RAKESH CHAND & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Judgment Date: 2010-08-11
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the two appellants (mother-in-law and father-in-law) acquitted. Rakesh Chand, who was in custody, to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Pushpa Devi’s bail bonds are discharged. The judgment sets aside the acquittals of the two appellants in the trial and High Court and resolves in their favor.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RAKESH CHAND
ANR.

Respondents

STATE OF PUNJAB

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rajeev Dutta
• Ajay Veer Singh
• Anisha Jain
• Nitin Jain
• Uday Ram
• Mohd. Irshad Hanif

Counsels for Respondents

• Kuldip Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rakesh Chand & Anr. v. State of Punjab concerns a dowry-death case arising from the conviction of the husband, and his parents, under IPC sections 304-B and 201, for the death of Neelam Kumari. The trial court convicted all three, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the verdict. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the mother-in-law and the father-in-law had no role in the dowry-demand that precipitated Neelam Kumari’s death. The essential ingredient of Section 304-B requires a dowry demand made soon before death; the Court found that there were two sets of demands, the 2000 demand for Rs. 20,000 and a later demand of Rs. 50,000 alleged just before the death, which the prosecution attributed to Anil Kumar alone. The testimonies under Cr.P.C. Section 161 did not consistently tie the 50,000-demand to the two appellants, and their own evidence did not corroborate such a link. Consequently, the Court held that the essential ingredient of 304-B was not proved against the two appellants, and the conviction under 304-B, and in relation to 201, could not stand. The appeal was allowed; the two appellants were acquitted, and Rakesh Chand was ordered to be released forthwith if not required elsewhere; Pushpa Devi’s bail bonds were discharged. The judgment results in acquittals for the two appellants and disposition consistent with acquittal of the others.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302/34 IPCSection 201 IPCSection 304-B IPCSection 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants’ counsel argued that the essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC is a dowry demand made soon before the death. The record shows two sets of demands: the 2000 demand of Rs. 20,000 for a motorcycle and a later demand of Rs. 50,000, alleged just before Neelam Kumari’s death, which was made by Anil Kumar alone. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were inconsistent and failed to place the 50,000-demand on the two appellants; their own testimony contradicted such a link. There is no reliable evidence that the two appellants contributed to the subsequent demand or instigated it. The prosecution’s theory connecting them to the 50,000-note is unsupported by consistent testimony. The conviction under Section 201 IPC also rests on vague testimony about concealment of the body, which the court should not rely upon. On these grounds, the appeal should be allowed and the two appellants acquitted.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that, even if Section 304-B is not established, there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 201 IPC and to maintain the overall charges. Witness Dildar Khan testified to seeing Anil Kumar carrying something in a gunny bag prior to the death, suggesting concealment and related guilt. The prosecution argued that the evidence, taken with the conduct surrounding the death and missing body, supports liability under the relevant sections. The State urged that the two appellants should not benefit from inconsistencies in the defense; the evidence, viewed cumulatively, pointed to their involvement in the crime.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A (2010] 9 S.C.R. 894 ## RAKESH CHAND & ANR. _v._ STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2008 ) B AUGUST 11, 2010 # **[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]** _Penal Code, 1860:_ _ss. 304-B and 201_ - _Dowry death_ - _Conviction of_ C _husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased by trial court affirmed by High Court_ - _HELD: The mother-in-law and the father-in-law had no role in the demand made by the husband soon before the death_ - _Nor is there any evidence making out_ a _case against them uls 201_ - _They are, therefore,_ D _acquitted._ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 29.01.2007 of the High Court Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. E 595 DB of 2005. Rajeev Dutta, Ajay Veer Singh, Anisha Jain, Nitin Jain, Uday Ram, Mohd. lrshad Hanif for the Appellant. Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. The following order of the Court was delivered F ## **ORDER** The facts are as under: Neelam Kumari and Anil Kumar were married on 4th December 1998 and as per the prosecution story sufficient dowry had been given to the accused at the time of the G marriage. They were however dissatisfied with what had been given to them and in July 2000, a demand was made for Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of buying a motor cycle or scooter. As this demand was not satisfied Neelam Kumari was turned out up her matrimonial home although she was in an advanced **H** 894 RAKESH CHAND & ANR. _v._ STATE OF PUNJAB 895 -[, ] _I_ stage of pregnancy. A motor cycle was thereafter purchased A for Anil Kumar. It is further the prosecution story that on 22nd April, 2003 Neelam Kumari and Anil Kumar visited Rajni Bala (PW.16), sister of Neelam Kumari, also a resident of village Ladda Kothi, where Neelam Kumari told her sister that her husband was now demanding Rs.50,000/- in order to construct B a room in the D house and was misbehaving with her as this amount was not being provided by her parents. As per the prosecution story Neelam Kumari's dead body was spotted on the embankment of a seepage drain .in the area of Barnala by one Komal Singh on 25th April, 2003. A FIR was duly registered c and after investigation a charge sheet was filed and a charge under Sections 302/34 and 201 and in the alternative 304-B/ 34 & 201 of the IPC was framed against Anil Kumar and his parents, the appellants herein. > The Trial Court relying on the evidence of Chunni Lal D (PW.15), the father of the deceased, her mother Sudesh Kumari (PW.1) the complainant and Rajni Bala,. (PW.16) convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 201 of the IPC but acquitted them of the offence of murder and they were sentenced accordingly. E E An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court. The High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. A special leave petition was filed by the three a .. ..:used but leave was granted qua the appellants only. We have accordingly heard this appeal today assisted by the learned counsel for the parties. F > Mr. Rajeev Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has pointed out that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B was that the demand for dowry had to be made soon before the death of the deceased. He has referred us to the evidence of Chunni Lal, Rajni Bala and Sudesh Kumari and pointed out that there were two sets G of demands allegedly made by the accused; the first one in the year 2000 being a demand for Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of buying a motor cycle and there appeared no demand thereafter by the appellants as the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been made by Anil Kumar alone shortly before the death of Neelam H [2010) 9 S.C.R. ## 896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A Kumari and the appellants thus had no roll to play on this score. We find merit in this submission. In their examinations-in-chief, PW.1- Sudesh Kumari and PW.16-Rajni Bala have deposed that the demand for Rs.50,000/- had also been made by Rakesh Chand and Pushpa Devi. They were however B confronted with their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. wherein no such details had been spelt out and the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been confined only to Anil Kumar. Likewise we have gone through the statement of Chunni Lal. Even in his examination-in-chief he very categorically stated c that the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been made only by Anil Kumar and not by the two appellants. In the light of the fact that the only demand that could be foisted on the two appellant was of the year 2000, it could not be said that the appellants had made any demand soon before the death of the deceased so D as to be liable for conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, the learned State counsel has however very vehemently argued that even if there was no evidence with respect to the offence under Section 304-8 there was ample evidence to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the E offence under Sec.201 of the IPC. In this connection he has referred us to the statement of PW.6 Dildar Khan who deposed that sometime before the 10th May 2003 he had seen Anil Kumar carrying something in a gunny bag on his motor cycle. This story is, in the facts, unacceptable. The incident happened on 24th April 2003 and Dildar Khan's vague statement that he F had seen something amiss before 10th of May, 2003, is an absurdity and cannot be accepted. We accordingly feel that the conviction of the appellants was not justified on the evidence. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court vis.a-vis. the two appellants G herein and order their acquittal. In the meantime, we direct that the appellant- Rakesh Chand, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. As regards Pushpa Devi, her bail bonds shall stand discharged. H R.P. Appeal allowed.