Criminal Appeal No.800 SB of 1996 { 1 }
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No.800 SB of 1996
Date of decision: 21.8.2008
Sohan Singh and others
......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.T.S.Sangha, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.H.S.Sangha, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.T.S.Salana, D.A.G. Punjab.
****
JUDGMENT
SABINA, J.
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the
statement of complainant Surjit Singh, who is father of deceased
Jasbir Kaur. As per the complainant, his daughter Jasbir Kaur was
married to Sohan Singh about two years prior to the occurrence.
After two months of marriage, when he had gone to visit his daughter
in her matrimonial home, Sohan Singh, husband, Karnail Kaur,
mother-in-law and Dalip Singh, father-in-law of Jasbir Kaur told him
that he had not honoured their relatives and nothing had been given
to their son at the time of engagement. The complainant told them
that he had done as per his capacity. On this account, they used to
harass his daughter on one pretext or the other. After one year, he
convened the meeting of the family members of in-laws of his
daughter and asked them as to why they were harassing her and told
Criminal Appeal No.800 SB of 1996 { 2 }
them that he would satisfy their minor demands. The matter was
compromised without giving anything. Dalip Singh told his relations
that he had been given a gold ring of light weight and they were not
satisfied. Sohan Singh also demanded more dowry. The accused
wanted to get rid of his daughter. In the morning of 20.10.1993, he
had come to know that his daughter had died. He believed that his
daughter had been murdered by her in-laws.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant formal
FIR No.74 dated 20.10.1993 was registered by the police of Police
Station Malerkotla.
After completion of investigation and necessary
formalities, accused were sent up for trial. Charge against them was
framed under Section 304-B/34 and 498-A IPC on 29.3.1994.
Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
The material witnesses examined by the prosecution to
prove its case at the trial were Surjit Singh (PW-1), Jagdish Singh
(PW-2), Dr.Gurpal Singh (PW-3) and SI Swaran Singh (PW-6). After
the close of prosecution evidence, accused when examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., prayed that they were innocent and had been
falsely involved in this case. Accused Sohan Singh pleaded that he
was not present in the house on the alleged day of occurrence.
Accused Karnail Kaur and Dalip Singh pleaded that Jasbir Kaur was
pregnant by three months and was under treatment due to illness.
She had died on account of her illness. The accused examined
Darshan Singh (DW-1), Davinder Singh (DW-2), Gurcharan Singh
(DW-3), Mehar Singh (DW-4) and Chet Singh (DW-5) in their
defence evidence.
Criminal Appeal No.800 SB of 1996 { 3 }
Learned trial Judge believed the prosecution version and
convicted all the accused under Section 304-B read with Section 34
IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- each. The accused were also
convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal.
In appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the complainant was a poor person and was drawing
a salary of about Rs.1,400/- per month. He had three children to
maintain including the deceased. As such, he could not give much
dowry nor any dowry was demanded at the time of marriage. Vague
allegations of demand of dowry had been levelled against the
accused by the complainant which had no basis.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has argued
that the deceased had died in the house of her in-laws within seven
years of her marriage. It was a case of death by poisoning. The
accused had been harassing her on account of demand of dowry and
due to this reason she had consumed poison.
In order to admit the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC,
the prosecution has to prove the following facts:-
” 1. that the death of the woman took place due to burns
or the bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal
circumstances.
2. that such death had occurred within seven years of
her marriage.
3. the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
Criminal Appeal No.800 SB of 1996 { 4 }
her husband or any relative of her husband and such
cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with
demand of dowry.”
Admittedly, Jasbir Kaur, daughter of the complainant
Surjit Singh, was married to Sohan Singh about two years prior to the
occurrence. She died in the house of her in-laws.
Dr.Gurpal Singh (PW-3) had conducted the post mortem
examination on the dead body of Jasbir Kaur on 21.10.1993. In his
opinion the cause of death was due to an organo phosphorus group
of insecticide. The said opinion was given by the doctor after receipt
of report of Chemical Examiner. Thus, Jasbir Kaur had died under
unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage.
