Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, C.J.
AND
MR. ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
5th MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2013
Dinesh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
Counsel for the appellant. : Mr. B.S. Bhandari.
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court
made the following
JUDGMENT :
(per: Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
The appellant has come-up in this Appeal against
the judgment dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No. 14 of
2010 State vs. Dinesh and others, whereby the
appellant has been held guilty of charge under Section
302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand
rupees) and in case of non-payment of fine, he was to
undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one year.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that
the complainant-Mijanu (P.W.1), son of Sri Maidiya,
resident of Village-Paluka, Tehsil-Barkot, District-
Uttarkashi filed a Tehrir in Police Station-Barkot on
17.07.2010 against accused persons, namely Dinesh,
Rakesh, Virendra and Haripa Lal to the effect that the
complainant's cousin Rajni, D/o Sri Gujru, resident of
Village Paluka, Tehsil Barkot was married to Dinesh,
son of Haripa Lal, R/o Village-Pauri (Gadoli), Police
Station-Barkot, about 10 years ago, in which sufficient
dowry was given by complainant's Tauji but Rajni's
husband-Dinesh, her father-in-law Haripa Lal, and
brothers-in-law Rakesh and Virendra were not happy.
They used to beat-up his sister-Rajni every day and
demand dowry. Rajni had two sons from this marriage,
but there was no difference in their behavior. The
complainant's Tauji also gave money to these people
many a times for the happiness of his daughter.
Praveen Arora-the elder son-in-law of Tauji, who stays
in Delhi, also gave Rs. 1.5 Lacs in cash to Dinesh
(appellant) some time ago. Praveen used to help
Rajni's in-laws financially, but Rajni's husband, father-
in-law and two brothers-in-law were not satisfied. Out
of grief, Tauji suffered a paralytic attack. The mother
of the complainant was also a disabled woman. Tauji
had no son so he used to treat the complainant as his
own son. About one week ago, Dinesh told them over
phone that if they didn't give them money, he would
kill the complainant's sister Rajni. About five days'
ago, the complainant, his sister-Manju, Prem Lal,
complainant's friend Ramesh Khatiyal went to Rajni's
in-laws' house and explained a lot to Rajni's husband,
father-in-law, and brothers-in-law, but these people
were repeatedly saying that we need money, else we
will kill your sister. On 17.07.2010, at around 11:00
AM, a call was received from Rajni's in-laws that Rajni
has been killed by her in-laws. When they went to
Rajni's in-laws' house, they saw that Rajni had been
strangulated to death by her husband Dinesh, father-
in-law Haripa, and brothers-in-law Rakesh and
Virendra, and her dead body was lying at home.
Thereafter, the complainant went to register a report.
3. Based on the aforesaid Tehrir, Case Crime No.
10/2010, under Section 302 IPC, was registered and a
First Information Report was lodged against Dinesh,
Rakesh, Virendra and Haripa Lal at Police Station
Barkot, District-Uttarkashi on 17.07.2010 at 03:00 PM.
The details of the same were recorded in the G.D. The
case was instituted and the investigation commenced.
During the investigation, a site plan of the spot and
Panchayatnama were prepared by the Investigating
Officer of the police station concerned. Thereafter,
post-mortem of the dead body was conducted and the
accused persons were arrested.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet against all the
accused persons, namely Dinesh, Virendra and Rakesh
was filed under Section 302. They denied the charge
and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined P.W.1-Mijanu, P.W.2-
Ramesh, P.W.3-Smt. Manju, P.W.4-Praveen Kumar,
P.W.5-Neha, P.W.6-Dr. Pratap Rawat, P.W.7-Constable
Sohan Khatri, P.W. 8-S.I. Pratibha Bhatt, P.W.9-
Constable Tej Singh and P.W.10-S.I. Sanjay Chauhan
as oral evidence and the Prosecution produced Tehrir
Exhibit Ka-1, Post Mortem Report Exhibit Ka-2,
Panchayatnama Exhibit Ka-3, Sketch of the dead body,
Application Exhibits Ka-5 to Ka-6, Police Form-13
Exhibit Ka-7, Chick FIR Exhibit Ka-8, Copy of G.D.
Exhibit Ka-9, Site Plan Exhibit Ka-10, Charge-Sheet
Exhibit Ka-11, Information Memo Exhibit Ka-12, Arrest
Memo Exhibit Ka-13 and photos of the deceased
Material Exhibits 1 to 4 as documentary evidence.
6. The statements of the accused Dinesh, Rakesh
and Virendra were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C,
in which they all stated that all facts were wrong and
no dowry had been given as the in-laws were poor.
