JUDGMENT
S.P. Khare, J.
1. Appellants Kamlesh, Ram Milan and Laxmi Bai have been convicted under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A, IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, seven years and two years respectively.
2. It is not in dispute that deceased Anita committed suicide by hanging herself on 27-6-1997 in her matrimonial home in Village Shivrajpur within three years of her marriage with accused Kamlesh. Accused Ram Milan is her Jeth and accused Laxmi Bai is her Jethani. The information relating to her unnatural death was given by accused Kamlesh to the police on the same day as per Ex. P-11. The parents of the deceased were informed about her death by accused Ram Milan and they were present when the Panchnama (Ex. P-5) of her dead-body was prepared.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons were demanding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a T.V. as dowry; Anita used to complain to her parents about this demand; she was being harassed by them on that count an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to them a month prior to her death. Panchamlal (P.W. 6) father of the deceased submitted a written report (Ex. P-7) to the police on 9-9-1997 stating therein that it was a case of dowry death.
4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and their defence is that they never demanded any dowry nor caused any harassment to Anita.
5. The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the accused persons demanded dowry and harassed the deceased before her death and on these findings convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.
6. In this appeal it is argued that there is no proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is pointed out that the statements of the parents and Naresh (P.W. 8) were recorded on the date the inquest was made or a day thereafter and in those statements they did not admittedly make any allegation regarding demand of any dowry by the accused persons or any harassment at their hands and therefore their subsequent version must be held to be after-thought and untrue. It is also contended that the FIR (Ex. P-7) was made as late as two months and ten days and, therefore, such a report does not have any corroborative value and it is said that this report was made because the accused persons refused to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the parents of the deceased which they claimed to have incurred as expenses in the marriage. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been criticised as discrepant and wholly unsatisfactory and it is said to be insufficient to prove the criminal charges. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the State that the findings of the Trial Court are correct.
7. The evidence on record has been scanned by this Court in light of the arguments of both the sides. The ingredients of the offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304B, IPC are (a) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (c) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry; and (e) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. (Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324). In the present case there is no dispute with regard to the first two ingredients, namely, the death of Anita was suicidal and therefore it was “otherwise than under normal circumstances” and this death was within seven years of her marriage. The points for determination are whether the deceased was subject to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons in connection with the demand of dowry and whether it was “soon before” her death.
8. It is an admitted fact that Panchamlal (P.W. 6), Batasiabai (P.W. 11) who are parents of the deceased and Naresh (P.W. 8) who is their son-in-law were present at the time of the inquest on 28-6-1997 in Village Shivrajpur when the Panchnama (Ex. P-5) of the dead-body was prepared and also on the subsequent day and the inquiries were made from them by the police officer and their statements were recorded and in those statements not even a faint whisper was made regarding the demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased by the accused persons. It is true that the scope of an inquest proceeding under Section 174, Cr.PC is limited and that is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death but in the present case there was not only the inquest but inquiries were made from the three witnesses named above and at that time they did not reveal the story of demand of dowry or harassment by the accused persons. Their statements were recorded by the police. In case there had been demand of dowry or harassment the immediate natural impulse of these witnesses would have been to make a complaint to the police officer on these points and that would have been treated as “information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence” under Section 154, Cr.PC and would have been reduced into writing. The police officer also having come to know and reason to believe that the death of the deceased is unnatural must in such case elicite from the parents or other relations of the deceased whether there was any dowry demand or the deceased was being subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death and must register the first information report without any delay. Experience shows that the police officers do not try to ascertain from the relatives of deceased or other material witnesses whether there was any dowry demand and whether there was any cruelty or harassment of the deceased on the pretext that at that stage they are only making inquiries regarding the Marg under Section 174, Cr.PC and there is long interval before a formal FIR of any of the relatives is recorded. There should be no delay in recording the first information report if it comes to light that there was dowry demand or harassment or abetment to commit suicide. The information in such cases should be recorded without the least delay and the investigation must also be conducted with utmost promptitude. It has been pointed out that there are instructions to the police officers by the Government that in such cases the inquiry and investigation should be conducted by senior police officers and, therefore, it is their legal duty to see that there is no delay which would be matter of criticism at a later stage. The importance of prompt recording of the FIR in all cognizable offences is well known and cannot be minimised. It sets the criminal law in motion. It has a strong corroborative value and it is a safeguard against concoction or embellishment. After recording the FIR promptly the investigation should proceed without any delay so that the truth is unearthed and that is the object of all the investigations, inquiries and trials.
