Jai Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a criminal appeal earlier filed by Jai Singh and his mother Smt. Shanti and was directed against the judgment dated 18.2.1995 and order dated 21.2.1995 vide which the appellants Jai Singh and his mother Shanti (deceased) were convicted for the offence u/s 304-B, IPC and each one of them was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years.

Smt. Shanti has expired during the pendency of appeal and in these circumstances her appeal has abated and now this Court will determine the liability of Jai Singh appellant only. It may also be mentioned here that Brij Lai and Roshni were also tried with Jai Singh and Shanti but the Trial Court has acquitted Brij Lai and Roshni.

The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Kalawati deceased was married with Jai Singh appellant on 27.6.1991. Brij Lai is the elder brother of Jai Singh and Smt. Roshni is the wife of said Brij Lal. Smt. Shanti deceased was the mother of Jai Singh. As per the allegations of the prosecution, both the appellants, Brij Lal and his wife Roshni were not happy and satisfied with the dowry brought by Kalawati and they demanded more dowry. Whenever Kalawati used to go to her parental home she used to tell that all the four accused demanded more dowry and they had been harassing and beating her. They demanded a scooter and an embroidery machine. Despite being asked the accused did not desist from harassing and beating the deceased. About PA months prior to the occurrence which took place on 14.7.1993 Ram Partap, who is the real brotlier of the deceased Kalawati, went to the house of sin-laws of his sister in village Kalina in order to bring her. At that time also all the four accused told him that Kalawati would not be sent to the house of her parents unless scooter and embroidery machine are given. The complainant promised to meet the said demand. About 20 days before the occurrence Ram Partap took his sister Kalawati to her in-laws and left her there assuring that he would soon meet the demand. On 13.7.1993 complainant Ram Partap gave embroidery machine at the house of the appellants alongwith receipt after purchasing the same and promised to give the scooter after the next crop, but the accused asked Ram Partap to send the scooter urgently and without any delay. On 13.7.1993 deceased Kalawati complained to her brother that even on the preceding night all the four accused had given her beatings. The story of the prosecution further goes that on 14.7.1993 at about 3/3.30 p.m. the complainant learnt in his Village Dhingtania that his sister Kalawati has expired. The complainant alongwith his maternal uncle, Khayali Ram, Om Parkash Sarpanch and Patram reached Village Kalina and found Kalawati lying dead. On enquiries he found that Kalawati was killed by the present appellants and their co-accused on account of inadequate dowry. On 14.7.1993 a telephonic message was given in Police Station Sadar Sirsa by a person claiming himself to be Panch of Village Kalina that wife of the son of Man Raj had died and the cause of death was not known. Thereafter ASI Surat Singh went to Village Kalina but no Panch owned the telephonic message. Ram Partap complainant, however, made statement Ex. PD to Surat Singh, ASI narrating the above facts and thereafter the case was registered. ASI Surat Singh prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Kalawati and it was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. P.R. Kayashth and Dr. Gurtej Singh conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kalawati. Viscera was preserved. Blood sample was also preserved and those were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner for analysis. The doctor also found a reddish abrasion over the left upper 1 /3rd of gluteal region per the report of the Chemical Examiner. Organo Phosphorus compound was detected in the viscera and the blood of the deceased and it was opined ultimately that the cause of death of Kalawati was due to the said poisonous substance. The embroidery machine was purchased by the complainant on 12.7.1993 from Sirsa vide receipt photo copy Ex. PF in the name of Kalawati daughter of Kanshi Ram for a sum of Rs. 1,375/-. The receipt was taken into possession by the police from the shop-keeper on 14.9.1993. All the accused were arrested on 15.7.1993 and they also produced the dowry articles which were taken into possession by the police.

On the completion of the investigation of tine case, all the four accused were challaned in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 18.11.1993 committed the accused to the Court of Sessions to face their tria lunder Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC.

