JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a criminal appeal filed by Shri Paramjit Singh son of Shri Sant Singh son of Shri Kishan Singh (husband) and Smt. Gurmit Kaur wife of Sant Singh son of Kishan Singh (mother-in-law) of Smt. Rupinder Kaur deceased, and it has been directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1997 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, who convicted the present two appellants Under Section 302/34, IPC and Section 498A, IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- In default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo further RI for one year. The appellants were also convicted Under Section 498A, IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine each one of them was directed to undergo RI for six months.
2. The brief facts of the case are that both the appellants along with Manjit Kaur and Gurdev Kaur were charge-sheeted Under Section 498A, IPC on the allegations that they were responsible to treat Smt. Rupinder Kaur with cruelty when she was married with Paramjit Singh appellant on 3.12.1995 and who died on 29.8.1996 in connection with the demand for dowry and thereby allegedly committed an offence punishable Under Section 498A, IPC. The present appellants and Manjit Singh were further charge-sheeted Under Section 304B, IPC with the allegations that on 28.8.1996 at about 6.00 p.m. in the area of village Hafzabad, they committed dowry death of Smt. Rupinder Kaur and thereby allegedly committed an offence punishable Under Section 304B, IPC. Further, the trial Court framed a charge against them being the members of the unlawful assembly and the common object of which was to commit murder of Smt. Rupinder Kaur and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 142, IPC read with Section 149, IPC. The fourth charge which was framed against the appellants and their companion was that on the same day, time and place, being members of the unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, they allegedly committed the murder of Smt. Rupinder Kaur and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The story of the prosecution has been unfolded by Shri Santokh Singh P.W. 3 who gave statement Ex. PD before the Investigating Officer Shri Sarwan Ram P.W. 9 and it was, inter alia, stated by Shri Santokh Singh son of Udhey Singh, resident of village Behlolpur, Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, district Ropar, Punjab, that he was a resident of the above village and work as an agriculturist. His in-laws are residing in village Hafzabad in the house of Joginder Singh son of Arjan Singh Jat. The said Shri Joginder Singh had died. Gumukh Singh and Charanjit Singh are his brothers-in-law. On 3.12.1995, he performed the marriage of his niece (sister’s daughter), namely Rupinder Kaur daughter of Shri Tehal Singh, Jat, resident of Harion Kalan, tehsil Khanna, district Ludhiana with Paramjit Singh son of Sant Singh, Jat, resident of village Hafzabad according to custom. After few days of the marriage, Paramjit Singh appellant, the husband of Rupinder Kaur, Gurmit Kaur (mother-in-law), Gudev Kaur (maternal grand mother-in-law), Manjit Kaur and Harinder Kaur sisters-in-law started saying that Rupinder Kaur had brought inadequate dowry and a Maruti car had also not been given to her. Many times, Rupinder Kaur herself also used to tell the.complainant that entire family used to quarrel with her for bringing inadequate dowry and used to harass her. After marriage, Rupinder Kaur stayed at her in-laws for about 6 months. Her father Tehal Singh and brother Avtar Singh had gone to see Rupinder Kaur. At that time also, Rupinder Kaur had told her father and brother about giving her inadequate dowry and that it was also informed to them by the deceased that the entire family of her in-laws used to taunt her for bringing inadequate dowry. For that reason Avtar Singh and Tehal Singh had taken Rupinder Kaur to their village at Harion Kalan where she lived for about 1 and 1/2. months, Thereafter, her father-in-law and grand-father Kishan Singh residents of village Sandhuan had gone to village Harion Kalan and they brought back Rupinder Kaur on their own responsibility and left her at Hafzabad. Village Sandhuan is native village of Sant Singh and he resides there and the remaining family