019
$~R-89 & 90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 19th July, 2019
+ CRL.A. 765/2002
SOHAN LAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. K.K. Sud, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Honey Khanna & Mr.
Sachin Gupta, Advs.
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP
for the State with SI Sheel
Kumar, PS Kalkaji.
+ CRL.A. 782/2002
RAMESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.K. Sud, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Honey Khanna & Mr.
Sachin Gupta, Advs.
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP
for the State with SI Sheel
Kumar, PS Kalkaji.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
1. The appellants in these appeals were held guilty and convicted
by the additional sessions judge, by judgment dated 18.09.2002, and
awarded punishment, by order on sentence dated 23.09.2002. The
appellants had approached this Court by these appeals presented in
October, 2002 feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.09.2002
and order on sentence dated 23.09.2002, governing two sessions cases
(no. 42/1997 and 41/1997). Since the two cases were inter-connected,
evidence having been commonly led, and read, the background facts
and the persons involved being also common, they have been heard
together for being decided by this common judgment.
2. The background facts leading to the prosecution which
culminated in the impugned judgment being passed, to the extent
borne out from the indisputable material on record, need to be taken
note of at the outset.
3. Lata (deceased) and Geeta (PW-1) were sisters. Their mother
Leelawati (PW-16) along with her other children including son Madan
Lal (PW-8) were residents at the relevant point of time of house no. 6,
Boulevard Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi, which would fall within the
jurisdiction of police station Sabzi Mandi. Lata, Geeta and Madan Lal
had three more brothers and three other sisters, one of the other
brothers, Brij Lal (PW-2), also being a witness on whose testimony
the prosecution rested its case. The family also included Dayawati
(PW-15), wife of Madan Lal, and Meenakshi (PW-9), wife of Brij Lal,
though it may be added that the said other brother was a resident of
another property. Lata, it may be noted here was the elder one, she
having studied upto seventh standard, Geeta, the junior sibling having
gone to school upto ninth standard.
4. Both the said sisters i.e. Lata (deceased) and Geeta (PW-1) were
married on 24.11.1987 as per Hindu rites and customs to two brothers,
they being appellants Ramesh Kumar (A-4) and Suresh Kumar (A-3),
the former being elder to the latter. After marriage on 24.11.1987,
Lata and Geeta had moved to live with their respective husbands in the
matrimonial home, the said place having been described as house no.
176/6, DDA flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Both appellant Ramesh Kumar
(A-4) and appellant Suresh Kumar (A-3) were employees at that point
of time, in positions of peon, in Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital (GTB
Hospital) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) respectively. The
family of the husbands i.e. appellants Ramesh Kumar and Suresh
Kumar also comprised besides others, their parents i.e. Sohan Lal (A-
1) and appellant Yashoda Devi (A-2). It has come in the evidence that
the matrimonial home was originally a one room flat over which
certain construction had been made upto the level of third floor, the
bed rooms used by the said appellants, and their respective wives,
being on the upper floor. The above-mentioned appellants have a
sister Beena Devi, who was married at the relevant point of time and
was living with her family, though the evidence would also indicate
that her matrimonial home was located in close vicinity.
5. On 27.04.1988, Lata was taken in a critical condition to
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, at about 5.25 p.m., by her mother-in-
law Yashoda (A-2). The medico-legal certificate (MLC) recorded in
the casualty of the said hospital is part of the material on record (Page
41 in part 2 of the trial court record). The document has been referred
to for purposes of collection of the relevant facts though it was not
formally proved at the trial. It is noted that Lata was taken to the
hospital with history of alleged ingestion of baygon spray. Though
there are certain documents on the file of the trial court, including
certain daily diary entries and medical notings, the same not having
been formally proved by any witness, the fact remains, and there is no
challenge to this, that Lata remained unfit for statement till she
succumbed to death on 03.05.1988.
6. Concededly, the members of the parental family of Lata and
Geeta, including Geeta (PW-1) herself, were present in the hospital
keeping a watch over her medical condition and treatment, at least
since 28.04.1988 when the intimation about the event had been
conveyed to them. Concededly again, no report to the police was
lodged by any member of the parental family till 03.05.1988.