The next question that requires consideration is as to
whether it was a dowry death or it was just a case of suicide.
When a women marries, she goes to the house of her in
laws with some hope that she would get financial, physical and
mental security over there. From the cross examination of PW-1 it is
evident that the deceased was having a young daughter and it was
highly unlikely that she would have committed suicide leaving behind
her one year old daughter to fend for herself. She must have been
forced to take such an extreme step of taking her own life by the
circumstances surrounding her. She must have been subjected to
such maltreatment or harassment which forced her to take her own
life leaving behind her minor daughter. Foolproof evidence from the
prosecution in such like cases is a remote possibility. The relations
of the deceased are the best witnesses as they are supposed to
know about the state of affairs going on in the house of the
Criminal Appeal No.800 SB of 1996 { 5 }
deceased. Parents of a bride in natural course of affairs know as to
whether their daughter is leading a happy married life or not.
Whenever a demand of dowry is made, the bride has to get the same
satisfied from her parents or relatives. Naturally such persons are
bound to know about the demand besides the bride herself. The fact
that after death of the bride, the relations between two families are
bound to become strained, cannot be lost sight of . The statements
of the relations have, thus, to be acted upon with due care and
caution.
The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as
PW-1, has deposed with regard to harassment meted out to the
deceased by the accused on account of insufficient dowry. In the FIR
the complainant has stated that when he went to the matrimonial
house of his daughter after two months of her marriage all the
accused told him that he had not honoured their relations.
Thereafter, a meeting of the relations of the accused was convened
after one year, where the matter was compromised and nothing was
given by the complainant. There is no specific allegation regarding
any demand of dowry made by accused Karnail Kaur. The
complainant, however, while appearing in the witness box, has
deposed that Karnail Kaur was also saying that ring given to her was
of light weight and dowry was insufficient. However, the said fact is
not mentioned initially in the FIR. Moreover, any demand of dowry or
harassment meted out to the deceased by her is not corroborated by
Jagdish Singh (PW-2). As such, accused Karnail Kaur is entitled to
be acquitted by giving her benefit of doubt as there is no specific
allegation against her regarding demand of dowry.
Criminal Appeal No.800 SB of 1996 { 6 }
So far as accused Sohan Singh and Dalip Singh are
concerned there are specific allegations against them that they were
not satisfied with the dowry articles. Even after the matter was
compromised/settled in a meeting convened by the relatives, Dalip
Singh complained that his ring was of light weight. Sohan Singh also
demanded more dowry. Due to this reason both the said accused
had been harassing Jasbir Kaur. The statement of the complainant
with regard to demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the
deceased by accused Sohan Singh and Dalip Singh is duly
corroborated by Jagdish Singh (PW-2), who is a member Panchayat
of Village Nathumajra. Mehar Singh(DW-4) and Chet Singh (DW-5)
have failed to rebut their testimony regarding demand of dowry.
The witnesses examined by the accused in their defence
failed to advance their case. Darshan Singh(DW-1) and Gurcharan
Singh (DW-3) have been examined with a view to establish that
accused Sohan Singh was not present in his house at the time of
occurrence. Since the deceased had consumed poison to end her
life, the fact as to whether accused was present in the house or not
loses its significance.
No reliance can be placed on the statement of Davinder
Singh (DW-2) as the record produced by him was having cutting on
the date and there was no seal of the hospital on the record nor of
medical officer.
As per Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, when
the question is whether a person has committed dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman was
subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
Criminal Appeal No.800 SB of 1996 { 7 }
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death.
Unfortunately, in this case, Jasbir Kaur consumed poison
being fed up of harassment meted out to her by the accused Dalip
Singh and Sohan Singh on account of insufficient dowry. All the
ingredients, which are required to be proved by the prosecution to
bring the offence within the purview of Section 304-B and 498-A IPC
are fully established.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of accused
Sohan Singh and Dalip Singh under Section 304-B/34 and 498A IPC
are maintained and this appeal qua them is dismissed. So far as
accused Karnail Kaur is concerned, the appeal qua her is allowed
and she is acquitted of the charge framed against her.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
August 21, 2008
anita