JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. Baljit Singh, appellant was tried with his other relations, namely, Kartar Singh, Harjit Kaur and Satya Pal Singh, under Sections 306 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with regard to F.I.R. No. 248 dated December 24, 1987 pertaining to Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh. Whereas, co-accused of Baljit Singh have been acquitted of the charges framed against them, he has been held guilty for commission of offences under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the I.P.C. and has been convicted to serve life imprisonment under Section 304-B and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 306, IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months Under Section 498A IPC. All the substantive sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, convicted him in the manner aforesaid vide his order dated June 4, 1993, which has been challenged by the appellant in the present appeal filed by him.
2. The prosecution version was unfolded by Balwant Kaur, mother of deceased Kuldeep Kaur, on a statement made by her on December 24, 1987 at 5.15 p.m. to SI Jagir Singh PW 10. She stated that she was residing with her children at Village Shamgarh, Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana and her husband was employed as Subedar in the Indian Army. He was posted in Sri Lanka. She had six children, out of whom four were daughters and two were sons. Her daughter Kuldeep Kaur, aged 20 years, was married to Baljit Singh, appellant herein in June, 1985. According to their capacity they had spent an amount Rs. 20,000/- at the time of marriage but immediately after the marriage, husband of Kuldeep Kaur, namely, Baljit Singh, father-in-law Kartar Singh, mother-in-law Harjit Kaur and husband’s elder brother Satya Pal Singh, started demanding more dowry from her daughter, Kuldeep Kaur. They started beating her for bringing more dowry. Her daughter complained of it many times when she came to her village and told that in case her parents were not to give more dowry, her husband Baljit Singh and other members of the family would kill her. In this way, the appellant and his co-accused sent her daughter to her village 15-20 times after giving beating to her. In this regard, she came to the in-laws of her daughter at Chandigarh number of times and made every possible effort to make them to understand but they kept on harassing her daughter. About a year ago, the appellant visited the village of his wife and demanded an amount Rs. 15,000/- from her parents. Nirmal Singh, husband of the first informant, sent an amount of Rs. 1,000/- by money-order to appellant Baljit Singh so that in-laws might not harass her daughter. In the meantime, on receipt of an information that the in-laws of Kuldeep Kaur had beaten her, she came to Chandigarh but elder brother of the husband of her daughter, namely, Satya Pal Singh had hidden her in his house and did not allow her even to meet Kuldeep Kaur. After a few days, Kuldeep Kaur came to her parents village and told that her husband Baljit Singh, father-in-law Kartar Singh, mother-in-law Harjit Kaur and husband’s elder brother Satya Pal Singh had secured her signatures on blank papers at many places after beating her. Thereafter, the parents of the daughter did not send their daughter to her matrimonial home at Chandigarh. The appellant, however, came to their village to fetch her and in the presence of the Village Sarpanch Harpal Singh, Baljit Singh tendered an apology for his mistakes and promised that in future he would not harass Kuldeep Kaur. On this assurance, Kuldeep Kaur was sent to her in-laws house at Chandigarh. Despite all this, Kuldeep Kaur kept on coming to village of her parents repeatedly and narrated her woes. On the fateful day at about 2 p.m., Balwant Kaur further states in the F.I.R., her son-in-law Baljit Singh reached their village and informed her that Kuldeep Kaur was unwell. On this information, she alongwith her son, Daljit Singh accompanied by Baljit Singh, reached Chandigarh but found that at their house some people had gathered, who told her that Kuldeep Kaur, on being harassed, had committed suicide by setting fire on her clothes.
3. Kuldeep Kaur is said to have succumbed to her burn injuries on December 24, 1987 at 12 noon or 1 p.m. On the statement made by Balwant Kaur, which has been fully detailed above, First Information Report came to be registered on the same day at 5.15 p.m. and the special report reached the Magistrate at Chandigarh on December 26, 1987 at 11.25 a.m.