7. On 03.05.1988, first information report (FIR) no. 120/1988 was
registered by police station Kalkaji on the basis of statement (Ex.PW-
1/A) of Geeta (PW-1) bearing the endorsement of Sub-Inspector Desh
Pal, who it so appears, was the police official entrusted with the
preliminary inquiries. SI Desh Pal, it has been submitted, was the
investigating officer, who took up various steps for the probe but he
died before he could be called to the witness box. Consequently, the
prosecution was deprived of the benefit of his testimony. It may be
noted that no endeavour was made by the prosecution to bring in any
other witness to prove the documents which may have been prepared
during the course of inquiry or investigation by SI Desh Pal. The copy
of the FIR no. 120/1988 (Ex.PW-7/A) proved by ASI Mam Chand
(PW-7) would reveal that the case was investigated from the
perspective of alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498A/302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
8. It may be mentioned here that as per the allegations of Geeta
(PW-1), the first informant, aside from the ill-treatment meted out to
her and Lata by the appellants and other members of the matrimonial
family, after the marriage, on account of dis-satisfaction with dowry,
there had been a quarrel between Lata (deceased) on one hand and the
appellant Ramesh Kumar on the other hand, in the forenoon of
27.04.1988, this after the two sisters had been taken by him, i.e.
appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-4), to a municipal medical centre at
Kalkaji (for check up in the context of their respective pregnancies),
the quarrel having taken place on the top terrace in the course of
which appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-4) had suffered some injury on his
forehead which was explained to Geeta (PW-1), by Lata (deceased), as
being a self-inflicted injury using an axe. After dust had settled on
the said quarrel, the said two women and Ramesh Kumar (A-4) having
taken lunch, the former two had gone to sleep, the attention of Geeta
(PW-1) having been drawn on noise of some hiccups, it being revealed
that Lata was in critical state. It was alleged by Geeta (PW-1) in the
FIR, that Lata (deceased) had told her at that point of time that she had
been forcibly administered "baygon" (pesticide).
9. There is ample evidence available on record, and it is admitted
case on all sides, that Lata died on 03.05.1988 on account of poisoning
due to ingestion of baygon (pesticide). This is the medical opinion
given in the autopsy report, as was proved during the trial by Dr. S.K.
Verma (PW-4) and by Dr. A. Sharma (PW-10), both of whom with
another medical officer (Dr.B. Swain) were members of the board,
which had been constituted for such purposes. The autopsy doctors
opined that Lata had suffered poisoning on account of carbamate
which confirms the consumption of baygon (pesticide) which contains
such poisonous substance.
10. The investigating agency, however, seemingly was not satisfied
with the allegations of it being a case of forcible administration of
poisonous substance. The report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) dated 27.07.1988,
sought prosecution for the offences indicated in the FIR (inclusive of
offence under Section 302 IPC) but failed to present any concrete
evidence in this regard in support. It is against this backdrop that the
sessions case (no. 42/1997) arising out of the said charge-sheet in the
FIR 120/1988 resulted in trial being held on the charge for offences
under Sections 498A/304 B IPC.
11. The case was also directed, besides four afore-mentioned
appellants, against Beena Devi (A-5), she being married sister of the
husband of the deceased (Lata.) Essentially, Geeta (PW-1) was the
prime witness of the prosecution, her version based on her experience
of life in the matrimonial home, which was common to her and to her
deceased sister, being the main stay, her evidence sought to be
corroborated by the evidence of her mother (PW-16), her brothers
(PW-2 and PW-8), and the wives of the said brothers (PW-9 and PW-
15).
12. The evidence clearly shows that Geeta (PW-1) had left the
matrimonial home at least from 28.04.1988. There are some claims
given that after Lata had been taken to hospital in the critical condition
post-poisoning, Geeta had moved away from the matrimonial home,
and the society of her husband Suresh Kumar (A-3), from 27.04.1988
itself, the contrary version being that she had stayed overnight in the
matrimonial home, her shift from the matrimonial home being an
event that had followed on the next day. Be that as it may, Geeta
admittedly started living with the family of her brother Madan Lal
(PW-8) at least from the next day onwards.
