Lachhman Dass vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Lachhman Dass, Harbhajan Singh, Dhan Kaur and Gurdev Kaur appellants stand convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months each. They have, however, been acquitted of the charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. They appeal.

Surjit Kaur deceased was also known as Rani. She was married to Harbhajan Singh accused about three years prior to the present occurrence. Two children were born out of this wedlock. After about one year of the marriage, the accused started maltreating the deceased on account of inadequate dowry. At the time of birth of daughter of the deceased, the accused had remarked that her parents had not brought anything. They also used to say that she was not of fair complexion. The deceased always complained of maltreatment by the accused.

The prosecution case is that after 21 days of the birth of the daughter, Harbhajan Singh accused had gone abroad and in his absence the other accused used to maltreat the deceased. During this period, she took D.D.T. and on receipt of this information, Surinder Rani sister of the deceased informed her parents and the deceased was taken to Phagwara for treatment. The deceased recovered and her parents were ot prepared to send her to inlaws but Surinder Rani intervened and Surjit Kaur deceased was sent to her inlaws. Harbhajan Singh returned from abroad after 11/4 years and even after his return, all the accused treated the deceased with cruelty, so much so that she was not allowed to speak with her sister Surinder Rani, whose house is at a distance of about 200/300 Karams from that of the accused. The prosecution story goes that Khushi Ram, father of the deceased, brought Ghee at the time of birth of son to Surjit Kaur and when the clothes were shown to the inlaws of the deceased, her inlaw started taunting her that parents had brought nothing and the accused continued maltreating her. On 21.2.1985, Surinder Rani learnt that a dead body was lying near the well known as Pannuan well. She went alongwith her husband where some other persons were present and found that it was the dead body of Surjit Kaur. They set out for the police station to lodge the report and on the way the police met them Surinder Rani made a statement Ex. PB/3 on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex. PB/5 was recorded by Harbhajan Singh M.H.C. Jarnail Singh, A.S.I. went to the spot held inquest Ex.PB and sent the dead body of Surjit Kaur to the mortuary for autopsy. The accused were arrested on 2.3.1985.

Dr. Jaswinder Singh PW1 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Surjit Kaur on 22.2.1985 at 11.30 a.m. Death was opined to be due to asphyxia as a result of drawing. The time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to be less than fine minutes and between death and postmortem within 36 hours. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Jaswinder Singh PW1, Surinder Rani PW2, Khushi Ram PW3, Suresh Kumari PW4, Avtar Singh PW5 and the Assistant Sub Inspector Jarnail Singh PW6. When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case but led no evidence in defence.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the conviction under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, on the ground that no offence under the said charge has been made out against any of the appellants. I have carefully gone through the evidence led by the prosecution. As a result, I am of the opinion that the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is not sustainable as there is overwhelming evidence on the file establishing that the appellants were demanding dowry and were not satisfied with the dowry supplied and were creating such atmosphere for the deceased that she felt harassed, humiliated and insulted. As a result of the cruelty of the appellants, she had no option but to finish her life seeing that it was the only way to end her miseries. There is no reason to reject the testimony of Surinder Rani PW2, Suresh Kumari (PW4) sisters of the deceased and Khushi Ram (PW3) father of the deceased as far as it implicates the appellants under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, and I do not find any justification to interfere with the finding of guilt returned by the trial Court on this score.

Finally, the learned Counsel has sought reduction in the sentence. Emphasis is also laid on the fact that the occurrence took place as far back as 1985. I consider that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, under the circumstances, is somewhat on the higher side. I accordingly reduce it from two years to one year R.I. each. The sentence of fine with its default clause shall, however, remain. The amount of fine, if realised, whole of it shall be paid to Khushi Ram PW as compensation.

The appeal fails except to the reduction in the sentence as ordered above and is dismissed.