http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 299 of 2001

PETITIONER:

VIKAS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/08/2002

BENCH:

M.B. Shah, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh & H.K. Sema.

JUDGMENT:

Shah, J.

Daily, demon of dowry is devouring lives of young girls, who

marry with high hopes of having heavenly abode in their husband's

house. In few cases, guilty are punished but it has no deterrent effect

on mothers-in-law or sisters-in-law who might have suffered similar

cruelty/tyranny. This deep rooted social evil requires to be controlled

not only by effective implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961, but also by the Society. The Society has to find out ways and

means of controlling and combating this menace of receipt and

payment of dowry. It appears that instead of controlling payment and

receipt of dowry in one or other form, it is increasing even in educated

class. May be that, it is increasing because of accumulation of

unaccounted wealth with few and others having less means follow the

same out of compulsion.

In the present case, Ms. Neeta was married on 10th March, 1988

with appellant Vikas son of Shripatlal Doshi, resident of Banswara

Rajasthan. Her dead body was found in the river on Ist July, 1990.

Appellant Vikas, along with his mother, father and sisters, was

prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498, 364, 302,

302 r/w 120-B IPC. Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara by

judgment and order dated Ist August, 1997 (1) convicted the

appellant Vikas for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302,

498-A and 304-B of IPC; (2) convicted Shripat (father), Sohanbai

(mother) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B

IPC; (3) however, acquitted sisters of the appellant, Jyoti and Yojna

by giving benefit of doubt. Against that judgment and order,

convicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.374 of 1997 before

the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. By judgment and order dated

18th April, 2000, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and

convicted the appellant Vikas for the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life.

The Court also maintained the conviction of Vikas, Shripat and

Sohanbai for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC,

however, reduced the sentence to the period they had already

undergone. The conviction of Vikas, Shripat and Sohanbai for the

offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC has been set aside and

they have been acquitted for the said offence. The Court also set aside

the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 364 IPC.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons were

not satisfied with the dowry brought by Ms. Neeta. Therefore, she

was being ill-treated and tortured. She gave birth to a female child at

her parents house. On 28th July, 1990 at about 7.00 pm when Ms.

Neeta was at the residence of PW3 Smt. Kamla Bai (father's sister),

Vikas went there and they went out on a motor bike. On the next

morning PW10 Sanjiv was sent by his parents to the house of

appellant Vikas for delivery of medicines to Ms. Neeta. At that time,

Vikas was sitting in the shop and he refused to accept the medicines

saying that Ms. Neeta is not at the residence. Sanjiv returned to the

house and disclosed this fact to his father.

A search for Neeta was carried out, but it did not yield any

result, therefore, FIR Ex.P/4 was lodged by PW9 Narendra Lal on

29.6.1990 at Police Station Banswara. It was mentioned in the FIR

that on 26.6.1990 deceased Neeta came to his house on account of

demand of TV being made by the appellant and four others. They

were harassing her for want of dowry. On 28th June, 1990, Neeta had

gone to the house of Smt. Kamla Bai PW3. Vikas came there with

minor child at about 7 p.m. Neeta went outside the house and

thereafter within three minutes, she came back and told her aunt Smt.

Kamla Bai that Vikas had come to take her. Vikas took her on the

'vicky'. Next day, she did not return. PW10 Sanjiv (his son) went to

the house of the appellant to give medicines to his sister Neeta.

Appellant informed him that Neeta had not come there and they have

not seen Neeta for the last four days. It was further mentioned that on

24.6.1990 when Neeta was being taken towards Garia Khandu Colony

on the way one known person met them and appellant dropped her

back at his residence. It was also mentioned that they had searched

for Neeta but it was of no avail. The informant expressed his

suspicion against Vikas and his family members. Hence, a case was

registered under Sections 364/498-A IPC by the police against Vikas,

his father, mother and two married sisters.

Police started the investigation and at the instance of appellant

dead body of Neeta was recovered at a distance of 1 km. from

Gemmon bridge. The investigating officer also recovered ornaments

of Neeta at the instance of Vikas, which were put on by Neeta when

she had gone at the house of PW3 Smt. Kamla Bai, from the house of

the appellant and which were kept in a safe in almirah in the room of

Vikas. After completing the necessary investigation, the accused

were charge-sheeted, tried and convicted as stated above.

