Paramjit Singh Gandhi vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Though by profession the appellant Shri Paramjit Singh Gandhi was promoting the cause of a noble profession, being an Advocate, yet he had downgraded the profession by indulging in abetting his wife Smt. Anita Kumari, who died in unnatural circumstances at the residence of her husband i.e., the appellant, on 8th February, 1986.

This criminal appeal filed by Shri Paramjit Singh Gandhi alias Gandhi, has been directed against the judgment and order dated 6th December, 1986, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, for abetting his wife Smt. Anita Kumari to commit suicide on 8th February, 1986 at about 8 P.M. in the revenue limits of Khanna City and the trial Court also convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ under Section 306 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 498A I.P.C. The trial Court further ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Briefly stated, the story of the prosecution is as follows :

Accused Paramjit Singh was married with Smt. Anita Kumari deceased about 11/2 years before the present concurrence which took place on 8th February, 1986 at about 8 P.M. at Khanna. Smt. Anita Kumari deceased hailed from village Bara near Sirhind. She had four brothers, namely, Bharat Bhushan, Har Sarup, Gursharan Dass and Krishan Dev. She had five sisters and was youngest out of them. She was employed as a Clerk in the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation, at Chandigarh, before her marriage and also at the time of her death. Her brother Bharat Bhushan was employed in the Railways at Ferozepur and Gursharan Dass was posted as Inspector in Civil Defence at Ferozepur. Her brother Har Sarup was posted at Mohali as Overseer. Her eldest brother Krishan Dev was living at Chandigarh, being posted as Superintendent in the Secretariat. Deceased Anita Kumari had already lost her parents before her marriage. Paramjit Singh appellant was a practising lawyer at Samrala and used to come there daily from Khanna. According to the allegations of the prosecution, sufficient dowry was given to the appellant at the time of marriage, but the deceased often used to make a complaint to her brothers that the appellant was wasting his own income as well as her income on liquor and that he used to beat and coerce her on the pretext that she should bring more money from her parents. The demand of the accused was occasionally met by the brothers of the deceased. Injury marks were found on the person of the deceased whenever she was beaten by the deceased and she used to complain to her brothers about the demand of money made by the accused. The brothers of the deceased had brought this matter to the notice of Shri Dev Raj, Municipal Commissioner of Khanna, who was the Bachola in the marriage. Said Dev Raj also gave a word of advice to the accused on several occasions, but to no effect. Being harassed by the above conduct of the accused, the deceased shifted her residence in rented premises in H.No. 3482, Sector 38, Chandigarh, in October 1985. The accused used to visit her in Chandigarh and used to beat her also there. Such incidents of beating were used to be reported by the deceased to her brother Krishan Dev, who was residing at Chandigarh. In this manner, Smt. Anita Kumari deceased was very much aggrieved and harassed at the hands of the accused.

On the day of occurrence Mohinder Puri a taxi driver of Ram Nagar Mohalla, Khanna intimated Bharat Bhushan P.W. at Sirhind at about 9 P.M. that his sister Smt. Anita Kumari had died by burning. Upon this Bharat Bhushan and his brother Gursharan Dass came to the house of the accused and found Smt. Anita Kumari lying burnt and dead in the verandah of his house. Before the arrival of Bharat Bhushan, a message had already been sent by some unknown person about the death of Smt. Anita Kumari at about 9 P.M. and this message was received in the Police Station City, Khanna, by S.I. Ram Rattan, S.H.O. of the Police Station, who had already reached at the house of the accused along with the Police Party. Several persons, including the accused, were present there. S.I. Ram Rattan recorded the statement (Exhibit PB) of Bharat Bhushan, which became the basis of F.I.R. (Exhibit PB/2). The statement Exhibit PB was read over and explained to Shri Bharat Bhushan, who signed the same in token of correctness and the Thanedar made endorsement (Exhibit PB/1) and forwarded it to the Police Station and on its basis formal F.I.R. was recorded under Section 306 I.P.C. by A.S.I. Sarup Singh at 10.35 P.M. on the same day.

