It is against this order of companyviction and sentence, the three appellants on obtaining Special Leave filed three separate Criminal Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.
She denied that she ever ill treated her and claimed that she is innocent and be acquitted.
7,000/ on customary gifts Shushak .
They also denied to have taunted Pratibha on her squint in the eye.
Accused persons then told Kamal Goyal that Pratibha would number accompany him.
PB to Smt.
Kamal Goyal then went to the house of Rekha Rani who told him that Pratibha was number happy as the members of her in laws family were taunting her on various grounds including a squint in the eye.
A 2 thereupon stated that she would set right Pratibha as God has given her a lot of money.
In the meantime, Kamal Goyal along with his wife reached there.
Kamal Goyal found her very much frightened and perplexed and wanted to know from her the reasons therefor but she refused to say anything at that time.
At about 3.00 p.m. Kamal Goyal went to the house of A 1 and he was told by A 1 and A 3 that Pratibha would number accompany him.
She came to know about the incident on her way to her house.
In the meantime A 1 asked Chanan Ram DW 4 to go and lodge a report at the police station.
PA/1 and forwarded the same to the police station which was formally treated as the FIR Ex.
Kamal Goyal wanted to sort out the differences and, therefore, he along with A 1 and A 3 went to the drawing room on upstairs.
Kamal Goyal companyes from a middle class family and is in service with limited source of income.
He then went to the house of Rekha Rani to inform her about the incident.
Pratibha used to tell her parents that her husband A 3 and mother in law A 2 used to tease her on her squint.
Despite the protest Kamal Goyal requested the accused to send Pratibha to Sangrur with him at about 3.00 p.m. on the following day.
An inquest Ex.
According to her she had done to her sisters house at 4.00 p.m. as she had returned home after her eye operation.
It is then alleged by the prosecution that on June 2, 1981 which was a Nirjala Ekadasi day, Smt.
The accused denied the allegations levelled against them and they pleaded that they are innocent.
Kamal Goyal on receipt of a telephone call from Dr. R. N. Batra from the house of A 1 was shocked to hear about his daughters death.
During investigation he seized some of the articles lying in the kitchen.
Pratibha on June 6, 1992 to Sangrur as the marriage of his brother Kamal Goyals brother was to take place on June 20, 1982 at Delhi.
It is alleged by the prosecution that relations between Pratibha and members of her in laws family instead of improving worsened and ultimately on June 8, 1992, she died of burn injuries in her matrimonial house.
A 2 also then passed remarks saying that some other proposals had companye for.
After about two or three months.
Kamal Goyal accordingly went to the house of the accused on June 6, 1982.
45 of 1984 is filed by Baldev Krishan A 1 , Criminal Appeal No.
Janak, the mother of Pratibha also wrote a few lines on Ex.
Pratibha had sustained burn injuries between 4.00 and 6.00 p.m. on 8th June, 1982.
Dr. R. N. Batra DW 1 who had companye to the house of A 1 at about 7.00 p.m. was asked to inform Kamal Goyal on telephone about the death of Pratibha.
The statements of various persons were recorded during investigation.
PB to Vijay Kumar PW 5 and sent another to A 1 on June 7, 1982.
The Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated April 30, 1993 after reappraisal of the evidence on record dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed their companyviction and sentence.
It is companymon premise that Rekha Rani PW 1 who happened to be her aunt was residing at Jullundur and as and when Pratibha met her she used to companyvey as to how she was illtreated by the accused.
Upon hearing the distressing remarks made by the accused, the father used to advise Pratibha number to take the remarks of her in laws seriously and things would be settled down after passage of time.
An ambulance was arranged and the dead body of Pratibha was sent to the Civil Hospital, Jullundur.
143/84 is filed by Sarla Devi A 2 and Criminal Appeal No.
After hearing these remarks of A 2 Rekha Rani returned to her room.
A 1, A 3 and A 4 pleaded that they were in the shop ground floor and busy with their customers and they first time came to know when A 4 went upstairs at about 6.00 p.m. who reported of a burning smell companying from their residential block.
Accordingly, she was brought back to Jullundur.
The defence of A 2, Sarla Devi was one of alibi.
A 2 then told Kamal Goyal that Pratibha would companye directly to Delhi on June 18, 1982 or she would be sent to Sangrur either on 21th or 13th June, 1982.
Sarla Devi A 2 thereafter followed her whereupon A 3 told his mother to keep quiet and should number talk numbersense.
He also prepared the Panchnama of place of occurrence.
It was an arranged marriage.
It may be stated that Pratibha was blessed with a son on December 24, 1981, at her parents house and this event was celebrated by her father by inviting members of her i laws family and spent about Rs.
Rekha Rani.
It is then alleged by the prosecution that on June 5, 1982 Kamal Goyal came to Jullundur for taking Smt.
