Rakesh Kumar vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Vide this judgment I will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 101SB of 1987 titled Rakesh Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and Criminal Revision No. 157 of 1987. titled Gauri Shankar v. Rakesh Kumar and others. as in the opinion of this Court, the appeal and the criminal revision can be disposed of by one judgment.

It may also be mentioned here that Criminal Appeal was filed by Rakesh Kumar and his mother Simla Devi, but during the pendency of the appeal, Simla Devi has expired. Resultantly her appeal is abated. Now I have to deal with only the appeal of Rakesh Kumar husband of the deceased Sucheta Rani.

It may also be mentioned here that alongwith Rakesh Kumar, Madan Gopal, Simla Devi, Sanjiv Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Kusum Rani were tried but the Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to Madan Gopal, Sanjiv Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Kusam Rani and they were acquitted. Only Rakesh Kumar and his mother Simla Devi were convicted. As stated above, Simla Devi has since expired.

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.1985 Sucheta Rani was married to Rakesh Kumar accused and the marriage was performed by Gauri Shankar (PW) father of the deceased, with great pump and show by spending about one lakh rupees. Before the marriage took place, Madan Gopal and his wife had demanded Rs. 20,000/ in cash, at which Gauri Shankar refused to give the amount and cancelled the marriage, but later on some relatives and respectables intervened and assured Gauri Shankar that no demand will be made and he should perform the marriage. After marriage, Sucheta Rani resided with her husband Rakesh Kumar in the house of her inlaws. She often complained to her father that all the accused maltreated and taunted her for not bringing sufficient dowry. The accused usually told her that whatever was given to her in marriage was for her own use and she had not brought anything for them. They compelled her to bring more money, but as the demand of the accused was not met, they maltreated her and often subjected her to beating. On 1.1.1986, a Refrigerator was given to the accused by Ashok Kumar, maternal uncle of Sucheta Rani. On 1.4.1986 at 9.00 P.M. Paras Kumar (PW) who had negotiated for the marriage of Sucheta Rani with Rakesh Kumar was called by Madan Gopal accused to his house and all the accused told him that they should be paid Rs. 20,000/ immediately at which Sucheta Rani started crying. Madan Gopal told Paras Kumar that in case their demand was not met, Sucheta Rani shall have to bear the consequences and Simla Devi went to the extent of saying that Sucheta Rani will die at their hands. Paras Kumar advised all the accused and returned to his house.

On 2.4.1986, Ram Nath went to the house of the accused to enquire about Sacheta Rani at about 8.00 A.M. and he saw all the accused sitting in the baithak in a perplexed condition. He enquired from them as to why they were perturbed, but they kept quiet. He then found dead body of Sucheta Rani laying on a bed and he went to the house of Ashok Kumar to inform him about the incident. Ashok Kumar was not in his house as he had gone to Ludhiana, so he followed him there, but he was not found in the Bank. On the same day, Ashok Kumar returned from Ludhiana as the Bank was closed on account of imposition of curfew and at about 10.30 A.M. he learnt about the death of Sucheta Rani. He sent a telephonic message to the father of the deceased who reached Ahmedgarh at about 3.00 P.M. He accompanied Gauri Shankar to the house of the accused and found Sucheta Rani lying dead on a bed with an injury mark on her neck. He remained near the dead body and Gauri Shankar went to inform the police. At 4.00 P.M. report Ex. PP was lodged in Police Station Ahmedgarh, regarding the murder of Sucheta Rani and after making endorsement Ex.PF/1, S.I. Narinder Pal went to the house of the accused. He prepared inquest report Ex.PB and handed over the dead body to constable Gurdev Singh and Harjinder Singh for postmortem examination alongwith his request Ex.PC. Spot was inspected and string Ex. P.7 was taken into possession after it was sealed into a parcel. A diary Ex. P.6 was lying under the pillow. It was written by the deceased from pages 1 to 37. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. Some broken pieces of glass bangles and a broken bolt lying on the floor were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ.

On 4.4.1986, the Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the spot and verified the investigation. On that day, a ceiling fan and a piece of string which was tied with it, were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PR.

On the same day Dr. Prem Lata Goel conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sucheta Rani and observed the following injury.

An oblique contusion measuring 22 cm. x 1 cm. in front of the neck in between the chin and thyroid cartilage extending backward and upward upto mastoid process from both right and left side, bluish and black in colour.