The Thanedar prepared the inquest report on the dead body of Smt. Anita Kumari and he also recorded the statements of Sukhdev Chand, Hari Krishan, Gursharan Das and Bharat Bhushan during the inquest proceedings. He took into possession plastic Can containing some kerosene oil and its lid vide recovery memo. Exhibit PS in the presence of Gursharan Dass and A.S.I. Inderjit. He also took into possession semiburnt match stick box from near the dead body of the deceased vide recovery memo. (Exhibit PT). The Investigating Officer further took into possession the burnt pieces of cloth and ash from underneath the dead body. He prepared the rough site plan (Exhibit PV) of the place of occurrence with marginal notes. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination through Constables Lakhwinder Singh and Kesar Singh on 9th February, 1986 at about 6 A.M. to Civil Hospital, Khanna. The Investigating Officer also arranged photographs of the dead body on the night of 8th February, 1986. The photographs were, however, taken into possession on 25th February, 1986 from the Photographer vide Exhibit PO. The case was partly investigating by A.S.I. Inderjit Singh, who recorded the statements of various witnesses and also obtained an opinion (Exhibit PN/1) from Dr. B.S. Chhabra to the effect that the dead body of the deceased had burnt to the extent of 90%. It may also be mentioned here that on the night of occurrence Shri Baldev Singh, D.S.P. Khanna, also arrived at the place of occurrence at about 2 A.M. on the night intervening 8th/9th February, 1986 and he verified the investigation. After the postmortem examination, the copy of the post mortem report along with two rings worn by the deceased were handed over to Baldev Singh D.S.P. on 9th February, 1986 and he took them into possession vide recovery memo. (Ex. PW). The accused was arrested on 9th February, 1986 by Shri Baldev Singh, D.S.P. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the accused was challaned under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 5th June, 1986, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On 17th July, 1986 the accused was chargesheeted under Section 306, Indian Panel Code, and vide order dated 6th October, 1986 additional charge under Section 498A Indian Panel Code was framed against him. Both the charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove that charges, as many as 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and I will deal with the relevant portion of the evidence in the subsequent portion of this judgment.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The accused denied those circumstances and stated as follows :

"I am innocent. It is a false case. The P.Ws. have deposed falsely being relations inter se. I was married to Anita Kumari on 23.11.1984. She was employed as a Clerk in Irrigation Department, Chandigarh, at that time. After marriage we started residing at Khanna. She used to go to Chandigarh to attend her office daily and used to come back to Khanna. She became pregnant and was under the treatment of Dr. Ila Sood at Khanna. My wife was advised by her doctor to avoid travelling daily as it was injurious to her health. So in October 1985 we shifted to Chandigarh and took the house on rent from Harbhajan Singh PW.8 started living there. I used to go to Chandigarh from Samrala daily. On week ends she used to come to Khanna and so did I go there from Samrala. On Mondays she used to go back to Chandigarh and in the evening I also used to go to there from Samrala where I was practising as a lawyer. I had never any dispute with Anita during our stay at Khanna or at Chandigarh. I never pressed her to bring money from her parents side. I am not addicted to drinks and never wasted my own income or that of my wife on drinks. In fact after marriage out of our earnings I built up a new room and a kitchen in my house at Khanna and also provided sanitary fittings including a flush system later by spending about Rs. 15,000/. My father had died in 1982. My old mother and younger brother only resided with us at Khanna. My younger brother is unemployed. He and my mother depended for their maintenance on my income and that of Anita. We have no other source of income. It was arranged marriage with Anita. I took rupee one as a token money as Shagan at the time of my engagement. I made no demand for dowry. My marriage party consisted of only five persons. It was a simple marriage. I belong to a below average family as my father was only a factory worker.

Anita deceased and myself led a happy married life. After pregnancy, however, Anita deceased had become peevish and would lose her temper on minor matters. On 8.2.1986 I along with Anita had attended the marriage of the daughter of maternal uncle at Rupalon and came back from there at about 6.00 P.M. No incident happened on that day which could have offended Anita. After leaving her at the house I went to my office situated on the G.T. Road near and old Bus Stand. I came back from my office at about 8.00 P.M. and found the outer door chained from inside as stated above. Through the creaves of the door I observed that fire was smouldering in the verandah. I became nervous and raised alarm which attracted the persons named above and then we got an entry into the house as stated above."