Vide order dated 18.12.1993, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa framed charge u/s 304-B, IPC against the present appellants and their compan- ions. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. P.R. Kayashth PW1, who alongwith other doctor conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kalawati. The cause of death was deferred till the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner. However, the doctors preserved the viscera and the blood sample and finally on receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PA/2 the cause of death was determined due to the consumption of Organo Phosphorus pesticides compound and the opinion of the doctor was that the poison was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

Ram Partap is the complainant and he appeared as PW 2 and corroborated his allegations of the FIR against all the four persons. Sultan Singh appeared as PW 3 and deposed that on 12.7.1993 he was called by Ram Partap complainant and he got fitted Kadhai KiMachine (embroidery machine) for giving in dowry to Kalawati, his sister. According to this witness, he fitted the machine and charged Rs. 20/- as labour charges. HC Hans Raj appeared as PW 4 and Ram Chander appeared as PW 5 and proved that he sold the embroidery machine on 12.7.1993 and issued a receipt in the name of Kalawati daughter of Kanshi Ram. He also proved the cash memo for a sum of Rs. 1,375/- Ex. PF/1. The statement of Nand Lal PW 6 is of formal nature, who just proved the marriage of Kalawati with Jai Singh on 27.6.1991. Similarly the statement of Inderjit, Draftsman PW 7 is of formal nature. He simply proved the scaled site plan Ex. PG. The prosecution also tendered into evidence statement of HC Gaje Singh by way of affidavit Ex. PH and Constable Inderaj Singh PW 9 Ex. PI. Similarly, ASI Bihari Lal, Krishan, Lachhmi Devi appeared as PW 10, PW 11 and PW 12 respectively. Finally the report of the Chemical Examiner was also tendered into evidence.

On closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C. and alj the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. Accused denied those circumstances. The plea of Jai Singh is as follows:

"I have three other brothers namely Sohan Lal, Brij Lal and Ram Sarup who reside separately from my parents. I and my wife Kalawati lived with my parents - Mamraj and Shanti. I had a happy marital life. Ours is an agricultural family. My father Mamraj owned about 25 acres of agricultural land. Ours is an agriculturist family from where we drew our livelihood. Mamraj, my father is crippled and bed-ridden, cannot attend to the routine activities of life. I and my mother Shanti used to look after the cultivation while my wife used to look after my ailing father Mamraj. She was fed up with the menial job to be rendered to my father. Kalawati deceased wanted to be separate from my parents and insisted on me to which I declined on account of my being the youngest son and owing duty towards my parents. My wife Kalawati was not happy with her life and ended her life by committing suicide."

I need not incorporate the plea of Brij Lal and Roshni as they had already been acquitted by the Trial Court. Similarly, the plea of Smt. Shanti may also not be incorporated on account of her death during the pendency of this appeal.

In defence the appellants examined Ram Kumar, Sub-Inspector DW1, Ramesh Kumar DW 2 and Prabhu Ram DW 3 besides tendering two documents Ex. DC and DD.

The learned Trial Court on conclusion of the trial gave the benefit of doubt to Brij Lal and his wife Roshni. However, Jai Singh and his mother Shanti were convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated above and. aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the State and with their assistance I have also gone through the record of this case.

Section 304-B, IPC lays down mat where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. The reading of the above provisions would show that three following ingredients are necessary to be proved on behalf of the prosecution before it can secure a conviction u/s 304-B, IPC :

(i) That the death of a woman has been caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(ii) such death should occur within seven years of her marriage; and

(iii) that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with the demand of dowry.

Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is another important section which requires its reproduction in the present judgment and according to this section "when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."