The skin was leathery and parched. On dissection underneath the ligature mark thyroid cartilage was found fractured. Upper cervical vertebrae was dislocated. Blood stained froth was present in trachae and laryn with extravessation of blood in muscles of neck. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. The injury was antemortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in its natural course.

On an application moved by the complainant the dead body was subjected to repost mortem by Dr. Harjinder Pal Singh Bali and four other Doctors at Civil Hospital Sangrur. These doctors observed the following injury on the dead body :

A stitched wound 24 cm in length going around the anterior and lateral side of the neck in such way that on the right side it went obliquely upward and backward from the mid line 2 cm behind the mastoid process upto the hair line and on the left side going upwards and backwards obliquely for 7 cm from the mide line towards the mastoid process. The wound was overlying the Thyroid cartilage.

On opening, the margins of the wound were contused, underlying muscles were cut and contused. The Thyroid Cartilages, the cricoid Cartilages and the upper five tracheal rings were cut, vertically in the mid line. The Thyroid Cartilage was fractured on the right side. Hyoid bone was intact. The mucous membranes of the larynx and tranchae were congested. The carotid vessels were normal, face was pale. No petechial haemorrhage was present.

Clotted blood was present in the poistrils and ears. There was dislocation of the first cervical vertebra."

Viscera was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, who found organo phosphorus compound in the viscera, so the doctors opined that the cause of death was a combined effect of organo phosphorus compound and asphyxia as a result of hanging and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Photographs were taken on 3.4.1986. On 4.4.1986, Madan Gopal and the other accused went to the house of Pawan Kumar PW and Madan Gopal told that he had demanded Rs. 20,000/ but as his demand was not fulfilled, so he and Rakesh Kumar strangulated and murdered Sucheta Rani by means of a string on 2.4.1986 at 8.00 A.M. Simla Devi confessed that she gagged the mouth of Sucheta Rani while Sushil Kumar stated that he and his sister Kusum Rani caught hold of Sucheta Rani by her arms and legs. Rakesh Kumar also confessed his guilt and all of them asked Pawan Kumar to produce them before the police. He took them to S.I. Narinder Pal and they were arrested. Sanjiv Kumar was taken into custody on 9.4.86. A receipt regarding the purchase of a Refrigerator was taken into possession and after completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the court of Area Magistrate who supplied copies of the documents to the accused as required under the law and vide commitment order dated 23.7.1986 committed the accused to the Court of Sessions to face trial. Vide orders dated 19.8.1986 the accused were charged under sections 147, 302/149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined Dr. Prem Lata Goel (PW.1), Dr. Harjinder Pal Singh Bali (PW.2), Gauri Shankar (PW.3), Ashok Kumar, maternal uncle (Mama of the deceased) (PW.3), Paras Kumar Vachola/negotiator (PW.5), Ram Nath (PW.6), Ravinder Singh, Surveyor (PW.7), Pawan Kumar before whom extra judicial confession was made (PW.8), Subhash Kumar (PW.9) and S.I. Narinder Pal Investigating Officer appeared as PW.10. Prosecution also proved Ex.P.6 diary which was being maintained by the deceased from time to time.

On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. They denied those circumstances. Defense of Shri Rakesh Kumar was as "My father Madan Gopal was employed in Govt. Primary School, Kalyan, which is at a distance of 6 kilometres from Ahmedagarh who had gone to attend the school at 9.15 A.M. and remained there till 2.50 P.M. I am employed in the State Bank of Patiala, Ahmedagarh and was attending the Bank till 12.40 P.M. when I received a telephone and then went to my house. Sanjiv Kumar was brother works at Sahnewal who takes material from Ludhiana in the form of Chairs, Beds and supplies the same to the sellers at Sahnewal. My another brother Sushil Kumar was learning typing and had gone to the place for practising typing. My sister Kusam Rani and my mother Simla Devi were at our house. When my sister Kusam Rani saw the door bolted from inside and it was at her instance that Gurnam Singh, Nanak and others were attracted who forcibly opened the door and the bolt of the door from inside had fallen. We were arrested by the police the same day and have fabricated a false evidence against us and we have been falsely implicated. My brotherinlaw Rajesh Kumar who is a doctor made bungling in the postmortem etc. and arranged a procession in the town. The news was also got published by him. We have been falsely implicated. Sucheta Rani was super sensitive."

I need not incorporate defence of other persons as they have been acquitted by the Trial Court and Simla Devi has died during the pendency of the appeal.

