JUDGMENT
S.D. Bajaj, J.
1. Inderwati and Saroj, two daughters of Balwant son of Rati Ram, resident of village Ghikada, were married to two brothers, named Ram Kishan accused-appellant and Satyawan, respectively, on 13-4-1984. Around 5-00 A.M. on 7-11-1988, nearly, 4 years and 7 months, after her marriage, Inderawati died otherwise than under normal circumstances by drowning in the well of Ganga Ram son of Jawahara, resident of village Ghudan. Suraj Bhan, eldest brother of Ram Kishan, reported it to be a case of accident. Balwan Singh, father of the deceased, however, reported it to be a case of drowning death on 12-11-1988. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the father of the deceased thus:
“… I received information from my family members in Army Hospital, Dehradun, that my daughter Inderawati had died in her matrimonial house on 7-11-1988. Receiving this information I have come from Dehradoon…”
Ram Kishan husband of Inderawati was, thus, proceeded under Sections 306, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Vide its impugned judgment dated 4-10-1989, learned trial court convicted Ram Kishan accused of the commission of offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, but absolved him of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that cruelty and maltreatment was alleged in respect of demands for more dowry and not to pressurise her to commit suicide. In respect of conviction, under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, Ram Kishan accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years was awarded to him for his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to convicted accused-appellant were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved from his conviction and sentences aforesaid, Ram Kishan accused-appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 408-S.B. of 1989 in this Court.
3. I have heard Shri R.S. Cheema, Advocate, with S/Shri Varinder Singh and Rajiv Trikha, Advocates for the appellant and Shri B S. Rana, Advocate, for the State, and have carefully gone through the entire evidence on the record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, referred me to the observations made in Wazir Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1989 CAR (SC) 109 and urged that drowning of Inderawati deceased in the well can either be termed as accident pure and simple or at the most intentional and determined suicide by the deceased. It can in no circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, be termed as dowry death, occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances. The argument is wholly without merit and the authority cited does not support it. In the authority cited, it was a burn case, occurring before the enactment of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of suicide note and absence of kerosene smell from the clothes of the bride, it was held, “Admittedly medical aid having been proved to have been made available by the in-laws, it cannot be said with certainity that it was a case of suicide.” Both, the father-in-law and the bridegroom, were however, held guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. In the present case, a young bride has died otherwise than under normal circumstances by drowning in the well of Ganga Ram in village Gudhan of her parents-in-law (matrimonial home), within seven years of her marriage. Harassment of deceased by the accused for bringing more dowry is duly proved from the statements on solemn affirmation of her father Balwan Singh (PW 2) and mother Smt. Savitri (PW 6). It was observed by the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953, SC 394, that ordinarily a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person and hence the mere fact of relationship far from being the foundation for criticism of the evidence is often a sure guarantee of truth. Their deposition in this regard was rightly relied upon by the learned trial court in terms of Section 304B read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Death having occured within 7 years of marriage has to be presumed as dowry death of the deceased caused by the accused.
6. Since the case hinges on circumstantial evidence alone, such evidence must satisfy three tests :
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should have a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
7. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case, the circumstances indicated by the learned trial court in paragraph 25 of its impugned judgment are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, are of conclusive nature and tenacious and exclude every hypothesis other than the one which was to be proved by the prosecution against the accused. The finding of guilty returned against the accused-appellant by the learned trial court is, therefore upheld. Sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court on both these counts, is rational and, therefore, there is no scope for tinkering with it in appeal.
8. In result, criminal appeal filed by Ram Kishan convicted accused gets wholly bereft of any merit therein and is accordingly dismissed.