Parbhat Nagpal vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—The Appellant was convicted for an offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) vide judgment dated 15.12.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Vide order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years u/s 304B IPC. Hence, the present appeal.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:

Briefly stated, as per prosecution story on 9.11.2007 Tanuja wife of Parbhat Nagpal had died. Though her relatives reached at Jalandhar Cantt, but they sought time to make the statement and on 10.11.2007 her father Jagdish Chander made statement to the police to the effect that he is resident of New Jain Nagar, Janta Colony, Waheguru Road, Ludhiana and is working as a Conductor with Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh Depot. He had three daughters and one son. All of his daughters are married. On 24.6.2007 he solelmnized marriage of his daughter Tanuja with Parbhat Nagpal son of Harbhagwan Nagpal resident of H. No. 10 Mohalla No. 13 Jalandhar Cant as per Hindu Religious Rites, in which he provided dowry as per his capacity. The marriage was solemnizes in Hotel Celebration, Grain Market, backside Arora Palace Ludhiana. In her marriage he provided on A.C. Fridge, Onida TV. Washing Machine, Stitching Machine, double bed, dressing table, gold jewelry weighing 22 tolas, clothes and utensils. She has been staying along with her husband. About one month from he death when Tanuja visited him, she confided in him and he mother Meena Kumari that he husband Parbhat Nagpal had been compelling her to withdraw Rs. 5 Lacs deposited in the shape of FDR in State Bank of India, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana), but she was postponing the matter. On 9.11.2007 at 1.15 noon his KURRAM Harbhagwan rang him up from Chandigarh that Tanuja has died and he asked him to reach Jalandhar Cantt, on which he along with his wife, son Gaurav, mother Maya Devi, brothers Joginder Pal and Narinder Pal and sister in-laws Usha Rani and Manju Bala reached the house of Tanuja at Jalandhar Cantt, where he saw the dead body of Tanuja lying on the double bed. She was having an injury upon her neck indicating that she had been strangulated by encircling a CHUNNI around her neck. In the mean time his elder brother Harish Kumar along with more family members reached at Jalandhar Cantt. He is of the confirmed opinion that on refusal to withdraw Rs. 5 lacs from he FDR, her husband had either strangulated her to death or administered poison to Tanuja. On the above said statement of Jagdish Chander, FIR u/s 304B IPC was registered. Post mortem examination upon the dead body of Tanuja was got conducted. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigations challan against the accused was presented in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate for commitment proceedings.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal.

In order to admit the ingredients of Section 304B IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:

that the death of the woman took place due to burns or the bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances.

that such death had occurred within seven years of her marriage.

the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

In the present case, the marriage of the Appellant was performed with the deceased on 24.6.2007. Deceased Tanuja, however, died an un-natural death on 9.11.2007 by consuming poison in her matrimonial home.

PW-1 Meena Kumari deposed that at the time of marriage of deceased Tanuja with the Appellant no dowry articles were given. However, after 1 1/2 month of the marriage the Appellant started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and compelled her to bring dowry. Thereafter, they gave air conditioner, television, fridge, washing machine, sewing machine, utensils, bed and other household articles and gold to the Appellant. However, Appellant was not satisfied with the dowry articles and continued harassing the deceased. The deceased had told her on telephone qua the harassment meted out to her. Rs. 5,00,000/-had been invested in a fixed deposit in the name of the deceased and the Appellant was pressurizing the deceased to bring the said amount. The deceased had received the said amount by way of compensation in the claim petition filed by her as her parents had died in a road side accident. On 9.11.2007, her (PW-1) husband Jagdish Chander received an information that Tanuja had expired. When they saw the dead body of the deceased they found legature marks on her throat and her hair were scattered and she had passed urine on the bed. The matter was reported to the police.

PW-2 Jagdish Chander, PW-3 Harish Kumar and PW-4 Joginder Pal have corroborated the statement of PW-1 qua harassment meted out to the deceased at the hands of the Appellant on account of insufficient dowry and the amount invested in the FDR.

Thus, from the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4, it is evident that the deceased had been harassed on account of insufficient dowry. The Appellant was also harassing the deceased to bring the amount invested in the FDR which she had received as compensation awarded to her by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

When a woman marries, she looks for financial and social security in the house of her in-laws. However, in the present case, the deceased has died an unnatural death within few months of her marriage on account of harassment meted out to her. No woman would want to end her life if she was being treated well in her matrimonial home. The deceased must have been forced to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by consuming poison on account of the circumstances surrounding her. Although PW-1 to P-4 are the relatives of the deceased but the said witnesses have withstood the test of lengthy cross-examination. The statements of PW-1 to PW-4 being natural inspire confidence. The said witnesses being relatives of the deceased were bound to know about the state of affairs in the family life of the deceased after her marriage. It is natural for a woman to inform her parental family qua the harassment meted out to her in her matrimonial home.

The Appellant when examines u/s 313 Cr.P.C has stated as under:

I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I have not committed any offence. Tanuja was living happily with me. Ours was a love marriage and no dowry was ever taken or demanded. Jagdish Chander, Meena and Gaurav Pws used to harass Tanuja by demanding money from her. They were having bad eyes on the property and money of Tanuja. They had already played fraud with her by swallowing her property. Tanuja used to remained depressed on account of harassment at their hands and has died by taking step of suicide on account of the depression on account of harassment at the hands of Jagdish Chander and others. Jagdish Chander and others by consultation in order to save them and to grab the movable and immovable property of Tanuja got this false case registered against him.

The plea taken by the Appellant that the deceased was, in fact, being harassed by her parental family is not borne out from the record. The Appellant has taken the plea that it was a case of love marriage. Believing it to be a case of love marriage, it makes the situation worse. It was expected that the deceased should have got a happy married life as it was a case of love marriage. However, after marriage she got harassment instead of happiness. The deceased was forced to consume poison within few months of her marriage. The witnesses examined by the Appellant in his defence fail to inspire confidence qua innocence of the Appellant.

Ex.DX is the statement of the Appellant and PW-3 Jagdish Chander and others recorded on 9.11.2007, after the death of deceased Tanuja by the police. It has been stated in the same that Tanuja had committed suicide and Appellant was not at fault.

No reliance can be placed on Ex. DX. It appears that initially the investigating team did not want to register a case and consequently, Ex.DX was recorded by the concerned Station House Officer. However, the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case during trial and in these circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellant u/s 304B IPC.

Initially, the Appellant was supplied with a certified copy free of cost, wherein the sentence qua imprisonment was described as rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and thereafter, another certified copy was supplied to the Appellant, wherein the sentence qua imprisonment was stated as rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Qua this matter, a report was called from the Presiding Officer and it was reported that the incorrect certified copy was issued by the Reader without going through the relevant record and the District and Sessions Judge was directed to initiate action against the Reader for committing such a lapse vide order dated 11.3.2010.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence qua imprisonment awarded to the Appellant i.e. rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years cannot be said to be excessive and calls for no interference.

Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.