The High Court after appreciating the evidence in detail, relied

upon the circumstantial evidence, namely, (1) last seen in the

company of accused Vikas; (2) recovery of the dead body at the

instance of Vikas; (3) recovery of ornaments of Neeta which were put

on by her when she was at the house of PW3; and (4) appellant did

not report to anybody about the missing of his wife and made a false

statement to the extent that he has not seen Neeta for the last four

days.

Mr. U.N. Bachawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant took us through the entire evidence and submitted that for

arriving at the conclusion that the said circumstances are proved, the

High Court relied upon the evidence of PW3 Smt. Kamla Bai, PW12

Het Kunwar, mother of the deceased, PW4 Rohit Doshi, PW10

Sanjiv, brother of the deceased and also on the evidence of PW18

Narender Mohan Sharma, Dy. S.P., who speaks about the recovery of

the dead-body at the instance of accused. It is his contention that the

High Court has omitted to consider material part of evidence and

misread the same and omitted to consider material contradictions. It

is his submission that when deceased was driven out of the house,

there was no necessity of accused going to the house of Smt. Kamla

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

Bai for bringing her back to his house. He also contended that there is

nothing on record to establish on what basis appellant had gone to the

house of Smt. Kamla Bai for picking up deceased. With regard to the

'last seen together', learned senior counsel submitted that there is no

evidence on record that 'vicky' used by the accused was in working

condition and that it belonged to the accused. He also submitted that

the recovery of various articles at the instance of accused is not at all

reliable.

From the evidence brought on record, it is not possible to arrive

at the conclusion that the High Court has committed any error in

appreciating the evidence adduced in proof of circumstances

connecting the accused with the crime. Even though, it is not

necessary to re-appreciate the evidence, we would in short refer to

what has been stated by the witnesses. It is the say of PW3 Smt.

Kamla Bai that Neeta used to come to her residence and was weeping

and informing about the demand of dowry. She was driven out of her

house by herin-laws. Thereafter, a baby girl was born to her. It is

her further say that due to death of one Jitendra Lal, Neeta had gone

there for condolence and came to her house. Neeta's mother had also

gone to the house of Jitendra Lal. At about 6 to 7 p.m., Vikas came to

her house on his 'vicky' along with his daughter. He called Neeta by

signal. Neeta went out and met him. Thereafter, Neeta told her that

her husband was taking her along with him and then they went on

'vicky' towards Mahalaxmi Chowk. After sometime, Neeta's mother

also came to her house and she informed her that Neeta had been

taken away by her husband. It is her say that on the next day when

some medicines were to be given to Neeta and when Neeta was not

found at her house, Shripat (father of appellant) came in the lane,

where people had collected. She informed Shripat that her son had

taken away Neeta but Shripat denied. After 3-4 days, at the instance

of Vikas, Neeta's dead-body was found near Gemmon bridge. She

was shown ornaments, which Neeta was wearing when she went

along with Vikas. She identified said ornaments before the

Magistrate. In the cross-examination, nothing material has been

found so as to disbelieve the version given by her before the Court.

Suggestion was made about Neeta having some disease which was

denied by her. No doubt, she admitted that medicines for tension

were brought from Ahmedabad. The aforesaid version by Smt. Kamla

Bai gets corroboration from the evidence of PW4 Rohit Doshi who

has stated that at about 6.30 in the evening he was sitting in the house

of his grandmother Smt. Kamla Bai. Vikas came there on 'vicky'

along with his daughter. He called Neeta by signal. Neeta went there

and after three minutes, she came back and said that her husband has

come to take her. Thereafter, Vikas took Neeta and went away. In

cross-examination, he stated that he saw Vikas crossing Mahalaxmi

Temple and on that very route, there is house of Neeta's father.

Further, PW12 Smt. Het Kunwar mother of the deceased has

stated that after seven days of the marriage, her daughter Neeta was

turned out of the house by Sohan Bai, Jyoti, Dalda, Vikas and Shripat

saying that her parents have not given anything in dowry. After 1-

months of stay of Neeta at her house, her husband Narendra,

Bhagwati Lal and others took Neeta to her in-laws house. Thereafter,

again after 1- months, her daughter was sent back to her house by

making demand of dowry. Again after 15 days, Neeta was sent back

to in-laws house. She talks about the payment of some amount to

Vikas and others which we are not required to discuss here. It is also

her say that on the day of incident, her daughter had gone at Smt.