9. The Supreme Court observed in G.B. Patel v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 135) that inordinate delay in registration of the FIR and further delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story. This observation is equally attracted in dowry death related cases. In short the message that should go to the police officers conducting inquiries or investigations in dowry death cases or abetment of suicide cases under Sections 304B or 306, IPC is that the information relating to commission of such offences should be recorded without the least delay and the witnesses should be examined with all promptitude so that the chances of any coloured version, embellishment or tutoring are ruled out and the FIR being the first version of the informant serves its purpose. The recording of the FIR should not be delayed on the ground a marg inquiry is being made.
10. In the present case the statements of the parents and Naresh (P.W. 8) were recorded on the next day of the inquest but in those statements they did not make any allegation regarding the demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased by the accused persons. This is borne out from the written report (Ex. P-7) which was submitted before the police on 9-9-1997. It is stated therein that Panchamlal (P.W. 6) and other witnesses who were with him did not disclose in their statements regarding the demand of Rs. 10,000/- and T.V. and payment of Rs. 2,000/- but it is being submitted in writing now. Panchamlal (P.W. 6) has admitted in his evidence also in Para 10 that on receipt of information about the death of Anita he reached Village Shivrajpur with his wife and son-in-law Naresh and inquiries were made from them by the police officer but they did not say anything as to the demand of dowry or harassment. Similar is the admission of Naresh (P.W. 8) in Para 9 of his deposition. The question naturally arises why they kept silent at a time when they ought to have spoken. Their silence when they had an opportunity to complain diminishes the value of their subsequent version. No reason is assigned by Panchamial (P.W. 6) or other witnesses why they remained tight liped when in the normal course of human conduct they ought to have complained to the authorities if really there had been demand of dowry and harassment.
11. Panchamlal (P.W. 6) has deposed that he submitted written report (Ex. P-7) on 9-9-1997 before the S.D.O. (Police), Katni. He has not given any plausible explanation in his evidence why he kept silent for nearly two and half months after the death of his daughter. In this report (Ex. P-7) there is an endorsement of the S.D.O. P.C. Sahu (P.W. 14) that this report was submitted before him on 9-9-1997. He claims to have annexed this report with the charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet there is a list of documents which were annexed to it. The report dated 9-9-97 (Ex. P-7) does not find place in this list. As a matter of fact the report (Ex. P-7) was produced in the Court on 20-4-2000 by Batasia Bai (P.W. 11) when her evidence was being recorded. This has been noted in Para 19 of her deposition-sheet. There is a remark to this effect by the Trial Court on Ex. P-7. Therefore, it is intriguing how this report went into hands of Batasiabai (P.W. 11) and she has produced it in the Court. This report was not on record when Panchamlal (P.W . 6) and Naresh (P.W. 8) were examined and cross-examined. Naturally these two important witnesses of the prosecution could not be cross-examined by confronting to them the report (Ex. P-7) when it was not on record. A copy of this report was given to the Counsel for the accused on 20-4-2000 and the statements of these two witnesses were recorded on 28-10-1999 and 3-12-1999. In the report (Ex. P-7) it is stated that Anita had come 2-3 times after her marriage from the house of her husband to her parents and then he had described that there was demand of Rs. 10,000/- and T.V. It is not specifically mentioned in this application when actually this was disclosed by Anita to her parents. According to statement of Batasia Bai (P.W. 11) in Para 18 of her deposition Anita was in the house of her husband continuously for a period of eight months prior to her death. It is not the case of the prosecution that Anita had sent any intimation to her parents from the house of her husband. Therefore, any statement which is said to have been made by her to her parent must have been eight months before the date of her death. In this report (Ex. P-7) the allegation is that Anita disclosed to her parents that she was being harassed by her husband, her Jeth and her Jethani. The details of the said harassment are not given. It is not said in this report that Anita made any complaint that she was subjected to any physical cruelty or torture. But in his evidence Panchamlal (P.W. 6) has stated that Anita had disclosed that she was being beaten by all the three accused persons. This is an improvement over the detailed report (Ex. P-7). It was never the prosecution case in the FIR or in the statements under Section 161, Cr.PC that any physical cruelty was meted out to her by the accused persons. Naresh (P.W. 8) has stated that Anita had told him that the accused persons are saying that insufficient dowry has been given in the marriage and there is demand of Rs. 10,000/- and a T.V. This witness does not say that Anita had complained of any harassment or torture by the accused persons. In Para 12 of his statement he has further clarified that he never stated before the police that Anita told him of any physical cruelty towards her. According to him, Anita told him that she was not being treated property. He has further stated that by ill-treatment he means that Anita was being asked to bring dowry and apart from the demand of dowry there was no other kind of harassment to her.
12. After the submission of the report dated 9-9-1998 (Ex. P-7) before the S.D.O. (Police) he registered the case as per Ex. P-12. In this report also it has been mentioned by the S.D.O. (Police) that in the earlier statements the parents of the deceased did not disclose that there was any demand of dowry or physical or mental cruelty towards the deceased by the accused persons.