7. The Lower Court examined the evidence led by the
prosecution in detail. As per the evidence, Rakesh and
Virendra were living separately from their brother-
Dinesh for the last six years before the incident and
accused Dinesh used to live separately with his wife
and children in Village Pauri Gandoli, and this fact was
also admitted by the complainant-Mijanu in his cross-
examination, Smt. Manju-P.W.3 and Neha-P.W.5., who
is the real sister of the deceased.
8. Further P.W.1-Mijanu (complainant) has also
stated that deceased-Rajni also had a son, namely
Papil, before her marriage with Dinesh. P.W.1-Mijanu
(complainant) and P.W.3-Smt. Manju also stated that
accused Virendra and Rakesh never demanded dowry
or money from deceased-Rajni in their presence, nor
did they ever assault her. The case against them was
filed only on the basis of suspicion and the allegation of
suspicion was made so that accused Dinesh, who was
absconded after the incident, can be arrested.
9. In the above background, the case against Rakesh
and Virendra was not made out and they were
acquitted for the charge under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of IPC. With regard to accused-Dinesh, Dr.
Pratap Rawat (P.W.6), has stated in his examination in
chief that "the face of the deceased had turned blue, on
the left side of the face, on the left side of the chin,
there was a lacerated wound of size 4cmX5 cm, due to
which the face had turned blue. There was ligature like
wound mark around the neck, which was 22.5 cm
circular from front to back in the lower part of the neck,
and when the neck was moved, the neck was shacking
back and forth, due to which it seemed as if some bone
of the neck had dislocated. On opening the neck, it
was found that C-5 and C-6 of the neck were moving
back and forth and were dislocated." The death, as per
the version given by Doctor Pratap Rawat (P.W. 6), was
due to suffocation, which seemed to be ante-mortem
injuries of the deceased. With respect to the injuries on
the neck of the deceased, the counsel for the accused
did not dispute the above said fact. Further, as per Dr.
Pratap Rawat (P.W.6), "the injuries on the neck of the
deceased, which are mentioned in the Post Mortem
Report, cannot have been caused by hanging on the
rope", and he further stated that "Ligature mark will
not appear by pressing with hand. It is possible that
the deceased may have died due to suffocation because
of a cloth rope." Hence, the Trial Court came to the
conclusion on the basis of the statement of Doctor
Pratap Rawat that the deceased had died due to
suffocation because of forceful strangulation of her
throat with some rope or cloth and due to which, while
committing such an act, she suffered injuries on the left
side of her face and also on her head. The dead body
was found in the upper room of the house of accused
Dinesh and in such a situation, accused Dinesh
absconding from home on the day of the incident
shows that the alleged incident was committed by
accused Dinesh. Another fact, which the Trial Court
has taken into consideration, is that as per the version
given by the P.W.1.-Mijanu (complainant), the
deceased and Dinesh had one son i.e. Papil, who was
12 years old, who used to stay with Tauji. This fact
was further stated by P.W.3 that this boy Papil lives
with his parents and she does not know how old is he
and he is the son of her elder sister-Neha. Witness
Praveen Kumar (P.W.4) further stated that Papil was
not his son. He knew Papil and could not tell as to
whose son was he.
10. Since the case of demand of dowry was not made
out, the allegation of demand of dowry was not
accepted by the trial Court and as regards Dinesh, the
fact that as per the Post Mortem Report the death was
on account of suffocation of mouth by cloth rope and
the fact that Dinesh had absconded on the same day
when the deceased had died show that he had
committed the murder of the deceased.
11. In view of the above, the Trial Court has convicted
the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant in the present
case has argued that there was no direct evidence to
show that it was the appellant, who had committed
murder. At the same time, he was the husband of the
deceased and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it
was the appellant who had to explain as to in what
circumstances, she died. In his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. he said that his wife had committed
suicide. The medical evidence given by Dr. Pratap
Rawat (P.W.6) could not be reversed. The finding
recorded by the Trial Court as regards the version
given by Doctor Pratap Rawat (P.W. 6) with regard to
the death of the deceased cannot be discarded and as
per the report of Doctor Pratap Rawat (P.W. 6), "the
injuries on the neck could not have been caused by
hanging on the rope" and the deceased had died
because of suffocation of a cloth rope. This medical
evidence, plus the fact that Dinesh had absconded after
the incident, was more than sufficient to hold him
guilty, and no evidence was led by him to show that it
was a case of suicide.
13. The judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2013
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in
Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2010 State vs. Dinesh and
others does not require any interference and is
affirmed.
14. Present Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
_____________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
__________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 5th March, 2024
Rathour