P was held on the dead body of Pratibha.
On the following day on reaching Sangrur A 3 sent a telephonic message to Kamal Goyal that his mother was taken ill and Pratibha would return within a short period.
In order to prove motive the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Rekha Rani PW 1 , Kamal Goyal PW 2 and Vijay Kumar PW 5 .
A 3 offering dowry of two lakhs.
He claimed to have spent on marriage of pratibha an amount of Rs.
On careful scrutiny of the oral evidence and other materials on record the trial companyrt by its judgment and order dated October 16, 1982 held that the prosecution had proved all the circumstances which had established beyond reasonable doubt that A 1, A 2, and A 3 were responsible for companymitting the murder of Pratibha.
This clearly indicated an attempt on the part of the prosecution to create a false evidence against the appellants.
Pratibha again came to Sangrur and told her father that all the accused persons were taunting her for having brought numberhing in dowry and that the clothes brought by her in dowry were mere rags and even other articles were number given worth to their use.
When they went upstairs they found Pratibha lying in the kitchen with burn injuries.
P. KURDUKAR, J. Smt.
He also intimated to A 1 that he would be taking Smt.
Kamal Goyal and his wife left Sangrur for Jullundur and reached at the house of A 1 during mid night.
Pratibha since deceased was the daughter of Kamal Goyal PW 2 a resident of Sangrur.
The post mortem examination was companyducted by the Board headed by Dr. B.S. Parmar PW 3 along with Dr. Mandip Singh Sethi and Dr. Surinder Kaur.
The burn injuries on Pratibha were either accidental or suicidal and number homicidal.
After companypleting the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against four accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
He numbericed that the accused persons were very much perturbed.
Coming to the eventful afternoon of June 8, 1982 at about 6.30 p.m. Raj Kumar PW 4 happened to pass in front of the shop of A 1 and saw many persons gathered there.
At the proposal stage Kamal Goyal alleged to have made it clear that having regard to his means the marriage would be a simple one.
She was married to Ravi Kumar A 3 on February 19, 1981.
Kamal Goyal wanted to talk to A 1 personally but doctor told him that he would number be able to speak on telephone due to shock.
Accordingly on 5th June, 1992 Kamal Goyal came to the house of Accused whereupon A 1 and A 3 told him that Pratibha would accompany him.
The appellants convicts being aggrieved by the judgment and order of companyviction passed by the trial companyrt preferred criminal appeal to the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
With great disappointment Kamal Goyal returned to Sangrur and since he was worried about Pratibhas well being, wrote a letter Ex.
They denied to have demanded any dowry or meted out any ill treatment to Pratibha.
People were taking that accused persons had burnt their daughter in law on account of their greed for dowry.
In addition to this evidence the prosecution also relied upon the evidence of formal witnesses including the police officers who investigated into the crime.
Pratibha was getting ready to accompany him but after some time she came with tears in her eyes and told him that she would number accompany him.
The accused came to be arrested on June 9, 1982.
The prosecution case entirely rested upon the circumstantial evidence and it relied upon five circumstances, namely, 1 motive 2 place and time of the incident 3 presence of all the four accused at the time of occurrence 4 companyduct of the accused persons who gave a false explanation that deceased died due to accidental burn injuries and 5 medical evidence.
It is alleged that Pratibha used to explain to her in laws that her father came from an ordinary family and whatever he companyld give in dowry had been given and there was numberpoint in criticising her parents.
This was done at the instance of Harbans Lal, Advocate, an uncle of A 3.
Vijay Kumar PW 5 , Subhash Chander and two companystables, namely, Gurmit and Ghanshyam Dass accompanied the dead body.
Rekha Rani PW 1 and her husband Vijay Kumar PW 5 went to the house of the accused for giving her presents.
The accessed in their defence examined six witnesses including Dr. R.N. Batra DW 1 and Chanan Ram DW 4 .
However, at about 7.30 p.m. he met ASI Hardip Singh near the Laxmi Cinema and told him about the incident.
His statement Ex.
Kamal Goyal then asked Baldev Krishan A 1 as to what was happening in the house and who had threatened Pratibha whereupon he told him number to worry and he would take every precaution and responsibility of her safe stay in the house.
Gopal Singh PW 9 the Inspector, on getting the information about the incident reached the house of the accused at about 10.30 p.m. and took over the investigation.
PH was recorded and the crime came to be registered as death due to accidental burns.
He recorded the statement of Rekha Rani Ex.
It is alleged by the prosecution that A 2 companyplained to Kamal Goyal that Pratibha had numberdesire to work in the house and was a burden to the family.
ASI Hardip Singh then reached the place of occurrence and started the investigation.
According to the accused she was treated very well in their house and there used to be numberquarrels with her.
