Lalit Seth and ors. vs State of Punjab

S. S. Grewal, J.

Lalit Seth, husband, Kusum Lata motherinlaw, Raj Pal fatherinlaw and Naresh Kumar brotherinlaw (Devar) of Sushma deceased were tried and convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Coda. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. Lalit Seth convict was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months whereas Raj Pal Kusum and Naresh Kumar convicts were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each or in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, whereas their coaccused Shanti Devi mother of Raj Pal accused was acquitted, vide order of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 14.3.1989. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Lalit Seth Kusum Lata, Rai Pal, and Naresh Kumar filed the present appeal, whereas, Kewal Kumari complainant and mother of Sushma deceased filed Criminal Revision No. 757 of 1989 for enhancement of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, to the accused appellants. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved both the appeal and the revision shall be disposed of by one order.

In brief facts of the prosecution case are that Sushma was married to Lalit Seth in November, 1983 according to Hindu rites. She was a qualified teacher and worked as such in Sacred Heart School, Nimak Mandi, Amritsar, located near the house of the accused. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage. Their marriage did not prove successful as Lalit Seth who was a drunkard and addicted to bad habits, could not retain his job. He was turned out of his job in October, 1984 and thereafter he remained unemployed. Parents of Lalit Seth demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ for setting up business of Lalit Seth. This demand was made to her parents through Sushma deceased. The accused also demanded valueable articles as well as the cash amount of Rs 25,000/. In June, 1985, an amount of Rs. 2, 500/ was given to Sushma''s inlaws. after the latter had approached her parents and asked them to meet the demands of the accused. The parents of the deceased could not meet those demands. As a result thereof the accused started harassing and maltreating Sushma. In the year 186 on Rakhi day Sushma again went to the house of her parents and complained to them that her inlaws were insisting that she should bring Rs: 25,000/ from her parents, in order to enable her husband Lalit Seth to start his own business. She was further informed that in case she is not successful in getting money, she should not come back to the house of her inlaws. The deceased became apprehensive that in case she returned to her matrimonial home without any money, then, she will be given a thrashing by the accused. Madan Lal, father, of the deceased assured the latter that he would make arrangements for setting up the business of her husband. This assurance, however, did not have the desired effect on the accused.

On 2181986, at about 9 P.M. Lalit Seth, accused under the influence of liquor gave beating to Sushma, turned her out of his house and told held that she should not return to his house without bringing Rs. 25,000/ from her parents. According to the prosecution because of the maltreatment, harassment and abetment on the part of the accused Sushma went to Sitla Mandir and committed suicide by jumping into the Sarover on 22.8. 1986 at about I P. M. 4. The dead body of Sushma was taken out by Surajmani one of the Sewadars of the Mandir, who reported the matter to the police. His was recorded by Inspector Kans Raj and on its basis entry in the daily diary register was made on 22.8.1986 itself at Sr. No. 11. According to aforesaid earliest version Sushma came all alone to the Mandir at about 1 P.M that day; first had 2 or 3 rounds of the Parkarma then went near the Sarover and while she was standing near the iron railing, he saw her failing in the Sarover. He jumped in the water and tried to rescue Sushma. However, his effort were not successful and Sushma died shortly after she was taken out of the Sarover by Surajmani.

Later on Kewal Kumari mother of Sushma deceased made an application Ex PB to the police on 291986 and on its basis formal first information report was recorded at the police station. After completion of the investigation, Lalit Seth and Kusum were challaned while Raj Pal, Shanti Devi and Naresh Kumar accused were shown in column No. 11 in the report submitted by the Investigating agency under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These three accused were subsequently summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial Court. All the five accused were tried and out of them the four appellants were convicted and sentenced, whereas, their coaccused Shanti Devi was acquitted of the charge, as detailed earlier.

Post mortem examination on the dead body of Sushma was conducted by Dr. Vasdev Sharma, PW 1 on 2381986. Death in the opinion of the said doctor was due to asphyxia a result of drowning.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard at length and the case was carefully perused.

According to the prosecution story, the accused had caused harassment to Sushma and maltreated her because of failure on the part of the parents of Sushma to meet the demands of her husband and her inlaws, after her marriage with Lalit Seth, which, took place in November, 1983. Lalit Seth accused, who is husband of Sushma was a drunkard and indulged in bad habits. and was turned out of his service first from a Paint shop and then from a firm where he has working as Salesman. According to the prosecution version, because of the unemployment of Lalit Seth, accused his parents wanted to settle him in business, and asked Sushma deceased to bring Rs. 25,000/ from her parents on Rakhi day in the year 1986. She was further told not to come back to the house of her inlaws in case she was not successful in getting money. Madan Lal father of the deceased assured his daughter that he would make arrangements for setting up business of her husband, but, this assurance did not have the desired effect on the accused.

According to the prosecution the immediate motive for abetment of the offence of committing suicide by Sushma was due to the fact that Lalit Seth accused/under the influence of liquor gave beating to Sushma on the evening of 2181986 at about 9 P.M. turned her out of the house, and told her not to come back to his house unless she brings Rs. 25,000/ from her parents. The deceased committed suicide by jumping into the Sarover on the following day at about 1 P.M. Thus the immediate motive which most probably upset Sushma and drove her to commit suicide was misconduct on the part of her husband Lalit Seth accused on the night preceding the death of Sushma, when he gave her beating.