13. While the afore-mentioned case arising out of FIR no. 120/1988
was pending in the Court, Geeta (PW-1) lodged a formal complaint
(Ex.PW-1/A) dated 04.05.1990 with Deputy Commissioner of Police
(DCP) Anti Dowry Cell, levelling allegations about cruelty meted out
by her husband appellant Suresh Kumar (A-3) and his parents i.e. the
mother Yashoda (A-2) and father Sohan Lal (A-1). The said complaint
dated 04.05.1990 eventually resulted in a recommendation being sent
on 21.05.1990 by DCP Crime (Women Cell) to DCP (North) on the
basis of which the other case i.e. first information report no. 130/1990
was registered by police station Sabzi Mandi and taken up for
investigation into offence under Section 406 IPC, the focus apparently
being on non-return of her stridhan inspite of demand by PW-1.
14. The investigation into the second FIR (no. 130/1990) was
concluded and it resulted in charge-sheet being presented on
30.09.1990 for trial of appellant Suresh Kumar (A-3) and his parents
Sohan Lal and Yashoda Devi (A-1 and A-2) for offences under
Sections 406/498A IPC, since the said offences were triable by the
court of Metropolitan Magistrate, after cognizance had been taken, the
case continued to be proceeded with by the said court. Later, it having
been brought to the notice of the Court that the two cases had a
bearing on each other, the said case was also committed to the court of
Sessions and was brought before the same Court where the first case
involving alleged dowry death of Lata was pending. Upon committal,
the second case was registered as sessions case no. 41/1997. With
consent of both sides, the two cases were clubbed with each other and
tried together, the evidence in one to be read as evidence in the other.
For purposes of completion, however, Geeta (PW-1) and certain
others were called (or recalled) and the evidence concerning the
second case was also taken on board.
15. Against this backdrop, the cases were put on trial by
presentation of evidence through eighteen witnesses. They would
include Geeta (PW-1), sister of the deceased; Brij Lal (PW-2), brother
of the deceased; SI Divender Singh (PW-3), the investigating officer
who had visited the place of occurrence on 10.06.88 and prepared site
plan; Dr. S.K. Verma (PW-4) who had prepared post-mortem
examination report; Constable Bijender Singh (PW-5), who had taken
sealed pullandas to office of CFSL and deposited the same; HC
Yashpal Singh (PW-6), conducted post-mortem examination; ASI
Man Chal (PW-7) who had recorded formal FIR; Madan Lal (PW-8),
brother of the deceased; Meenakshi (PW-9), sister-in-law (wife of Brij
Lal); Dr. A. Sharma (PW-10), who had conducted the post-mortem
examination on the body of the deceased; Dr. Rajesh Chauhan (PW-
11), who had given opinion that deceased was unfit for statement; ASI
Rajinder Surya (PW-12), the MHC (M) witness to handing over of a
sealed pullandas containing viscera; Dr. K.K. Arora (PW-13), who
had given opinion about presence of carbamate in viscera; Govind
Singh (PW-14), who had identified the writing of doctor who prepared
certain documents; Dayawati (PW-15), wife of Madan Lal, sister-in-
law of deceased; Leelawati (PW-16), mother of the deceased; Dalip
Singh Chauhan (PW-17), Head Clerk of GTB Hospital; and, Inspector
Rajbir Sharma (PW-18), Investigating Officer (IO) of FIR no.
130/1990.
16. The appellants, and co-accused Beena (A-5), were examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the course of which they denied the
evidence incriminating them, concerning ill-treatment allegedly meted
out to Lata and Geeta. The appellants, and Beena (A-5), claimed to be
innocent and falsely implicated.
17. The defence examined two witnesses viz. S. Ganeshan (DW-1)
and H.P. Singh (DW-2), the evidence of first concerning his
employment with HAL, attendance of duties by him on certain dates
including 27.04.1988 and the second concerning employment of
appellant Sohan Lal (A-1) with a private entity Mohan Machines, the
evidence also meant to prove his other engagements on the relevant
date.
18. The trial court, by common judgment, disbelieved the theory of
ingestion of baygon (pesticide) by Lata to be under compulsion or
force. There was no charge framed for offence of culpable homicide.