Now in the light of above, the substantive provisions we have to examine the evidence of the prosecution. In such like dowry death cases the relations and the friends of the family of the victim are the best witnesses. They can only depose what was the treatment given by the in-laws to the victim. The case set up by the prosecution was that in spite of giving adequate dowry to the appellant and his family members, they were not satisfied. There was a demand of embroidery machine and a scooter. It is also the case of prosecution that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty from time to time and the brother of the deceased had been making the promises to comply with those demands. It is proved not only from the oral evidence but also from the documentary evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. The receipt Ex. PF/1 is dated 12.7.1993, just two days before the occurrence. This conclusively shows that an embroidery machine was purchased in the name of Kalawati. As per the statement of Ram Partap, it was he who paid the price and got the receipt in the name of Kalawati and the evidence has also come on record that this machine was installed at the house of the appellants by the carpenter. Ram Partap PW 2 has clearly stated in his statement:

"Whenever she used to visit us she used to tell us that her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given in her marriage. Mostly she used to blame her husband Jai Singh as well as his brother Brij Lal and her mother-in-law Smt. Shanti as well as Smt. Roshni (her jethani). We used to pacify her and used to despatch her to her in-laws'' house. She told us that accused has raised a demand of one scooter and one Kadhai Ki Machine. I had breught my sister about V-h months earlier to her death. When I visited last to the accused house to bring my sister then they had insisted that we should arrange scooter and Kadhai Ki Machine and thereafter we should despatch her. I assured to fulfil their demand. She stayed only 25 days at our house and then I left her at the house of the accused about 20 days prior to her death. Accused again repeated their demands of scooter and Kadhai Ki Machine. Thereafter I left my sister at the house of the accused and came to my house. On 13.7.19931 again went to the house of the accused and provided Kadhai Ki Machine alongwith a machine. Then my sister told that all the four accused had caused beating to her. My sister again told me about the demand of the accused. On the next day at about 3 or 3.30 p.m. I came to know that my sister had expired."

Thus from the reading of the statement of a natural witness this Court has no doubt that Kalawati died in the house of her in-laws and she was subjected to cruelty from time to time and harassment was given to her in connection with the demand of dowry. Her death had taken place within seven years of her marriage. One demand had already been met and the other demand was of scooter, beneficiary of which can only be the appellant Jai Singh. In these circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly convicted Jai Singh and Shanti for the offence u/s 304-B, IPC.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants made an endeavour for acquittal on behalf of Jai Singh by submitting that there is no corroboration of the statement of Ram Partap and his bald statement should not be accepted. I am not convinced with the submission raised by Mr. Jain because I have already stated above that in such like cases relations are the best witnesses. It is true that after the death of his sister Ram Partap must be very zealous so as to implicate every member of the family of his brother-in-law Jai Singh but the learned Trial Court had already scanned the probabilities by giving benefit of doubt to Brij Lai and his wife Roshni because they were the last members to get any benefit from the scooter and embroidery machine. The embroidery machine is invariably used by the ladies and for that reason Smt. Shanti musthave been convicted. Shanti has since expired and in these circumstances her appeal has already abated. So far as the conviction of Jai Singh appellant u/s 304-B, IPC is concerned, I do not see any illegality in the impugned judgment.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1993 and Jai Singh appellant is suffering the agony of the criminal proceedings since then and, therefore, he may be visited in the matter of sentence with leniency. There is a merit in the submission raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. No doubt, dowry deaths are stigmatic to our society. When a woman marries herself, she marries with some expectations and two major expectations of every girl going to be married are financial security at the hands of her in-laws and love and affection on their part, but unfortunately day-in and day- out the weaker section of our society i.e. the women, who have given birth to this world, is still being treated as a personal property of an individual. Be that as it may this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of Jai Singh appellant is reduced from 10 years to 7 years and I order accordingly. With above modification in the matter of sentence the appeal of Jai Singh stands dismissed.

One more reason was advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant for pleading mercy in the matter of sentence on behalf of the appellant that the father of Jai Singh is a patient of paralysis, his mother has already expired and in these circumstances, this Court should interfere in the matter of sentence. This aspect has also been taken note of by me while reducing the sentence of Jai Singh appellant.

Appeal dismissed with above modification in the matter of sentence.