members reside at Hafzabad because Gurmit Kaur, mother of Paramjit Singh had been residing at the house of her parents for the last 15-20 years. On the day of occurrence he had gone to village Hafzabad in order to see his in-laws where he, along with Gurmukh Singh, his brother-in-law, went to the house of Rupinder Kaur at about 6.00 p.m. in order to see her because on the previous day i.e. on 28.8.1996 Rupinder Kaur did not go to the house of her brother in order to tie Rakhi. When they reached at the house of Rupinder Kaur, they saw that Gurdev Kaur, maternal grand-mother, was holding the right arm of Rupinder Kaur and Paramjit Singh was pouring kerosene oil upon her with a Gadvi (metal pot) from the can lying nearby and within our sight Gurmit Kaur took out a match stick from the match box and set Rupinder Kaur on fire. After setting her on fire, all these persons were pushing Rupinder Kaur inside the bath room and Manjit Kaur and Harinder Kaur sisters-in-law were helping them and were exhorting that on that day Rupinder Kaur should be done to death. On seeing the complainant and Gurmukh Singh, all the five persons ran away outside leaving Rupinder Kaur in burnt condition. Due to setting Rupinder Kaur on fire and on account of injuries, she fell on the ground with burns in front of the bath room which was situated in the Courtyard. The complainant and Gurmukh Singh threw some sand lying in the Courtyard of the house upon the body of Smt. Rupinder Kaur, but she had already expired. It is further averred by the complainant that after leaving his brother-in-law Gurmukh Singh at the spot in order to guard the dead body, he proceeded towards the Police Station and when he reached at the bridge of Sirhind Canal at Chamkaur Sahib where the police party was already present in connection with a Naka, Shri Santokh Singh gave his statement Ex. PD. It was read over and explained to him and he signed the same in token of its correctness. The statement was recorded by SI Sarwan Ram who made endorsement Ex. PD/1 under the said statement and it was sent to Police Station Chamkaur Sahib for registration of the case Under Sections 304B/498A, IPC through Constable Paramjit Singh against Paramjit Singh, Gurmit Kaur, Manjit Kaur, Harinder Kaur and Gurdev Kaur, This statement was sent to the Police Station at 8.45 p.m. on 29.8.1996 and on the basis of that statement, formal FIR No. 36 was recorded in the police station, vide D.D.R. No. 21 recorded at 8.45 p.m. on the same day and the special report sent to the Area Magistrate which was sent through Jasbir Singh which was received by the said Magistrate on 30.8.1996 at 5.00 a.m. Thereafter the police party went to the place of occurrence. The dead body of Smt. Rupinder Kaur was lying in the Courtyard of the house of Sh. Gurmit Singh. The Thanedar prepared the inquest report Ex. PB of the dead body of the lady. It was got attested from Tehal Singh and Mohinder Singh. The Thanedar drafted Ex. PF the request for post mortem examination and it was sent to the S.M.O. Civil Hospital, Ropar for post mortem examination. It was received by Dr. Sandhu on 30.8.1996 at 9.40 a.m. and he directed Dr. Anand Sharma and Dr. Anita Virdi to do the needful under the rules. The said Investigating Officer then visited the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan Ex. PJ with correct marginal notes. During the spot inspection, he took into possession one plastic can vide recovery memo Ex. PK in the presence of Shri Avtar Singh and Didar Singh. After the post mortem examination, Head Constable Surjit Singh produced the clothes of the deceased which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH on 30.8.1996. The Thanedar also took into possession Gadvi Ex. P2, one match box Ex. P3 and some pieces of broken bangles, besides some burnt clothes. He made a sealed parcel of the burnt clothes by using his own seal SR and these articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PK. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On return to the Police Station, he handed over the case property with seal intact to the Moharrar Head Constable. The pieces of the clothes which were handed over to the Constable by the doctor were also taken into possession by the Thanedar vide recovery memo Ex. PL. The accused were arrested on 1st September, 1996.