According to Kewal Kumari PW 2, mother of the deceased, Lalit Seth accused was unemployed for pretty long time. As Lalit Seth was a drunkard and indulged in bad habits, he was turned out of the service. Thereafter. he took job as Salesman in the firm owned by grandson of his mother''s sister. From that job too be was turned out because of his bad habits in October, 1984. He also worked with one Jagdish Kumar at the instance of Madan Lal father of Sushma deceased, but, he could not pull on with the business because of his bad habits and returned to Amritsar, and, kept on demanding Rs. 25,000/ through Sushma, from her parents. Lalit Seth accused was sent to Nagrota and worked with his brother Naresh Kumar on a shop. Lalit Seth accused, however, could not continue his work because he was spending most of his time in drinking. Both the parents of Sushma were at Nagrota on 2181986, and, they were not at Amritsar when Sushma was allegedly turned out from her house. Sushma had been working as teacher in Sacred Heart School, Amritsar for about 2 or 3 years after her marriage, as deposed to by Kewal Kumari P.W. 2 (her mother).

According to Madan Lal, PW 8, father of the deceased, Sushma left her job at the instance of her father inlaw as he wanted Sushma to leave the private, job. She resigned from teaching job. It is difficult to believe that in case parentsinlaw, or brotherinlaw of Sushma wanted to get Rs. 25,000/ for setting Lalit Seth accused in business because of his unemployment, Raj Pal, fatherinlaw of Sushma, who is a Principal of D.A.V. School, Amritsar, would insist his daughterinlaw to leave her teaching job with Sacred Heart School in the year 1986 or thereabout. Kewal Kumari PW 2, admitted in her cross examination that she had inadvertantly stated in her earlier statement Ex. DA that they had given Rs 2500/ to the inlaws of their daughter. Madan PW 8 further admitted that Lalit Seth at Nagrota spent the amount of Rs. 2500/ already given to him and then demanded Rs. 25,000/. This aspect of the case exonarates the accused other than Lalit Seth in demanding money from the parents of the deceased and further shows that it was only Lalit Seth husband of the deceased, who because of his unemployment could not earn, demanded money from his parentsinlaw and was mainly instrumental in causing harassment and, treated the deceased with cruelty which drove her to the stage where the deceased had no other choice but to end her life. The version given by the parents of Sushma about the demand of money by the parentsinlaw and brotherinlaw of the deceased on the Rakhi day in the year 1986, or, later on does not sound natural, probable or convincing in the circumstances of the case.

Davinder Kumar PW 3, was declared hostile and was duly confronted with his statement before the police, which, however, would not constitute substantive piece of evidence. He did not support the prosecution version that the accused Lalit Seth gave beating to the deceased on 22886, pushed her out of the house.

The evidence of both Kewal Kumari PW 2 and Madan Lal PW 8 is sufficient to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the deceased was given beating and turned out of the house by her husband Lalit Seth accused on the night of 2181986 as he wanted her to bring Rs. 25,000/ from her parents According to Madan Lal P.W. 8. father of the deceased, Lalit Seth accused had also demanded Rs. 25,000/ from his son Jagdish Kumar

Testimony of Sita Ram PW 4, shows that the deceased jumped into the Sarover after crossing over the iron railing fixed around the Parkarma. According to this witness, Surajmani, Sewadar of the Mandir took out Sushma from the tank. The girl died as a result of drowning before any medical help'' could be rendered. However, the statement of this witness that he saw the deceased, while he was at his office which is 500 feet from the Parkarma, losing the control and falling in the tank while she was watching fish cannot be believed, Rather tell tale circumstances of the case show that the deceased went to the Mandir at 1 P.M. when there were no other pilgrimages around and committed suicide by jumping into the Sarover. Post mortem examination on the dead body of Sushma was conducted by Dr. Vasdev Sharma who has opined, on the basis of presence of large quantity of frothy blood stained fluid in both the lungs, that the death was due to asphyxia, as a result of drowning.

The prosecution has further been able to prove that Lalit Seth accused husband of Sushma deceased acted with cruelty towards her, caused harassment. maltreated her and, turned her out of his house, in order to coerce her no bring Rs. 25,000/ from her parents on the night preceding the main occurrence. The prosecution in my opinion has thus been able to bring home charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against Lalit Seth accused only and his conviction inder Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is accordingly maintained. The Prosecution has failed to bring home charge under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Kusum Lata, Raj Pal, and Naresh Kumar accused and giving them the benefit of doubt, I hereby acquit them.

Lalit Seth accused underwent agony of trial for about 2 years and his appeal remained pending in this Court for the Last about 4 years. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Lalit Seth accused by be learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for six years to rigorous imprisonment for four years. whereas, the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/ to Rs. 10,000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine, if realised, shall be paid to the parents of the deceased as contemplated under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above, whereas, Criminal Revision No. 157 of 1984 is dismissed.