Gurbachan Kaur vs Karnail Singh Resham Singh and Another

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.—The respondent was tried for the offence under Sections 306, 304(B) and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. On the complaint made by Smt. Gurbachan Kaur in C.R. No. 495/86 at Turbhe Police Station. In that complaint, it was alleged that her daughter Manjit Kaur was given in marriage to respondent on 19.10.1985 in Wagle Estate, Thane. After the marriage, her daughter was residing with her husband in the house of sister of her husband at Wadala. Thereafter, she was also sent to Jalandar alongwith her husband. She resided there for a period of four months and thereafter again she returned to Wadala. Thereafter respondent left his wife i.e. daughter of the complainant to the house of the complainant. After the intervention of certain middlemen she again went to the house of the first respondent. It is alleged that first respondent was harassing her and ill-treating her and insisting upon gold chain from her parents. He also used to beat the deceased under the influence of liquor and was also making her to stand on her legs throughout night. Manjit Kaur was not ready to go to reside with the accused on account of these ill-treatments. But at the intervention of the middleman Shri Suhas Sharma, she went to stay. On 3.8.1986 at about 3.30 hours she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and setting fire to her person. The present complaint was filed by Smt. Gurbachan Kaur on 7.9.1986.

After the trial, first respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court under Sections 306 and 304(B) of Indian Penal Code and convicted him only u/s 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. till the rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default R.I. for one year.

Being aggrieved by the order entered into by the Magistrate for the inadequacy of the punishment and also acquitting the accused for the other offences, mother, the de facto complainant, filed this Revision Application.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Malpathak has submitted that though the harassment and the demand of the dowry has been held to be proved by the Magistrate, he has committed miscarriage of justice in acquitting the accused u/s 304(B) of Indian Penal Code. He submits that the witnesses and the documentary evidence has proved beyond doubt that there was harassment and ill- treatment on the part of the first respondent on account of the dowry demand of money of Rs. 40,000/-. The learned Magistrate has considered letter Exh. 11 which was written by the deceased on 16.4.1986 much before her committing suicide. The Trial Court has considered the said letter and taken note of the fact that in that letter there is demand of dowry. In view of this documentary evidence, which is a letter, written at undisputed point of time is a valid material to show that there was demand of dowry and the learned Sessions Court having found that the suicide committed by the deceased on account of the harassment made by the first respondent it was not justified on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to acquit him u/s 304(B) of Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that having found that first respondent has committed offence u/s 498(A), a nominal sentence awarded by the Court below is quite inadequate. There is no reason stated by the Court below for such nominal imprisonment is awarded when the Statute pre- scribed maximum period of three years. In the absence of showing any such circumstances, which persuade to reduce the punishment to S.I. for one day, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has committed serious error in awarding sentence in the impugned judgment. It is true that wording of Section 498(A) juris a discretion which can be exercised by the Sessions Court in awarding the sentence. But there must be sufficient material before the Court and justification to reduce the punishment to the minimum. In the absence of such explanation that portion of the judgment requires reconsideration by the Sessions Court.

As I pointed out earlier, the acquittal entered by the Sessions Court u/s 304(b) has to be reconsidered and the evidence has to be reappreciated by the Trial Court and award appropriate sentence according to law.

Though steps have been taken twice to serve first respondent, notice was returned unserved. He could not be served. In view of the matter, the Sessions Judge should issue notice to first respondent before taking up the matter.

In the result. Revision Application is allowed.

Matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court for re-assessing evidence as regards offence u/s 304(B) and pass appropriate order according to law. The Court also may reconsider the adequacy of the sentence awarded by it u/s 498(A) also.

Rule made absolute in above terms.