4. P.W. 1 Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma along with Dr. Anita Virdi on 30.8.1996 at about 9.40 a.m., conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Rupinder Kaur. It was identified by Mohan Singh and Tehal Singh. It was body of a young female aged 21 years with 100% burns wearing few pieces of burnt clothes. Pubic and scalp hair were burnt. Superficial layer of skin was burnt black and peeling of skin was also present. Dead body was smelling of kerosene oil. On the anterior aspect of the body, especially on abdomen and chest sand was present. Eyes, mouth and nose were totally closed because of the extensive burns and in the opinion of the doctor, it was 100% burns. There was no external mark of injury. Rigour mortis was present. Superficial skin burnt. The stomach contained about 125 cc of gastric juices, small intestine containing undigested food particles and large intestine contained faecal matter, bladder contained about 100 cc of urine. Uterus was healthy. On opening uterine cavity it was normal, healthy and empty. In the opinion of the Board of Doctors the cause of death was due to shock on account of 100% burns. It was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The doctor also opined that the bum injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The doctors after the post mortem examination handed over the inquest papers and the post mortem report to the police. The doctor further opined that probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within one hour and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. Ex. PC is the carbon copy of the post mortem report given by the doctor, signed by him and Dr. Anita Virdi. On the completion of the investigation of the case, both the appellants along with the other three acquitted were challaned to the Court of Area Magistrate who supplied copies of documents to the accused as relied upon by the prosecution and vide commitment order dated 22.11.1996, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar committed all the five accused to the Court of Session. Vide order dated 11.12.1996, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants and their companions Under Sections 498A, 304B, 142 read with Section 149, IPC and Under Section 302/149, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem examination along with Dr. Anita Virdi, P.W. 2 Constable Jasbir Singh who was the formal witness and according to this formal witness, he delivered the special report of this case and according to this witness, he was handed over a copy of the FIR at about 9.30 p.m. on 29.8.1996. There was stream in the path and he had to return back to Chamkaur Sahib. He was on the motor-bicycle. He came to Morinda and then to Kurali. His motor-bicycle went out of order as there was rain. There was nobody to repair the same and for that reason much time was spent. He parked the motor-cycle at Kurali and returned to Ropar in a truck and reached at the house of the Area Magistrate at about 5.00 a.m. on 30.8.1996 and handed over the special report. PW 3 is Santokh Singh complainant, and P.W. 4 Gurmukh Singh – the eye-witnesses in this case. The testimony of both these witnesses shall be discussed by us in the subsequent portion of the judgment. P.W. 5 Tehal Singh is father of Smt Rupinder Kaur, PW 6 Bahadur Singh is a formal witness who simply prepared the site plan Ex. PF at the instance of Shri Gurmukh Singh. P.W. 7 is Head Constable Desh Raj who simply recorded the formal FIR Ex. PD/2 on receipt of the statement Ex. PD made by Shri Santokh Singh. H.C. Surjit Singh P.W. 8 gave his statement by way of an affidavit Ex. PH. Inspector Sarwan Ram P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement Ex. PD of the complainant. He visited the place of the occurrence. He completed all the necessary formalities of the investigation including the one – he prepared the inquest report and took into possession the can of plastic Ex. P-l, Gadvi Ex. P-2, Match box Ex. P-3, besides some articles which were handed over to the police after the post mortem examination. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor in the trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution.
6. The statement of the accused was recorded Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. The accused denied all the allegations made by the prosecution and the plea taken in defence by Shri Paramjit Singh appellant is as follows :
“I have not mal-treated Rupinder Kaur on account of dowry or of in any other matter. But she was treated very nicely. However, she did not want to settle in the village and was compelling me to shift to a city. About 2-3 months earlier, she took poison in order to commit suicide and was also got herself aborted secretly without our knowledge. On the day of alleged incident she committed suicide and it was Jaswant Singh who tried to rescue her but in vain. I am innocent. I was not present at the time of alleged incident. I have been falsely implicated in this case.”
