Accused Found Guilty of Murdering Wife and Son Over Dowry Demands; Sentenced to Life Imprisonment
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of Dharmender, who was found guilty of murdering his wife and son due to dowry demands. The conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, which the court found to be compelling enough to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellant, Dharmender, had challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, which sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murders of his wife, Reena, and their nine-month-old son, Devesh. The case involved charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder (Section 302), dowry death (Section 304B), cruelty (Section 498A), and destruction of evidence (Section 201).
The prosecution presented a strong case, establishing that the accused had demanded Rs. 1 lakh from Reena shortly before her death, which was corroborated by her father, Rameshwar Dayal. The case was further strengthened by evidence of bloodstains found in the accused's house and the recovery of the bodies from a canal, weighted down with bricks, based on the accused's disclosure statement.
The defense argued that the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and that there were no direct witnesses to the crime. They also presented an alibi, claiming that the accused was at his workplace during the time of the alleged murder. However, the court found inconsistencies in this defense and noted the absence of the accused from work on a critical date.
The court also addressed the defense's claim of an alternative hypothesis, which suggested that the accused's deceased brother was responsible for the murders. However, this claim was dismissed due to a lack of credible evidence.
In its judgment, the court reiterated the principles regarding circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of evidence must be complete and exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the foundational facts necessary to apply the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no merit in the appeal. The sentences for the charges were ordered to run concurrently, and the accused's mother, who was initially charged, had been acquitted.
The case underscores the judiciary's commitment to addressing crimes related to dowry and ensuring justice for victims of such heinous acts.
Bottom Line:
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Accused found guilty of murdering his wife and son due to dowry demands. Evidence included demand for money, absence of accused from work, recovery of bodies, and presence of human blood stains in the house of the accused.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 302, 304B, 498A, 201 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 106, 113B of the Indian Evidence Act
Dharmender v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825278