4. Death of Kuldeep Kaur on account of burn injuries was proved by Dr. R. Sarna, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, who appeared as PW1. There is no need at all to mention the injuries sustained by Kuldeep Kaur as it is an admitted position that she actually died because of burn injuries on December 24,1987. The prosecution, in support of its version, examined number of witnesses but the success or otherwise of the prosecution is dependent upon the statements of PW 6 Sarup Chand, a neighbour of the appellant, PW 7 Harpal Singh, Sarpanch of Village of the complainant, PW 8 Balwant Kaur herself, mother of the deceased, PW 9 Daljit Singh, brother of the deceased and the Investigation Officer Jasbir Singh, PW 10. It will be useful to extract, in brief, their deposition before the trial Judge.
5. Insofar as PW 6 Sarup Chand is concerned, all that he deposed before the Court was that on December 24, 1987 when he was present at his house, he heard some noise in the street at about 12/1 p.m. He saw smoke coming out of the window of House No. 554, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. He stated that he knew that all the accused were living in the said house but he did not know their names. However, when he went upstairs, 3-4 persons were already there. The said persons and the accused were pouring water on the burnt body of Kuldeep Kaur. A blanket had been spread on her body. He came down stairs as he found that Kuldeep Kaur had died. PW 7 is Sarpanch of the Village of Balwant Kaur. He stated tht he had attended the marriage of Kuldeep Kaur. About 1 1/2 years from the marriage, Balwant Kaur had come to him and told that her daughter had come back because her in- laws were beating her because of dowry. He stated that he had advised her to send Kuldeep Kaur to her matrimonial home. However, after about a month thereafter appellant Baljit Singh came to his shop in Samrala and asked him for a compromise and to arrange sending of Kuldeep Kaur with him. He was advised to come to the village after few days. The appellant, thus, came after a week to his house in the village and from the other side he had summoned Kuldeep Kaur and her mother. He once again advised that minor quarrels are there in every house and they should, therefore, settle down peacefully. Thereafter, the appellant brought Kuldeep Kaur. Witness further states that he had told the appellant that if there was any quarrel, he should tell him about the same. He further stated that the appellant had told that there was minor quarrel in his house and that Kuldeep Kaur had left the matrimonial home in anger. This is all that he stated in examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not come to Chandigarh on the death of Kuldeep Kaur and had come to know about her death on the next day through Nirmal Singh. He further stated that wife of Nirmal Singh had shown him two letters demanding dowry but the appellant Baljit Singh told him that they never demanded any dowry. Balwant Kaur, PW 8, mother of the deceased, of course, has supported the prosecution version as given by her in the F.I.R. She, however, states in the cross-examination that the appellant had written letters to them and she had shown the letters to the police and her Advocate and that the said letters, wherein there was demand of dowry, were still lying in her house. She further stated that the police got typed out copies of the said letters but did not take into possession the said letters as, she was told by the police, those letters would not help them. She further states that at the time of marriage, Golden Baali weighing about 1/2 tola and Silver Jhanjher weighing 3 tolas were given to Kuldeep Kaur. Excepting the goldn Baali and Silver Jhanjher, no her ornaments were given. She admitted letter written by her husband, Ex. R-2 addressed to the appellant. She denied the suggestion that her daughter was already involved with some body else with whom she had run away and because of her association with the said person, she was unable to accommodate hereself in the hosue of the appellant. PW 9 Daljit Singh is the real brother of the deceased. He too supports the prosecution version. He also stated in his examinatiori-in-chief that the appellant had come to their village to inform them that Kuldeep Kaur was unwell and was admitted in a hospital and wanted to see them. It is on the information of the appellant in the manner, referred to above, that he alongwith his mother came to Chandigarh on December 24, 1987. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was no documentary evidence available with them to prove that his father had sent a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant. He did not even remember the date, month or year when the said amount was sent. PW 10 Inspector Jasbir Singh, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh, deposed about the way and manner he had conducted investigation in the matter.
6. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that in fact his wife Kuldeep Kaur did not try to adjust with him. He was residing separately with her in House No. 554/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh whereas his parents were living with his elder brother Satya Pal Singh in House No. 541 /1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. One day prior to the death of Kuldeep Kaur, a son was born in the house of his brother, Satya Pal Singh. He was away to Delhi and when he came back on the night of 22/23.12.87, he came to know that his wife had been carried to P.G.I, and thereafter he learnt that she slipped away from the P.G.I. His wife before her marrige did not have good moral character which he learnt later. She in fact could not like him for the said reasons. She either used to leave his hosue of her own or she used to be taken by her parents. He was given threats of false implication in a case by his parents-in-law. He lodged reports with the police also qua this. He had gone to Shamgarh to his in-laws house on 24.12.87 in the morning to bring his mother-in-law in order to set his wife right by advising her to behave properly as he was doubtful about her character etc. He had gone to his in-laws house after telling his wife that he was going to bring them. Before, however, he reached alongwith his mother-in-law back to his hosue, his wife had already committed suicide probably due to fear that she would be snubbed. His father retired from service in 1986 and after that even he went to Batala in August, 1986 as they had to look after his sister, who was employed in Polytechnic College, Batala being unmarried. His father remained there alongwith his mother till October, 1987 and thereafter settled at the hosue of his elder brother Satya Pal Singh. The accused examined in defence DW 1 to DW 6. DW 1, DW 2, DW 4 and DW 5 are witnesses examined in defence with regard to co-accused of the appellant, who have since been acquitted and as such there is no need to mention as to what they stated before the Court. DW 3 Constable Puran Singh, who had brought the summoned record, had proved a complaint of the appellant recorded vide DDR No. 32 dated March 3, 1986, true copy of which was placed on records as Ex. D2. He had also brought the entry of DDR Nos. 21 and 38 dated December 23, 1987. Copies of the aforesaid DDRs were produced on records as EX. D 3 and Ex. D4. Ex. R2 is a letter which has been written by Nirmal Singh, father of the decased. Even though the date of the letter is not decipherable even with magnifying glass but it is clear from the contents of this letter that it came to be written three or four months before Kuldeep Kaur died. It is mentioned in the letter written by the father of the deceased that insofar as Kuldeep Kaur was concerned, the appellant was not to obey his advice. The father of the deceased was in great trouble and either he knew about it or God knew about it. He suggested his son-in-law that it would be proper if he was to get his wife medically treated. This letter has been brought on records by the defence with a view to show that as late as about four months prior to the death of Kuldeep Kaur, there was no mention at all that Kuldeep Kaur was being troubled on account of demand of dowry as also for the reason that she was not medically fit. Ex. D 2 is the daily diary report dated March 3, 1986. The complaint was lodged by the appellant on the said date wherein it is alleged that Kuldeep Kaur after marriage, had started quarrelling with him and other family members and she would pick up quarrel with him on small matters. She had relations with some other person before marriage and she also ran away with that person. Her parents arranged her marriage after advising her but she could not adjust herself with him and she ran away several times without the consent of his family. She would go to Samrala and he would bring her back serveral times. On March 1, 1986 she had gone to Sector 40 when they were sleeping. Her mother’s sister’s son Surinder Singh was residing there. Surinder Singh had brought her back to his house on that night. His father-in-law Nirmal Singh was Subedar in Military and he gave him threats several times that he would involve him in a false case. It is further recited in the complaint aforesaid that at about 12 noon, his father-in-law Nirmal Singh and mother-in-law Balwant Kaur came to their house. In the house he was not present at that time. They gave threats to his mother and sister and his father-in-law also gave slap to his sister and asked them that whatever articles of dowry they had given to their daughter, bring out those articles and they would take in a vehicle and they also took Kuldeep Kaur with them.
7. On these facts, the appellant entertained a doubt that he would be involved in some false case and it is for this precise reason that he had given the information to the police, as mentioned above. Ex. D3 is daily diary report No. 21 dated December 23, 1987 which was recorded at 11.45 a.m. It is recited therein that an information had been received on telephone from the police post that one Kuldeep Kaur reached P.G.I, from Sector 41, who was unconscious. Police Officer was sent for action, who happened to be one Ved Parkash, ASI. Ex. D4 is daily diary report No. 38 dated December 23, 1987 at 4.25 p.m. It is entered therein that ASI went to P.G.I. The doctor gave in writing that Kuldeep Kaur had left the P.G.I. without any inforamtion. On this, ASI went to House No. 554, Sector 41, Chandigarh, where Kuldeep Kaur had produced card bearing No. 506354 and gave her statement about the happenings in the night. She stated that her housband had gone Delhi. He knocked the door at 1.00 p.m. When she got up and opened the door, she became unconscious. She could not know as to what had happened to her. Her husband came at 2.00 at night. Then he came to know that she had left the hosue and had gone somewhere. She further stated that the statement was correct and she was quite well.