When called upon to enter his defence, the accused examined only one witness, namely, Smt. Harbans Kaur.

Learned trial Court believed the prosecution version and rejected the defence and convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 306 and 498 A, Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

The appellant has been convicted under Sections 306 and 498A, Indian Penal Code, and in these circumstances this Court has to find out whether the ingredients of these two sections have been proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt or not. Section 306, I.P.C. lays down that if any person commits suicide whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. While interpreting these provisions it has been held in various pronouncements that where the husband is responsible for creating circumstances which provoked or forced the wife to commit suicide the husband is guilty of an offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. It has also been laid down that where a newly wedded girl died of burn injuries and the relations of the deceased deposed to say that the deceased had complained about the harassment and torture by her inlaws for bringing insufficient dowry and the circumstances ruled out the case of accidental death, in such circumstances the person can be convicted under Section 306, I.P.C. with the aid of Section 113A, Evidence Act. It may be mentioned here that in the present case the deceased was married with the accused in year 1984 and the present occurrence took place within seven years of the marriage. The legislature felt that there may not be direct evidence available to the prosecution with regard to the abetment because such evidence might rest with the accused alone; in order to cover this defect, the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act were inserted and in this section it has been laid down that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The explanation added to Section 113A of the evidence Act further makes it clear that for the purpose of this section, ''cruelty'' shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Now we will have to see the interpretation of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, which defines ''cruelty'' by the husband or his relative qua the woman, and according to this section, whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. As per explanation of this section, ''cruelty'' means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for or any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Thus the combined reading of Section 306, Indian Penal Code; 113A of the Evidence Act; and Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, would show that abetment can be proved with the aid of Section 113A of the Evidence Act and the cruelty includes both physical and mental, but must be with regard to the unlawful demand made by the husband or the relative of the husband. When there is a dispute with regard to the illegal demands, concerning the matrimonial disputes between the husband and the wife, the relations and the friends are the best witnesses. The other best witnesses are in which a person can repose confidence and discuss his matrimonial and domestic life. The entire defence of the accused in this case is that when he was engaged with the deceased, he accepted nominal Shagun of Re. 1/ and he took a Barat of only 5 persons, which justifies his conduct that he was not a greedy person and, therefore, could not have the occasion to cause harassment or mental cruelty to the deceased. Further it was suggested that the deceased admittedly was pregnant and as per the medical opinion, the deceased could become peevish in nature and she might have resorted to the extreme act of committing suicide. This part of the case propounded by the accused does not appeal to reason. Admittedly, the marriage in this case was solemnised in the year 1984. No woman is complete without a child. There is a subtle desire always in the heart of a woman that she should become a proud mother of a child. First child is always welcomed not only by the parents but also by the relations. It is difficult in these circumstances to imagine that the deceased (Smt. Anita Kumari) would become peevish in nature and would resort to such an extreme step that she would commit suicide in the house of her husband. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the accused got treated the deceased from any neourologist when the deceased had developed some abnormality in her temperament. By mere advancing an argument without corroboration, no dent can be created in the prosecution story. So far as demand of dowry is concerned, this argument can again be rejected because nobody can always read the mind of a particular individual. If the accused had shown his generosity or sincerity at the time of engagement or marriage that he had not accepted any dowry etc., a presumption cannot be carried for all times to come in his favour. The case of the prosecution is specific that the deceased was in the habit of taking liquor. He used to squander his own income as also the income of his wife, who was employed. The accused was residing at Khanna and used to practise at Samrala. The distance between Khanna and Samrala is hardly 15/20 kilometres. When a person falls in a bad company and tries to squander his hard earned income, then he becomes a slave to his evil desires. It is evident from the record that the deceased had to take a rented house at Chandigarh because of the illtreatment meted out to her by her husband. When a lady is being coerced at the hands of her husband, even when she was pregnant, if she takes an extreme step of burning herself, presumption would be that there was an abetment on the part of her husband under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. I cannot also lose sight of one more probability that on 8th February, 1986 the deceased along with the accused had attended the marriage of the daughter of maternal uncle of the latter at village Rupalon and returned to the house in Khanna at about 6 P.M. Because the demand of dowry was always a burning issue in the family, the accused used to maltreat his wife. The probability cannot be ruled out that on that evening the accused might have given a bad treatment of his wife, which became the immediate cause on the part of the deceased to resort to the extreme act of burning herself.