7. Smt. Gurmit Kaur appellant gave the following plea before the trial Court:
“I have not mal-treated Rupinder Kaur on account of dowry or of in any other matter. But she was treated very nicely. However, she did not want to settle in the village and was compelling me to shift to a city. About 2-3 months earlier, she took poison in order to commit suicide and was also got herself aborted secretly without our knowledge. On the day of alleged incident she committed suicide and it was Jaswanl Singh who tried to rescue her but in vain. I am innocent. I was not present at the time of alleged incident. I have been falsely implicated in this case.”
8. I need not incorporate the pleas of Smt. Manjit Kaur and Smt. Gudev Kaur as they had already been acquitted. The fifth person named in the FIR has not been sent up for trial.
9. When called upon to enter the defence, the accused examined Shri Jaswant Singh D.W. 1 and according to this witness, he saw some fire in the bath room of the house of the accused party. He went to the house of Gurmit Singh. The doors of the bath room were bolted from inside and they tried to break open the same for half an hour. Smt. Rupinder Kaur was in the bath room and she was almost burnt. She was taken out of the bath room and sand wes put upon her in order to extinguish fire. According to witness Shri Jasant Singh, she died within five minutes. It was also stated by this witness that Sh. Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh and P.Ws. 3 and 4 were not present at that time. He also proved the photographs Exhibits D-l to D-5 of the bath room of the house of Paramjit Singh.
10. The learned trial Court accepting the version of the prosecution in part, gave the benefit of doubt to Manjit Kaur and Gurdev Kaur but came to the conclusion that Shri Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Kaur appellants have committed the offence punishable Under Section 304B read with Section 34 and Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, both the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the present appeal which we are disposing of with the assistance rendered by the Counsels for the parties and we have also gone through the record of this case.
11. A reading of the file of the trial Court would show that the accused were charge-sheeted Under Section 302/34, IPC and in the alternative Under Section 304B, IPC. The trial Court in the impugned judgment and for the reasons given in para Nos. 11 to 14 of the judgment, the appellants were held guilty of the offence Under Section 302/34, IPC and Under Section 498A, IPC; they were acquitted for the charges Under Sections 304B, 142 and 149, IPC. It will be appropriate for us to reproduce these paragraphs in the present judgment:
“11. In this case, it is admitted fact that Rupinder Kaur daughter of Tehal Singh (P.W. 5) was married with Paramjit Singh accused in December 1995 and she died on 29.8.1996 with 100% burns i.e. of unnatural death. It is also admitted case that she had died in the house of Paramjit Singh, her husband. It is also admitted fact that she has gone to her father 5-6 months after the marriage and she lived there for 1 1/2. months and she was brought by Kishan Singh, grand-father of Paramjit Singh and Sant Singh, father of Paramjit Singh. It is also admitted fact that family of Paramjit Singh hold 26 killas of land at village Hafzabad which is the village of Gurdev Kaur, mother of Gurmit Kaur. The family also hold 11 killas of land at village Sandhuan which is the village of Sant Singh, father of Paramjit Singh. It is also admitted that Kishan Singh and Sant Singh reside at village Sandhuan, whereas Paramjit Singh, his mother, grand-mother and sisters resides at village Hafzabad.