It is clear from bare perusal of the judgment of the trial court that it
proceeded on the assumption that it is a case of self-ingestion of
carbamate (baygon) by Lata and, therefore, a case of suicide. The
evidence of Geeta (PW-1) has been supported by members of her
parental family, as to certain acts of commission or omission
constituting cruelty for dowry. This was accepted by the trial court to
be worthy of reliance insofar as the case is directed against Ramesh
Kumar (A-4). Applying the presumption under Section 113-B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-4) was held
guilty on charge for offence under Section 304 B IPC. The trial court,
however, was not impressed with the said charge against others who
were thus acquitted on that score. At the same time, the trial Judge
found the appellants Sohan Lal (A-1) and Yashoda Devi (A-2) and
Suresh Kumar (A-3) and Ramesh Kumar (A-4) guilty of having
subjected Lata (deceased) and Geeta (PW-1) for dowry and, therefore,
convicted them on the charge for offence under Section 498A IPC.
Benefit of doubts were given to Beena Devi (A-5), the married sister
of Suresh Kumar (A-3) and Ramesh Kumar (A-4), she, thus, being let
off, the result being acquittal in her case.
19. Having concluded as above, in the case arising out of FIR no.
120/1988, the trial Judge proceeded to acquit appellants Suresh Kumar
(A-3), Yashoda Devi (A-2) and Sohan Lal (A-1) in the second case,
the charge under Section 406 IPC, which was additional to the charge
in the first case having thus, failed to impress.
20. By subsequent order dated 23.09.2002, appellant Ramesh
Kumar (A-4) was awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years
with fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months under Section 304 B IPC. He was also
awarded rigourous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.
2500/- for offence under Section 498A IPC. The other three convicts
viz. Sohan Lal (A-1), Yashoda Devi (A-2) and Suresh Kumar (A-3)
were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of
Rs, 5,000/- in default for three months each for offence under Section
498 A IPC.
21. The first captioned appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 765/2002) was
presented by Sohan Lal (A-1), Yashoda Devi (A-2) and Suresh Kumar
(A-3). The second captioned appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 782/2002) was
presented by appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-4). Sentences against all
the said four appellants were suspended and they were enlarged on
bail pending hearing on these appeals by different orders. The turn of
these appeals for final hearing and adjudication has come up seventeen
years thereafter. During the interregnum, appellant Sohan Lal (A-1)
died on 28.01.2013. The fact of his death was brought on record. It
having been verified, the proceedings against him were found, by
order dated 19.03.2019, to have abated.
22. The appeals thus survive for consideration qua the case of the
prosecution against appellants Yashoda Devi (A-2), Suresh Kumar (A-
3) and Ramesh Kumar (A-4). Concededly, acquittal of the said two
persons on the charge for offence under Section 304 B IPC and
Section 498A IPC, and acquittal on all charges of Beena Devi (A-5),
has not been challenged by the State, the said result of the prosecution
having attained finality.
23. As observed earlier, there is ample evidence on record to show
that Lata died as a result of poisonous substance (ingestion of
Baygon). The prosecution does not refute that it is not a case where the
allegations of acts of commission or omission constituting culpable
homicide would have any legs to stand on. The evidence of Geeta
(PW-1), the solitary person on whose word the case to that extent was
set up in the FIR, is not believable per se. There is ample evidence on
record including admissions of Geeta (PW-1) that other than she (PW-
1), Lata (deceased) and appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-4) all other
members of the family were not even at home at the relevant point of
time, they being away on some or other work. It may be mentioned
here that it is admitted that Suresh Kumar (A-3) and Sohan Lal (A-1)
were on duty at their respective places during the day of 27.04.1988.
Geeta (PW-1) has herself conceded during her deposition that her
mother-in-law appellant Yashoda Devi (A-2) was also working for
gain, she earning her livelihood by ironing clothes of nearby
households, she being on some such errand outside the house in that
context during the relevant period.
24. As noted earlier, both Lata and Geeta were pregnant with
children at the relevant point of time, the pregnancies having been
assessed to be four or five months' old. Geeta (PW-1) has gone on
record to admit during her deposition that she was taken along, with
other sister Lata, on a number of occasions for medical check-up of
pregnancy. It is conceded that appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-4) had
taken both the said women to a municipal medical centre for such
purposes during the day on 27.04.1988. After the said medical check-
up when the three of them had returned, there was no one else at
home. It is after the return that Ramesh Kumar (A-4) and Lata
(deceased) had gone to the top terrace where the couple had had fight
over some issue. The subject matter of the said fight is a matter of
interest to this prosecution and the facts in such regard would be seen
a little later. The fact, however, remains that Ramesh Kumar (A-4)
suffered some injury in the forehead during the said fight with his wife
Lata, the couple having eventually come down to their bed room
where Geeta (PW-1) met them. When the three of them had taken
lunch, Geeta seems to have gone to take a rest in the afternoon. Geeta
concededly is not witness to any incident wherein she may have seen
Lata being force-fed with Baygon (pesticide). She attributed
information about forcible ingestion to Lata but then used the
expression in plural ("in logon ne mujhe jabardasti baygon pila diya
hai") seemingly to rope in all members of the matrimonial family.