8. On the aforesaid material evidence that has been discussed above, Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently contends that even though it is admitted and proved on records of the case that Kuldeep Kaur died on account of burn injuries, there was no reliable evidence on records to show that she had committed suicide for the reason that she was taunted in any manner to bring more dowry. It is further being argued that if Kuldeep Kaur had committed suicide on account of the fact that she could not adjust herself in the family of the appellant or for any other reason, not attributable to the appellant, he could not be charged with any of the offences i.e. 306, 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C.
9. Mr. Lamba, learned Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh, however, endeavoured us to sustain the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their assistance. From the totality of the facts and circumstances that have been discussed above, we are, however, inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Ghai, learned defence Counsel. It shall be seen from the evidence that has been brought on records that the parents of the deceased were not very affluent, the father of the deceased being only a Subedar in Army. At the time of marriage, only half tola of gold and three tolas of silver were given to their daughter. Even though the marriage subsisted for about 2Vi years and concededly, there was correspondence between the parties, the letters said to have been shown by the mother of Kuldeep Kaur were not taken into possession by the police and it is candidly admitted by Balwant Kaur that the police had not taken the said letters into possession as, in its view, the same were not to support the proseuction version. There is only one letter which has been brought on records of the case and that too from the side of defence. That letter, as mentioned above, came to be written by the father of deceased about 3-4 months prior to her death. The same even does not remotely mention anything with regard to demand of dowry either by the appellant or by his other relations or maltreatment meted out to Kuldeep Kaur for non-fulfilling the demand of the appellant or his relations. On the contrary, letter refers to some physical problem of Kuldeep Kaur and a suggestion has been made to the appellant that he should try to treat her. In this context, Ex. D 2, daily diary report dated March, 3, 1986 which is about 1 1/2 years prior to the date of occurrence, gains significance. The appellant had entertained a doubt even at that stage that he would be involved in some case. He had given narration of the facts which, according to him, had brought his marriage with Kuldeep Kaur on rocks. He had said very clearly that Kuldeep Kaur was not able to adjust herself with him for the reason that prior to the marriage, she had affair with some one else and for that reason she was running from home everytime leaving him with no choice but for to persuade her to come back everytime. Daily diary report dated December 23, 1987, which is a day prior to when Kuldeep Kaur actually died, also throws some light with regard to physical or mental condition of the deceased. She was rushed to the hospital as she had become unconscious only on seeing her husband, who had come late in the night from Delhi. However, when a person from the police department visited the P.G.I. she had already left without getting any treatment. She was contacted at her home and her statement was recorded wherein she clearly stated that she was absoultely alright and nothing had happened to her. If there was persistent demand of dowry and maltreatment meted out to her on that count for continuously 2Vz years, after her marriage, it is rather natural that she should have said something to a person and authority who had visited her house for that purpose which is a day prior to when she actually committed suicide. Coupled with that if the conduct of appellant is seen, it appears to be above board. Immediately on finding that his wife had become unconscious, he had himself gone to fetch her parents and had actually brought her mother and brother to Chandigarh on December 24, 1987. Unfortunately however, before they could come and talk to Kuldeep Kaur, she had committed suicide. It is true that the prosecution version is supported by Balwant Kaur and her son but it is all oral and interested version not supported by any independent witness or even by circumstantial evidence. Insofar as statements of PW 6 and PW 7 are concerned, the same do not help the prosecution as nothing is made out from their statements which could point towards the guilt of the appellant in demand of dowry from Kuldeep Kaur at any stage. No doubt, presumption is to be drawn under Section 498-A, IPC if the death is unnatural and takes place within seven years of the marriage but the presumption can be drawn only if it is first proved that there was some harassment on account of demand of dowry etc. We are convinced that it is a case of simple suicide not provoked, guided or abetted by the appellant on account of demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the deceased on that count. That being so, agreeing with the contention of the learned defence Counsel, we acquit the appellant of the charges framed against him. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, is set aside and the present appeal is allowed.