Kamla Bai's house and from there Neeta was taken away by Vikas as

narrated by Smt. Kamla Bai, PW3 and Rohit Doshi, PW4. In our

view, there is no reason to discard this evidence. PW6 Mahesh

Chander and PW7 Bhagwati Lal Doshi have also supported the

prosecution version of torture of the deceased by the accused for non-

fulfillment of dowry demand and that Neeta was turned out from her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

in-laws house. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, PW1 Pankaj,

who turned hostile, also admitted in the cross-examination that on

28.6.1990 he saw accused Vikas taking his wife on his 'vicky'.

Further, as per the evidence of PW10 Sanjiv, when he went to the

house of accused for delivering medicines to Neeta, Vikas who was

sitting in the shop informed him that Neeta was not at his residence.

In our view, it is difficult to hold that High Court or trial Court

committed any error in relying upon the aforesaid evidence for

arriving at the conclusion that appellant had taken away Neeta from

the house of Smt. Kamla Bai and thereafter on the next day morning

when Sanjiv PW10, brother of Neeta went at the house of appellant,

Neeta was not found and a false statement was made by Vikas that he

had not taken away Neeta with him.

For recovery of the dead-body also, it has come on record that it

was recovered at the instance of Vikas on the basis of his disclosure

statement while he was in custody, which is proved by the evidence of

PW18 Narender Mohan, Dy. S.P., Banswara, who has stated that

accused Vikas led the police party to Gemmon bridge. He pointed out

the place from where he pushed Neeta in the river and they found the

dead-body at a distance of 1 km. At that time also, Vikas admitted

that dead-body which was found from the river was that of Neeta.

This discovery of the dead-body at the instance of accused is most

relevant circumstances in the present case.

Post-mortem examination report is proved by PW14 Dr. Vijay

Kumar Mehta who was one Member of the Medical Board constituted

for carrying out the post-mortem. According to him, the dead-body

was fully decomposed; the tongue was hanging out of the mouth and

eyes were protruding out; 7th cervical vertebra was broken; there was

injury on the spinal cord and membrane thereon, where blood was

clotted and the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature. At the same time, she died due to drowning in

water.

Similarly, at the instance of accused ornaments were found in

the safe of almirah from his room. PW8 Ravi Chaudhary has proved

the recovery of a chain, three finger rings, one pair of ear tops from

one almirah and one saree from another almirah from the sealed room

of the house of accused Vikas. PW11 Vijay Kumar Vyas, Munsif and

Judicial Magistrate, Banswara has deposed about the identification of

the ornaments by PW3 Smt. Kamla Bai and PW10 Sanjiv. Further,

the High Court has rightly relied upon the recovery of golden chain,

which Neeta was wearing when she had gone to the house of Smt.

Kamla Bai. The said article was recovered at the instance of accused

from his house. This incriminating circumstance certainly points out

the guilt of the accused otherwise the golden chain would not have

been found from the almirah but it would have been on the dead body.

From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that there is no substance in

the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant

that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses. In our view, except some minor variations the prosecution

story is cogent and consistent with regard to demand of dowry and

deceased Neeta accompanying her husband on the fateful day.

Further, as there is evidence on record that accused came to the house

of Smt. Kamla Bai on 'vicky' and was seen by other witnesses riding

the said motor bike, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove

that accused was owner of the 'vicky' used by him. In the FIR lodged

on 29th also, same story is stated. The submission of the learned senior

counsel for the appellant that there was no reason for appellant to go

to the house of PW3 for picking up deceased when she was driven out

as stated by the prosecution witnesses requires no consideration

because it is apparent from the evidence on record that Neeta's

parents were keen to maintain the matrimonial relations. Even though

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

she was driven out on two to three occasions, she was again sent back

by her parents to her matrimonial house. This keenness on the part of

the parents to see that their daughter resides at her in-laws house

peacefully has led to this incident. The High Court has also rightly

relied upon the circumstance that accused made a false statement on

the next day, when PW10 Sanjiv went to his house for giving

medicines to Neeta.

In this view of the matter, in our view, there is no substance in

this appeal and is, therefore, dismissed.