The trial Judge has chosen to ignore the use of plural expression. In
the opinion of this Court, this may not be a fair reading of the material
on record. The fact remains Geeta (PW-1) attributed forcible
administration of poisonous substance to all the members of the
matrimonial family, this clearly being impossible on account of the
sequence of events wherein such other members of the family,
excluding Ramesh Kumar (A-4), were not even present at home.
25. From the above facts and circumstances, the only safe
conclusion that can be drawn is that Lata had consumed baygon
powder (poisonous substance) voluntarily and on her own, this having
led to her death, such death in this view of the matter being nothing
but a case of suicide.
26. Since the prosecution pressed charge for offences under
Sections 304 B and 498 A IPC, the sole point for determination is as
to whether Lata, and of course, Geeta (PW-1) were subjected to ill-
treatment in the matrimonial home by the appellants, and other
members of their family, on account of dis-satisfaction with their
expectation or demands for dowry or precious gifts. The trial Judge
has answered this issue in the affirmative. It is the duty of this Court to
examine as to whether such conclusions are borne out from the
evidence of the crucial witnesses namely Geeta (PW-1), Brij Lal (PW-
2), Madan Lal (PW-8), Meenakshi (PW-9), Dayawati (PW-15) and
Leelawati (PW-16).
27. As mentioned earlier, Lata (deceased) and Geeta (PW-1) were
married to appellants Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar on
24.11.1987. They remained under the same roof in the matrimonial
home with the appellants and members of their family at least till
27.04.1988, which would make it roughly a period of five months.
Though Geeta at one stage claimed that there were certain restrictions
on visits by her and Lata to the parental home and similar restrictions
against their parental family members to visit them in the matrimonial
home, this cannot be accepted in view of her own deposition
indicating several visits to the parental family, such visits, as spoken
by the afore-mentioned witnesses, including a stay of a few days
about one week after the marriage, stay for a prolong period in
February-March, 1988 around the period of Holi festival, attributed
admittedly to certain customs, particularly during the period when
Suresh Kumar (A-3), husband of Geeta (PW-1) was away to
Bangalore on official duty such period being indicated to be (at one
stage) for almost four weeks and a stay of more than a month
sometime in January, 1988, the last being attributed to one at the
instance of Madan Lal (PW-8) explained as his response to the
episodes of ill-treatment brought to his notice, the claim also being
that the girls were taken back after some assurance that they would be
taken care of properly in future. There are also admissions of certain
social visits by Lata and Geeta to their kith and kin including Madan
Lal and Meenakshi on account of their surgeries, they concededly
being accompanied by their respective husbands, this in addition to
suggestions given about the parties having attended certain function in
Seelampur about eight/nine days prior to the day Lata consumed
poisonous substance to commit suicide.
28. Further, it may be noted that defence has brought on record, and
she admitted, that Geeta (PW-1) had written a letter (Ex.PW-1/DE) to
Suresh Kumar (A-3), which was an expression full of love and
affection towards him, conveying her apology for certain behavior
which had annoyed him, and over which she was remorseful. Indeed,
there is no date to which this letter (Ex. PW-1/DE) can be assumed to
pertain. For all one knows, this may have been written several weeks
or months prior to the crucial date i.e.27.04.1988. But then, converse
possibility is true also and cannot be ruled out. Geeta only could have
clarified but she would not throw much light on the timeline in its
relation.
29. Aside from the evidence of afore-mentioned witnesses, the
prosecution also relied upon a letter (Ex.PW-1/B), which is described
as one written by Lata (deceased) on or about 23.04.1988, that being
the date on which, as per Geeta (PW-1), the said letter was handed
over by Lata (deceased) to her brother Madan Lal (PW-8) who was
visiting their matrimonial home at the time. This letter does bear the
said date with name and address of PW-8 indicated on the reverse.