In defence, accused examined Amarjit Kaur DW. 1 to prove that on the day of the occurrence, i.e. on 2.4.1986, Madan Gopal came to the School at 9.00 A.M. and remained present in the school till 2.50 P.M. and his attendance was marked in the register. Banarsi Dass Goel, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Ahmedagarh appeared as DW. 2 and deposed that on 2.4.1986, Rakesh Kumar appellant came in the office at 10.00 A.M. and left the office at 12.40 P.M. after he received some telephonic message. Nanak Chand is DW.3, Ravinder Kapila is DW.4 and Sanjiv Kumar is DW.5.

The learned Trial Court disbelieved story of the prosecution so far as allegation under section 302 I.P.C. is concerned. However, the Trial Court held that Rakesh Kumar and his mother Simla Devi gave sufficient abetment to Smt. Sucheta Rani as a result of which she committed suicide. Both of them were convicted for an offence under section 306 I.P.C. and Rakesh Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years while Simla Devi was sentenced to undergo for a period of three years. Both were not satisfied with the judgment of the trial court and they have filed these appeal and revision.

I have heard Shri H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.S. Gill on behalf of the appellants and Shri S.S. Randhawa, DAG, Punjab on behalf of the State, Shri D.P.S. Kahlon Advocate on behalf of the complainant and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the diary Ex. P.6 which was being maintained by the deceased right from 18.2.1986 upto 1.4.1996 and submitted that a reading of the diary would show that Shri Rakesh Kumar husband of the deceased had cordial relations with his wife and he never gave any abetment or cruelty to his wife. Mr. Gill submitted that the deceased was an educated lady. She was double Graduate. She has not written a single letter to her parents complaining the acts of cruelty allegedly committed upon her so as to constitute ingredient of abetment. After having considered the contention of the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that this argument is totally devoid of any merit. The diary has written from page Nos. 1 to 36. Some relevant portion of this diary has been read by the Court with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the parties. A reading of the diary would show that there were sad and joyous moments in the life of the deceased. After reading of the contents of the relevant portion of this diary, this court is of the opinion that the girl was little bit over sensitive but on certain occasions she was not being treated properly either by her motherinlaw or by her husband. Her last writing is dated 1.4.1986 which is indicative of the fact that at one point of time husband of the deceased expressed for divorce which the deceased was not willing to give. At some places the deceased has also written that it would have been better to die instead to lead the life full of insults and demoralizations. The point for determination in this case is whether the conduct of the appellant was such so as to cause abetment to the deceased. It is the common case of the parties that the deceased was married with the appellant about six months prior to her death. She was a double Graduate. She has not delivered any child. In these circumstances, no sane lady would die unless and until, she is compelled to resort to extreme steps. In such like cases, the relations are best witnesses. If such circumstances are created in the house so as to compel the lady to finish herself it will amount to abetment by slow poisoning. Shri Gauri Shankar is the father of the deceased. He appeared as PW.3. He stated in his statement before the Trial Court as under :

"Sucheta Rani deceased was my daughter. She was married to Rakesh Kumar, accused, on 21.10.85. The marriage was arranged by Paras Kumar son of Gauri Shanker of Ahmedgarh. I spent about Rs. 1,00,000/ on the marriage which included gifts offered by my relatives. After marriage my daughter was not treated properly by the accused, and whenever she came to me she used to say that she was illtreated by her husband Rakesh Kumar, fatherinlaw Madan Gopal, motherinlaw Simla Devi, sisterinlaw Kusum Rani, brothersinlaw Sanjiv Kumar and Sushil Kumar. On 27.10.1985 when she came for the first time, she told that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry and they wanted a Refrigerator and Rs. 20,000/ which was demanded before marriage. When the marriage was arranged, there was no demand by the accused about cash and they wanted that I should spend Rs. 70,000/ on the marriage, but 10 days before marriage, my brotherinlaw Ashok Kumar, came from Ahmedagarh and told that the accused were demanding Rs. 20,000/ in cash. I told him that I was not in a position to pay Rs. 20,000/ so I will not marry my daughter to Rakesh Kumar. I went to Ahmedagarh at which the accused told that although they had demanded the money, they will not press for the same. I was assured by Rakesh Kumar also that he will never demand cash. After marriage, my daughter came to my house four times and every time she told that she was being maltreated by the accused for not bringing cash and Refrigerator. She also told that she was subjected to beating by the accused. On 1.1.1986 I gave a Refrigerator to my daughter on demand by the accused."