13. In the report (Ex. P-7) it is mentioned that Panchamlal (P.W. 6) gave an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to Naresh (P.W. 8) and he gave this amount to accused Kamlesh a month prior to the death of Anita. In the report (Ex. P-7) it is not disclosed that this amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid one month prior to the death of Anita. The source from which the amount of Rs. 2,000/- came was not investigated by the investigating officer. According to Naresh (P.W. 8) this amount was given to him by Panchamlal (P.W. 6). On the other hand Batasiabai (P.W. 11) has stated that this amount of Rs. 2,000/- was borrowed from Naresh (P.W. 8) but, as already stated, Naresh (P.W. 8) does not say that this amount was given by him as a loan to his father-in-law. Panchamlal (P.W. 6) had admitted in his cross-examination that he is earning his livelihood by making Bidis and, therefore, it was necessary for the investigating officer to collect evidence on this point from where this amount of Rs. 2,000/- came which is said to have been given by Naresh (P.W. 8) to accused Kamlesh. The investigation is cases of dowry death is entrusted to the senior officers so that it is done thoroughly. The senior officers are supposed to possess greater skill and expertise in conducting investigation. But the statements of Panchamlal (P.W. 6), Naresh (P.W. 8) and Batasiabai (P.W. 11) were recorded on 9-9-1997 in stereotyped manner. These are in the handwriting of the person other than the Investigating Officer. In suitable cases the Investigating Officer can no doubt take assistance of his subordinates in dictating the statements of the witnesses to them but the examination of the witness must be made by the Investigating Officer himself so that the full information is elicited on the vague points in the FIR. The statements of the three prosecution witnesses, named above are on record. The statement of Batasiabai (P.W. 11) under Section 161, Cr.PC has been marked as Ex. D-2. In recording these statements it should have been clarified when actually demand of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the T.V. was made and when the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid. It was especially necessary because Anita was in her matrimonial home for the last eight months and in the statements which were recorded on the next day of the inquest there was no allegation that any such dowry was demanded. The investigation in “dowry death” cases should be thorough and meaningful and it should not be routine and perfunctory.
14. It is not in dispute that accused Ram Milan and his wife Laxmi Bai were living separately from accused Kamlesh in Village Shivrajpur. The marriage of Kamlesh with Anita was the second marriage. It does not appear probable that Ram Milan and Laxmi Bai would demand the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and T.V. as dowry when they were living separately. Naresh (P.W. 8) has admitted in Para 10 in cross-examination that there was love and affection between Anita and Kamlesh, and, therefore, he must not be ill-treating her.
15. It is not the prosecution case that the accused persons had ever asked for the money or the T.V. from the parents of the deceased directly. Naresh (P.W. 8) has stated in Para 17 of his deposition that for one year after the marriage there was no demand of any kind. He has further stated in Para 19 that his statement was not recorded by the police after the submission of the report (Ex. P-7) to the S.D.O. (Police).
16. Parmannand (P.W. 9) has deposed about the same demand even before the marriage of Anita with Kamlesh. But in cross-examination he says that he had heard about such demand and no such demand was made in his presence. Ramlal (P.W. 10) has stated that two months before her death Anita had told him about the demand of dowry. As already stated Anita had not come to the house of her parents during the period of eight months before her death and, therefore, it is not understandable how she could disclose anything to this witness regarding the demand of dowry.
17. Ramnath (D.W. 1) is also son-in-law of Panchamlal (P.W. 6). He has deposed that Anita never complained to him that there was any demand of dowry by the accused persons. He has further stated that a Panchayat had taken place in June, 2000 in the house of Lalla in Village Kuthla in which it was expressed by the parents of Anita that an amount of Rs. 7,000/- should be paid to them by accused Kamlesh which was spent by them in the marriage of Anita. There is no valid reason to reject the testimony of this witness. He is closely related to Panchamlal (P.W. 6). The failure of the parents of the deceased and Naresh (P.W. 8) in disclosing to the police on the next day of the death of Anita in their statements that there was demand of dowry by the accused persons and further the inordinate delay in submitting the report (Ex. P-7) before the S.D.O. (Police) render the testimony of Ramnath (D.W. 1) probable that there were some negotiations for the payment of the amount of Rs. 7,000/- by accused Kamlesh to his father-in-law.
18. The foregoing discussion reveals that the evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased by the accused persons is not reliable. It is well settled that in a criminal case the charges against the accused persons must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this principle holds good even in cases where the charge is of “dowry death”. The Supreme Court has observed in Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417, that in a case under Section 304B, IPC there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at the, conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution.
19. In the present case the evidence on record is not of such a nature on which a finding can be recorded that the accused persons demanded dowry or treated the deceased with cruelty or abetted the commission of suicide by her. Therefore, the accused persons deserve the benefit of doubt.
20. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A, IPC.