12. In this case occurrence has taken place on 29.8.1996 at about 6.00 p.m. at village Hafzabad. The police met Santokh Singh near Chamkaur Sahib at about 7.30 p.m. His statement Ex. PD was recorded on which SI Sarwan Ram made endorsement Ex. PD/1 at 8.40 p.m. So, the statement was recorded within two hours of the occurrence i.e. immediate and prompt. If Santokh Singh was not present at the spot, he could not have come from his village Behlolpur, which is at a distance of 10-15 kms. from the spot. Village of Tehal Singh is also at a distance of 30 kms. from the place of occurrence. Chamkaur Sahib is about 10 kms. from Hafzabad. If the prosecution was launched after due deliberations and consultations, the prosecution would have start on the statement of Tehal Singh who had also reached at the spot later on. Santokh Singh PW 3 is brother-in-law of Tehal Singh P.W. 5 and Gurmukh Singh P.W. 4 is brother-in-law of Santokh Singh. It is admitted fact that Gurmukh Singh belongs to village Hafzabad. He will not depose falsely against his co-villagers. If the case is to be made against the in-laws of deceased Rupinder Kaur after due deliberations and consultations, then the prosecution would have not spared Sant Singh and Kishan Singh also who are father and grand-father of Paramjit Singh. They would also be involved. Gurmukh Singh has no enmity with Paramjit Singh or with his family and no enmity has been even suggested. The defence version is falsified and the presence of Santokh Singh P.W. 3 and Gurmukh Singh P.W. 4 is fortified by the fact that the occurrence has taken place in the Courtyard only and not in the bath room, as suggested by the defence to Santokh Singh P.W. 3 and Gurmukh Singh P.W. 4. Sarwan Ram PW 9 has visited the spot immediately after recording the statement Ex. PD and he has prepared rough site plan Ex. PJ wherein place of occurrence has been shown in the Courtyard. No suggestion has been put to him in the cross-examination that in fact Rupinder Kaur has burnt herself in the bath room and he has wrongly shown the same in the Courtyard. In fact, Sarwan Ram P.W. 9 has not been cross-examined about the place of occurrence in any manner. It is alleged by Jaswant Singh DW 1 that Rupinder Kaur was alone in the house and fire was coming out of the bath room and she has locked the bath room from inside, but the door of the house was open. If Rupinder Kaur was to commit suicide why she will commit suicide in the bath room only and leave the doors of the house open. She would commit suicide in the kitchen or in her bed room. This falsify the suggestion of the defence that the occurrence has taken place in the bath room and that Rupinder Kaur has committed suicide by burning herself and Santokh Singh P.W. 3 and Gurmukh Singh P.W. 4 were not present.
13. Regarding dowry demand, Santokh Singh in his statement Ex. PD has categorically stated that after 5-6 days of the marriage, which was corrected as 5-6 months in the statement, Rupinder Kaur told him that she was being harassed for dowry demand and she is being harassed for bringing inadequate dowry. It is also alleged that she has not brought the Maruti car. Tehal Singh P.W. 5 has made similar statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. It is also apparent from the evidence that dowry demand was being made from Rupinder Kaur after the marriage till her death and her father was sent away by her about 20 days earlier. It cannot be said that the demand was not being made soon before the death. The demand, harassment and cruelty was continuous. The question whether the demand of dowry has been made soon before or not, will only arise in those cases where it is alleged that the demand was made by the accused from her parents. In this case, Rupinder Kaur has told her father Tehal Singh P.W. 5 and his maternal uncle Santokh Singh P. W. 3 that she is being harassed and dealt with cruelty for inadequate dowry and Maruti car is being demanded from her as she has not brought the same in the marriage. So, the question of demand coming sooner or later not arise, as the persons who are making demands are the accused and the person from whom the demand was made has already died.
14. Coming to the part played by the accused in the commission of crime, it must be noted that Santokh Singh P.W. 3 and Gurmukh Singh P.W. 4 have stated that Paramjit Singh was pouring kerosene oil upon the head of Rupinder Kaur, Gurdev Kaur was holding Rupinder Kaur by hand and Gurmit Kaur had set Rupinder Kaur on fire while Manjit Kaur and Harinder Kaur were saying that Rupinder Kaur be finished. But it must be noted that all the persons may not be present at the time of commission of offence, but all may not have participated in the same and the prosecution attributed some part of the incident on each of them to involve them. Gurdev Kaur is aged about 70 years and she cannot hold woman and she will be the last person who hold arms of Rupinder Kaur who is aged about 21 years. If she was to be held then Manjit Kaur who is young and aged about 22-23 years would have held her. Usually some persons are unnecessary involved to harass whole the family. So, I hold Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Kaur accused guilty Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 498A, IPC and acquit both of them Under Sections 304B, 142 and 149, IPC, whereas I acquit Gurdev Kaur and Manjit Kaur from all the charges made against them. Let convict Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Kaur be heard on the quantum of sentence.”