The letter appears to have been written on a page taken out from the
exercise book. It is seemingly addressed to the brother (the opening
word being "bhaiya") and closed with expression meant to convey that
it was a communication from both the sisters, Lata and Geeta. Geeta
(PW-1) affirmed that this was a letter written by Lata, her brother
Madan Lal joining her in this regard, also claiming that this letter had
come in his hand on 23.04.1988.
30. Admittedly, the investigating agency did not test the
authenticity of the authorship. Neither specimen of hand-writing or
signatures were gathered nor opinion of any handwriting expert
solicited on basis of any admitted material. The trial Judge accepted
the prosecution case that this letter was in the hand of Geeta (PW-1), it
having come in the possession of Madan Lal (PW-8) on 23.04.1988.
31. Allegations in the FIR based on statement (Ex.PW-1/A) were
that after the marriage of the appellants, Beena (A-5) used to taunt the
two women, expressing grievance that fridge, television and tape
recorder were not given in the marriage and, therefore, they were not
entitled to use such equipments in the matrimonial home. It was
alleged that on this score, Geeta and Lata had been beaten up on
earlier occasions and an information to that effect had been conveyed
to the brother Madan Lal (PW-8) even telephonically. The first
informant referred to the grievances having been conveyed even by
Lata seemingly referring to the letter (Ex.PW-1/B), also stating that
she and Lata were not allowed to meet their brothers and mother.
32. In the letter (Ex.PW-1/B) described as the one written on
23.04.1988, Lata is said to have expressed her grievances in further
detail. She would say that though her brother (PW-8) had given
dowry beyond his capacity, the parents-in-law were not satisfied and
would often give taunts about radio, T.V. and fridge not having been
gifted. She expressed grievance that the mother-in-law would provoke
her sons (the husbands) to get them beaten up and level false
allegations of theft refusing to let her and Geeta go to parental home
and not allow anyone from the parents family to come to the
matrimonial home. She statedly added that the matrimonial family
was such that they would never be satisfied even if they were given
the entire house. She stated that she was unable to bear this
harassment further and wondered as to how he (the brother) would
bear her expenses. She purportedly concluded by stating she and
Geeta were not allowed to speak to the neighbours and would remain
confined at home even though the neighbours were good persons. She
sought intervention of the brother expressing regret that he was being
so bothered.
33. The evidence of PW-2, PW-8, PW-9, PW-15 and PW-16 leaves
a clear impression that the said persons were not directly privy to any
episode of ill-treatment of Geeta (PW-1) or Lata (deceased) in the
matrimonial home. Their version about the cruelty meted out to Geeta
and Lata is essentially based on what may have been communicated to
them by the two women at the time of either their visit(s) to the
parental home or the visits of Madan Lal to their matrimonial home.
No witness other than Madan Lal (PW-8) has spoken of any visit to
the matrimonial home.
34. In Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 4
SCC 494, it was observed thus :
"19. We are quite aware of the principle that in a
country like India where it is difficult to find a witness
who has not made any embellishment or exaggeration,
and therefore, in such case court would be justified in
separating the chaff from the grain and then act upon
the grain. But where the evidence consists of only chaff
as in the present case, the question of separating the
chaff from the grain would not arise. Then again when
all the eyewitnesses suffer from the same infirmities as
has been discussed by us, the question of one
corroborating the other would not arise. If a witness is
partly reliable and partly unreliable then one may look
for corroboration to the reliable part of the ocular
version of a witness. But if a witness is wholly
unreliable as has been assessed by us, the question of
corroboration does not arise..."
35. In State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206, the
Supreme Court held that :
"9. ... It has often been said that oral testimony can be
classified into three categories, namely, (i) wholly
reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable. In case of wholly
reliable testimony of a single witness, the conviction
can be founded without corroboration. This principle
applies with greater vigour in case the nature of
offence is such that it is committed in seclusion. In case
prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony of
a single witness, the court has no option than to acquit
the accused."
36. In the present case, the prosecution case essentially rests on the
credibility of the account given by Geeta (PW-1). In the opinion of
this court, Geeta (PW1) turns out to be a witness who falls in the
category of wholly unreliable, it being highly unsafe to find the
appellants guilty on her word. Her version may be a heady mixture of
truth, half truth and tissue of lines, it being virtually impossible to
decipher as to what extent she can be believed. The reasons may be
set out hereinafter.