Statement of Gauri Shankar (PW.3) is also corroborated by the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar who is maternal uncle of the deceased. This witness also stated that whenever he had been meeting Sucheta Rani she used to complain that all the accused maltreated her on account of dowry being insufficient. He used to advise and tell her that every thing would become normal in due course of time and that he would fulfil the demand of the accused as far as possible. This witness also deposed that he also received a message through Paras Kumar that accused were demanding a Refrigerator besides Rs. 30,000/. On 1.1.1986 he gave Refrigerator to the accused from his own pocket on the instructions given by the father of the deceased. Paras Ram is Vachola and this witness also deposed that after marriage Madan Gopal met him and told that dowry was inadequate and he should be given Rs. 20,000/ and one Fridge. It has further come in the statement of Paras Kumar that all the accused had been complaining about dowry being less and they had been demanding Rs. 20,000/ and a Fridge. He informed this fact to the parents of the deceased. Further it has been testified by Paras Kumar that on 1.4.1986 at 9.00 P.M. he was called by Madan Gopal to his house and all the accused demanded Rs. 20,000/. This witness was a probable and natural witness. If a lady was in distress she would first complain to her parents then to her relations and naturally the parents would bring the matter to the notice of inlaws for reconciliation. Even Ram Nath (PW.6) has deposed that on 1.4.1986 he had gone to Jagraon where mother of Sucheta Rani who is his relation told him that she had not received any letter from the deceased for the last many days and I should meet her at Ahmedgarh and give information about her well being. On 2.4.1986, when he went to the house of Sucheta Rani, he found all the accused in perplexed condition and on enquiry they could not give satisfactory reply. It has further come in the statement of Ram Nath that when he saw the accused in nervous condition he became suspicious and he further observed that dead body of Sucheta Rani was lying on bed.

So far as extra judicial confession is concerned, it has come in the statement of Paras Kumar that there was demand of Rs. 20,000/ and this demand remained unfulfilled. To that extent Paras Kumar corroborates the story of Gauri Shankar. PW.9 is a witness from whose shop on 1.1.1986 Ashok Kumar purchased a Fridge and issued receipt in the name of Sanjay Kumar son of Madan Gopal. However, the money was paid by Ashok Kumar. Thus the oral and documentary evidence is suggestive of the fact that marriage of the deceased took place six months prior to her death. Sucheta Rani was a little bit sensitive girl and she received maltreatment. She was harassed on account of dowry. There was consistent pressure upon the deceased as a result of which she brought the matter to the notice of her parents. At one stage demand of fridge was met. Inspite of the fact that father of the deceased spent Rs. 1 lakh on the marriage of his daughter still the greed of the appellants and his family did not finish and come to end. In these circumstances, if the lady had decided to finish herself by resorting to the extreme steps it would amount to abetment. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there should be nexus between the complaint and the consequences. So far as legal aspect is concerned there is no dispute. In this case, it is proved on the record that death of Sacheta Rani was on account of direct maltreatment which was given to her from time to time by her husband and in not checking his other family members he has contributed in the abetment and as such he has been rightly convicted under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus I maintain the conviction of the present appellant Rakesh Kumar.

Reverting to the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that some leniency should be shown to the appellant in the matter of sentence. He has advanced certain submissions in support of his contention. His first submission was that this appellant has two small daughters aged about 4 and 6 years. He has already lost job. During the pendency of the appeal, his mother has expired. There is no body to look after the minor daughters. His second wife is also not pulling on happily with the appellant. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and State submitted that the appellant was responsible for causing direct abetment to his wife and, therefore, he should not be shown leniency in the matter of sentence. I have considered the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Occurrence took place in the year 1986. Appellant Rakesh Kumar was sentenced in the year 1987. He is suffering vagaries of criminal proceedings for the last 12 years. He has two small daughters who will virtually become orphan if the appellant will go inside the jail. His mother has expired. He has already lost the job. In this view of the matter, ends of justice would suffice if substantive sentence of appellant Rakesh Kumar is reduced to three years from five years. I order accordingly.

Reverting to the revision of the complainant, I am of the opinion that it deserves to be dismissed as I have already reduced the sentence of Rakesh Kumar.

Net result is that appeal of Simla Devi abates. Appeal of Rakesh Kumar is hereby dismissed by reducing the substantive sentence from five years to three years while revision of the complainant Gauri Shankar is hereby dismissed in toto.