12. In our opinion, there are two aspects of this case – whether the conviction of the appellants was justified Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and whether we can rely on the statements of Sarvshri Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh in their totality. We also know the accepted principle of Law of Criminal Jurisprudence that false in particular could not be false in all particulars. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Rupinder Kaur was married with Shri Paramjit Singh accused and after few days of marriage of Paramjit Singh, his mother and other family members started complaining to the deceased that she had brought inadequate dowry. It is established on the record that the marriage of Smt. Rupinder Kaur had taken place on 3rd December, 1995 and the present occurrence had taken place on 28th August, 1996 just after eight months of the marriage. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused party was making demand for dowry and specifically a Maruti car. Also it is the case of the prosecution that many a times Smt. Rupinder Kaur deceased herself had been complaining to the complainant that the entire family from the side of her in-laws used to quarrel with her for bringing less dowry and she used to be harassed. So much so, after the marriage Smt. Rupinder Kaur stayed at the house of her in-laws only for about 6 months. On one occasion, her father Tehal Singh and her brother Avtar Singh came to see her in the house of her in-laws where again Smt. Rupinder Kaur made an oral complaint to her father and Shri Avtar Singh that she was subjected to harassment for bringing less dowry and that her in-laws had been taunting her for bringing inadequate dowry. It is also established on the record that Avtar Singh and Tehal Singh had taken Rupinder Kaur to her parental village Harion Kalan where she lived for about 1 1/2 months in the house of her father and subsequently the father-in-law of Smt. Rupinder Kaur and grand-father of Kishan Singh, residents of village Sandhuan, had gone to village Harion Kalan and they brought back Smt. Rupinder Kaur at their responsibility and left her in the house of her in-laws in village Hafzabad. To prove this aspect we have on record the statements of three witnesses, namely Santokh Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Tehal Singh. When a lady is being harassed on account of demand of dowry, in such like matrimonial offence, it is the natural conduct on the part of the victim to lodge a protest with her parents and other close relatives. In this regard, we find the statement of Shri Tehal Singh P.W. 5 who was none else but the father of the deceased. He categorically stated that the marriage of his daughter took place on 31.2.1995 with Paramjit Singh and in the marriage he gave a T.V., Fridge, Bullet Motor-bicycle, ornaments consisting of 10 rings, 5 chains, 4 bangles and one ring, All the accused were not happy with the dowry. He specifically named that Harirtder Kaur was not happy with the dowry. Gurmit Kaur appellant too was not happy with the dowry items which were given at the time of marriage of Smt. Rupinder Kaur. It has also come in the statement of Shri Tehal Singh that after 2-3 months of the marriage the accused started demanding a Maruti car in dowry. Smt. Rupinder Kaur remained in the house of her in-laws after marriage for about six months and when he and his brother Avtar Singh had gone to meet Rupinder Kaur in the house of her in-laws, the deceased used to grumble that she was being harassed in connection with demand for dowry and especially a Maruti car. She was being taunted on the plea that she had brought inadequate dowry items. In this situation, is it not the natural conduct on the part of Tehal Singh that he took her daughter Rupinder Kaur to his house with the hope that with the passage of time the matter would be settled ? We are living in society which has social bounds. It has come in the statement of Shri Tehal Singh that the grand-father of Shri Paramjit Singh, Kishan Singh and Sant Singh, father of Shri Paramjit Singh brought back Smt. Rupinder Kaur at their own responsibility and it was assured to her that nothing would be demanded from her and that she would not be subjected to harassment. Tehal Singh has further deposed that about 20-25 days earlier to her death he took one air-conditioner in order to give to Smt. Rupinder Kaur. At this she told her father to go back immediately and he should not even take tea because she is being harassed and mal-treated by the accused. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the statements of Shri Tehal Singh, Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh in this connection. This part of the case is even admitted by the accused party that Smt. Rupinder Kaur went to the house of her parents, and she was brought back to village Hafzabad, on the assurance given by the grand-father of Shri Paramjit Singh that she would not be subjected to cruelty. In spite of all this the conduct of the appellants did not change and they continued demanding dowry. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the statements of Tehal Singh, Santokh Singh and Grumukh Singh when they deposed in one voice that deceased Rupinder Kaur was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry.
13. Faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the demand for dowry looks to be un-natural. We are not convinced with the submission raised by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ghai. Once it is established on the record even from the plea of the accused that Smt. Rupinder Kaur had gone to the house of her parents where she stayed for a few months just after six months of the marriage, what was the possible cause for going back of Rupinder Kaur to the house of her parents. In this connection an inference Can always be drawn that she was not comfortable or happy in the house of her in-laws and she was subjected to cruelty and mental torture. It is also established on the record that the dowry which was brought by Smt. Rupinder Kaur at the time of her marriage was not according to the wishes of the accused party and that was the reason that in order to enhance the status of their family and in all probabilities, they might be raising the demand for a Maruti car which could not be met by the father of the deceased. This is the reason that Smt. Rupinder Kaur even did not go to the house of her parents in order to tie Rakhi because as a sane lady, she must have thought proper in heart that the things might aggravate. This part is itself suggestive of the fact that she was being meted with cruelty on the part of the accused.
14. Now let us examine the second part of the story of the prosecution in order to find out whether the presence of Shri Santokh Singh, Gurmukh Singh at the spot looks to be probable or that their appearance has been introduced just to make it a case of murder Under Section 302, IPC. Human probabilities and natural conduct of a witness are the best yardstick to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh proceeded to the house of the deceased in order to enquire the welfare of , Smt. Rupinder Kaur because Smt. Rupinder Kaur on the previous day did not go to the house of her brother on the eve of Rakhi. It is further the case of the prosecution that when both the witnesses reached at the house of Rupinder Kaur they saw that Gurdev Kaur maternal grand-mother was holding the right arm of Rupinder Kaur and Paramjit Singh was pouring kerosene oil upon her by a Gadvi from the can lying nearby. Smt. Gurmit Kaur took out a match stick from the match box and set Rupinder Kaur on fire. It is also the case of the prosecution that after setting Rupinder Kaur on fire, both the appellants and the co-acused started pushing Smt. Rupinder Kaur inside the bath room and they were raising lalkara that Smt. Rupinder Kaur should be done to death on that day. Is this part of the story looks to be probable through the mouths of Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh. We cannot lose sight of the fact that both these witnesses are related with the deceased. In our opinion, the presence of both the witnesses has been procured in order to make out a case of eye-witness. What would have been the position of the prosecution had Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh arrived at the place of the occurrence just after two minutes or one minute when Rupinder Kaur caught fire. Their alleged presence just at the time of the alleged occurrence when allegedly all the accused were trying to put Rupinder Kaur on fire, looks to be unnatural. If we further minutely examine the case of the prosecution, the entire story started from the very beginning in the presence of these two witnesses. What should be the natural reaction of these witnesses ? When Smt. Gurdev Kaur was holding the right arm of Smt. Rupinder Kaur and Paramjit Singh was allegedly pouring kerosene oil upon her, was it not expected from both sides relation witnesses to physically intervene and desist the accused from doing so. Not only this, they could raise a lalkara as to why they are doing so. They could even change the conduct of the accused, but on the contrary, they stood like a silent spectator making their conduct and reason improbable raising a reasonable doubt that their presence at the spot was not there. Further, the deceased was a young lady and in this situation, was it not natural on the part of the deceased to resist Gurdev Kaur and Gurmit Singh as to why they were dragging her on one side and why they were putting kerosene oil on her. It is an established fact that the house of Paramjit Singh is situated in the abadi surrounded by the houses. When Smt. Rupinder Kaur was allegedly in trouble at the hands of the accused, it should have a natural conduct on the part of the witnesses to raise an alarm so as to attract the neighbourers. What it appears to be that the prosecution witnesses were informed about the occurrence through the relations who were also residing in village Hafzabad and Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh were arranged as witnesses and, thereafter, the Thanedar gave the twist to make it an eye-witness account. There are other checks also which are suggestive of the fact that Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh are procured witnesses. As per the prosecution evidence, the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. on 20.8.1996. The statement Ex. PD was concluded vide endorsement Ex. PD/1 at 8.40 p.m. The FIR was registered in Police Station vide DDR No. 21 at 