37. As was pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, carbamate is a poisonous substance which has a foul and
obnoxious taste, the very presence being repulsive, it being highly
improbable that the same can be force-fed to a human being of such
age and maturity as Lata was. The intended recipient of such
compulsion would expectedly put up fierce resistance. The
chronology of events of the afternoon of 27.04.1988 rule out the
possibility of such force-feeding of baygon powder having been even
attempted. Forcible administration of the poison would have resulted
in some commotion. Geeta (PW1) was present. She does not claim
having heard anything of this kind. On the contrary, after the
deceased and her husband had come down from the terrace (where
they had had a fight), the three of them took lunch and went to bed to
take some rest. It is during sleep that Geeta heard her sister, lying next
to her in the same bed, giving sounds of hiccups, the enquiry revealing
poisoning. The MLC did not denote any external injuries. The theory
of forcible administration failed even during investigation. When Lata
was taken in critical condition to the hospital, she would have been
unable to speak or converse. It is inconceivable that she would tell
Geeta earlier that she was administered poison that too by all the
accused collectively.
38. The endeavour to rope in all the accused persons into the
accusation of forcible administration of poisonous substance to Lata
was clearly an effort to fabricate facts. It has been brought out during
trial that no accused other than Ramesh Kumar (A-4) was even present
or around at the crucial point of time. The allegation leveled by Geeta
attributed, of course, to what she claimed to have been told by Lata
about the other accused being involved smacks of an ulterior motive to
falsely frame the in-laws, which tells poorly on her credibility.
39. Geeta (PW1) has spoken falsely on other aspects as well. She
had alleged in the FIR and in her statements during investigation that
she and Lata were not allowed visits to the parental home and
similarly, as per the diktat of the mother-in-law, the appellant Yashoda
Devi, members from the parental family were also not welcome to the
house of the accused. These allegations were apparently false because
she has admitted to numerous visits to, and even prolonged stay by her
and Lata in, the parental home, her evidence and that of her brother
Madan Lal (PW8) also showing visits of the latter (PW-8) to the
matrimonial home. Reference to this has been made elaborately in the
earlier part of this judgment and the same does not call for repetition.
40. Geeta (PW-1) had also alleged during investigation that she and
Lata were not even allowed telephonic contact with the parental
family. There is inherent contradiction in her version in this regard
because she would also claim that the brother had been informed
about the harassment even on telephone. She has not spoken of any
telephone facility in the matrimonial home. She was not even aware if
a telephone facility was available in the neighbourhood. Going by her
account, she and Lata were not allowed to talk even to the neighbours.
In this scenario, one wonders as to how they would communicate with
the brother telephonically to lodge the complaint about ill-treatment.
41. The facts and circumstances which come out clearly rather
militate against the possibility of Lata and Geeta suffering torture of
the kind being projected, what with both pregnant with children and
the family concededly taking care of their needs and health, the
appellant Ramesh even accompanying them to the hospital for such
purposes. The fact that there was harmony in relations is confirmed by
the social visits at the time of surgeries of the brother and his wife not
only by Lata and Geeta but also by their husbands as indeed
participation in social functions. This is also reinforced by the letter
(Ex. PW1/DE) admittedly written by Geeta (PW1) to her husband
Suresh Kumar (A-3), a communication by a wife who was doting on
her husband not the least a wife who was being harassed and tortured.
42. The prompt reporting of a crime is one of the safeguards the
courts insist on. The courts look out for assurance as to the credibility
of the charge brought to trial. This is a check against fabrication of
allegations and evidence. Spontaneity in reporting the crime reduces
the possibility of coloured version being created, after deliberation and
by way of an after-thought, being presented. In State of A.P. vs. M.
Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, it was held thus :-
"30. Time and again, the object and importance of
prompt lodging of the first information report has been
highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information
report, more often than not, results in embellishment
and exaggeration, which is a creature of an
afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of
the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the
introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated
account of the incident or a concocted story as a result
of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in,
casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is
essential that the delay in lodging the report should be
satisfactorily explained."
43. The delay in reporting of a crime puts the criminal courts on
guard. This necessarily leads to a search for explanation for the delay,
particularly if the delay is inordinate or such as may have created the
possibility of fictional story being reported. It is in this context that
both Geeta (PW1), and her brother Madan Lal (PW8), miserably fail.