The material witness in this case would be Bharat Bhushan (PW2), who is the real brother of the deceased. According this witness, dowry was given at the time of marriage. The accused was addicted to liquor and he used to consume whole salary of Smt. Anita Kumari deceased in drinks and used to ask her to bring more money from her parents side. It has also come in the statement of Bharat Bhushan that the accused used to beat her to achieve this object, and that the witness used to give money to Smt. Anita Kumari as desired by the accused, so that she may be able to settle herself. Bharat Bhushan further stated that he used to ask the accused to behave properly, but it had no effect upon him. Shri Dev Raj (Bachola) used to ask the accused not to maltreat the deceased. When the deceased was residing at Chandigarh, there the accused also used to come and beat her and used to press her to fetch money from her brothers. Woman has a weak tendency by nature. She can tolerate but to some extent. Ultimately she has to divulge the secret of her domestic life to her close relations and friends, and with his probability it cannot be ruled out that the deceased must have told to her brother P.W. 2 Bharat Bhushan about the treatment which she was getting at the hands of the accused. The deceased had already lost her parents. Krishan Dev (P.W.3) is the elder brother of the deceased and he has corroborated the statement of his brother Bharat Bhushan (P.W. 2). This Court can well understand that after the death of Smt. Anita both P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 would have no sympathy for the accused and they would try to involve him in the case. But there is a statement of Smt. Raj Rani (P.W. 6) who is a colleague of the deceased and according to the statement of this witness, the deceased worked with her for six months. Smt. Raj Rani has deposed in the trial Court that Smt. Anita was leading the life of a harassed woman and she used to tell her that her husband used to beat her and maltreat her. So much so, this witness has stated that she had seen injury marks so often on her face and forehead. In these circumstances it is difficult to disbelieve the statement of Smt. Raj Rani, who has no axe to grind against the accused. Bharat Bhushan (P.W. 7) is another witness who used to reside in House No. 3405, Sector 35D, Chandigarh. This witness being the relation of the deceased is in a position to say about the conduct of the accused. According to Mr. Bharat Bhushan (P.W. 7) the deceased used to visit his house frequently and used to complain that she was not leading a happy married life. This witness had seen contusion marks on her left cheek. All this happened about one month prior to her death. When Bharat Bhushan (P.W. 7) inquired about the injury from the deceased, she started weeping and she did not tell anything to the witness. It has come in the crossexamination of this witness that on his inquiry, the deceased told him that she was beaten by the accused. Corroborative evidence has also come from the statement of P.W. 8 Mr. Mohinder Puri, who deposed that on the night of occurrence act about 8.30 P.M., a raula (alarm) came from the house of the accused and when he went inside, he found the deceased lying dead in the verandah on account of the burns and the accused was also present near her dead body. This circumstance goes a long way to prove that there must be some altercation between the deceased and the accused. The situation became so tense that the deceased could not bear and she had to resort to the extreme step of taking her own life. The statement of this witness totally falsifies the stand of the accused that at the time of the alleged occurrence he was not present at the house. There is hardly any cogent circumstance before this Court to disbelieve the statements of P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8. The statement of Dr. B.S. Chhabra (P.W. 10) proves the fact that the deceased died due to burn injuries and the postmortem report (Exhibit PK) also corroborates this fact. It is not even disputed by the accused that the cause of death of the deceased was the burns. The established facts appearing on the record are that the deceased was married with the accused in the year 1984; she was subjected to cruelty and harassment; the accused used to maltreat the deceased and used to make a demand of money. The accused squandered his own income as well as the income of the deceased. The continued maltreatment and unlawful demand continued upto the day of occurrence and this will constitute an abetment and cruelty in terms of section 306, Indian Penal Code, and Section 498A thereof. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the reasons recorded by the trial Court in recording the conviction under Section 306 and 498A, Indian Penal Code, were erroneous or illegal or against the record.

Resultantly, I affirm the findings of the trial Court on conviction under Sections 306 and 498A, Indian Penal Code. Even the sentence awarded by the Court is not excessive.

Consequently, this appeal is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.