8.45 p.m., but strange enough, the special report in this case reached the Area Magistrate at 5.00 a.m. on 30.8.1996. In this regard, the prosecution had relied upon the statement of Constable Jasbir Singh when he deposed that at the time of the delivery of the special report, his motor-bicycle went out of order and he was returned. He could not get the motor-bicycle repaired as a result of which he had to park his motor-bicycle at Kurali and then he came to Ropar on a truck where the Magistrate resides and he delivered the special report on 30.8.1996 at 5.00 a.m. In his cross-examination, the witness has categorically admitted that he had not stated in his police statement that it was raining. In the light of our above discussion, we are constrained to hold that Shri Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh PWs did not see the actual occurrence as deposed in the statement Ex. PD and to a limited extent, their statements cannot be believed when they deposed that Paramjit Singh put kerosene oil and Smt. Gurdev Kaur showed a burning match stick. However, we are convinced from the evidence led by the prosecution that both the accused are guilty of the offence Under Section 304B, IPC to which they were charge-sheeted in the alternative. Section 304B, IPC talks of dowry death. Section lays down “where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than Under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death”. According to the Explanation “dowry” shall have the same meaning as, in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). According to Sub-section (2) of Section 304-B, “whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life”. A reading of the above would show that ingredients of this Section are required to prove the offence Under Section 304B IPC; Firstly, un-natural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage; Secondly, she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. If we examine even in the light of the ingredients referred to above, it stands established that death of Smt. Rupinder Kaur was caused by burn injuries and these burn injuries had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and it was also established from the natural statements of Shri Tehal Singh, Santokh Singh and Gurmukh Singh PWs that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and her mother-in-law in connection with demand for dowry because they were not happy from the marriage on account of less dowry articles, particularly a demand for a Maruti car. So much so, when Tehal Singh wanted to give an air-conditioner still he was not in a position to deliver because the demand of the accused was high. In this connection, we would also like to refer to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down as under:
“Presumption as to dowry death-
When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.”
15. This presumption is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. There is no cogent evidence led by the accused party from which we may be able to whittle down this presumption.
16. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Mr. Ghai though wanted to convince us that the prosecution has not been able to prove that soon before the death of Rupinder Kaur there was no demand for dowry, but we are not convinced with this submission. The word “soon” has to be distinguished from “immediate” before her death. A woman always goes to the house of her in-laws with a hope to get security of her life, financial assistance, love and affection of her husband and not for death.
17. The learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, IV (1994) CCR 814 (SC)=1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 625, in which it was observed that when a dowry death takes place in a matrimonial home, while awarding punishment, the Court should take notice of the fact that Section 304B, IPC only raises a presumption and lays down minimum sentence of seven years which may be extended to imprisonment for life. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case.
18. Now, the question arises whether this Court can convict the appellants Paramjit Singh and his mother Smt. Gurmit Kaur Under Section 304B, IPC or not. We are of the opinion that there is no difficulty in convicting and sentencing them under this Section because they were charge-sheeted and no prejudice had been caused to them when they had understood the charge under this Section also. Since they are equally guilty Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as both of them had treated the deceased with cruelty, therefore, we partly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants Under Section 302, IPC. However, they are convicted Under Sections 304B and 498-A, IPC.
19. Therefore, in our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if we sentence each one of the appellants, namely Paramjit Singh and his mother Smt. Gurmit Kaur to undergo RI for a period of eight years Under Section 304B, IPC. They are further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years Under Section 498A, IPC and they shall also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each one of them shall undergo RI for a period of six months. All the substantive sentences awarded to the appellants shall run concurrently.