44. If Geeta's version based on her own experience in the
matrimonial home were correct, serious crimes had been committed
against her, and Lata, during the period of about five months after
marriage. Lata had been subjected to forcible administration of poison
rendering it a case of attempted homicide. She had come in contact
with her parental family atleast on the day next to the one when Lata
had been taken to the hospital. Thereafter, in natural course of events
she would be expected to have shared the entire information with her
kin, particularly the brother Madan Lal (PW-8), who is perceived to be
concerned about their welfare. As per the version of both, Lata's letter
(Ex. PW1/B) had come in the hand of PW8 on 23.04.1988. One of his
sisters was virtually on death bed. The other sister had come back
home after prolonged torture and harassment for dowry. In this
scenario, he would be too anxious and eager to bring the culprits to
book. It is admitted both by PW-1 and PW8 that police had met them
in the hospital several times during the period of hospitalization. Yet,
no report was lodged nor any complaint made, Geeta (PW1) instead
stating at trial that police had been told by them that they would not
make any statement till Lata had regained consciousness.
45. Neither allegations of forcible administration of poisonous
substance nor the existence of letter (Ex. PW1/B) were brought to
light till 03.05.1988, after Lata had died. The delay has remained
unexplained. Rather, the failure to report is sought to be justified by
reasons which do not appeal to conscience. As noted earlier, there is
no evidence gathered to confirm the authenticity of the authorship of
the letter (Ex. PW1/B) attributed to Lata. In these circumstances, that
part of the material also loses its evidentiary value.
46. There is not the least doubt in the view of this court that there
was more to the story than meets the eye. In the afternoon of
27.04.1988, only three persons were present at home, they being Lata
(deceased), Geeta (PW1) and the appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-4).
Lata has died. A-4 faced the trial as the accused. Geeta (PW1) has
narrated the sequence of events particularly covering the time when
the three of them had returned from the medical centre till the critical
condition of Lata came to light necessitating she to be taken to
hospital. During this period, Geeta (PW1) herself reveals, Lata
(deceased) and her husband Ramesh Kumar (A-4) had gone up to the
top terrace where they had a quarrel. Conspicuously, Geeta would not
elaborate on the cause of the quarrel. The quarrel between husband
and wife apparently was over some serious issue, this for the reason
the husband (A-4) returned in its wake with a self-inflicted injury on
his head. Apparently, passions had run so high that he had lost self-
control. In such fact-situation, it is not acceptable that Geeta (PW-1)
would not know the cause of the quarrel. She was so close to her
sister Lata, both of them having together entered the house of the
accused persons as brides, the bond between them being so strong that
they would visit the parental family together and even sleep for rest in
the same bed. In these circumstances, the ignorance shown by Geeta
as to the cause for quarrel does not inspire confidence.
47. In contrast, the plea of the defence has been that Lata had come
to be involved in some measure with a person named Om Prakash
Bengali. Reference has been made to telephonic calls being received
by Lata from such person to which her husband Ramesh Kumar (A-4)
would take exception. Though no formal evidence has been adduced
to prove these facts, the defence rests its arguments on the admission
of the prosecution witnesses about existence of the person named Om
Prakash Bengali, he being connected to the parental family. This
court does not give much credence to the theory of their possibly
having been some illicit liaison between the said person and Lata
(deceased) but the possibility that the appellant Ramesh Kumar (A-4)
was perturbed over contact of the said person with his wife cannot be
wholly ruled out.
48. The chronology of events unmistakably shows that Lata was
living in the matrimonial home being taken care of in her pregnancy
by her husband who would accompany her to the medical centre for
such purposes. There was no report or complaint of any ill-treatment
or torture in the matrimonial home till after her death. The facts
proved show that Lata committed suicide by voluntarily consuming
the poisonous substance. The fact that this event occurred
immediately after the fight with the husband on the top terrace
supports the theory that the cause of suicide may be attributable to the
cause of the said quarrel rather than the ill-treatment on account of
dowry, the allegations in which regard were made highly belatedly.
49. On the foregoing facts, and in the circumstances, this court
finds it difficult to uphold the conviction of the appellants. The
prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of
doubts. The benefit of this will have to be extended to the appellants.
50. In the result, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are
set aside. The appellants are acquitted.
51. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 19, 2019
nk/yg
