Shiv Parkash vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Appellant Shiv Parkash was married with Sumitra on 25.3.1992. Sumitra had committed suicide by consuming colorompound group of insecticides. For her death, Appellant being husband along with his father Sish Ram and mother Santro was tried in the case FIR No. 722 dated 30.12.2000, registered at Police Station Sadar, Hisar, under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 11.12.2002, acquitted all the accused for the offence u/s 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The parents-in-law of deceased Sumitra were also acquitted for the offence u/s 498A IPC, however, the Appellant was held guilty for the said offence and vide a separate order dated 14.12.2002, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months.

The trial Court, in para No. 3 of its judgment, noticed the translated version of FIR Ex. PT and for facility, the same is reproduced as under-

...I am Wazir Singh son of Daya Singh, caste Jat, resident of Jewra and also work as Compounder in C.M.C. Hospital, Hisar. We are five brothers and sisters and we are two brothers namely elder one is Sukhbir, I am younger to him. Shakuntala, my sister, is younger to me and thereafter is Sumitra, who was married to shiv Kumar son of Sish Ram, Jat, in March 1994 and they are residents of village Buran. The marriage was celebrated according to Hindu Rites and we had given "Daan Dahej", according to our financial position. After some days of the marriage, Shiv Kumar, my brother-in-law, started harassing my sister Sumitra because he is in the habit of taking liquor. On his demand, we gave a buffalo to them in the shape of "Dahej". After some days, my sister Sumitra, gave birth to a daughter and she is named Mukesh and her age is about 4 years. After the birth of the girl, when, my sister, went to village Jewra and she told that Shiv Parkash was demanding money and by arranging the amount with difficulty, we gave Rs. 20,000 in cash as "Dahej". But Shiv Parkash was not satisfied. We then took the Panchayat to his village in which my father Daya Singh, Balbir Singh son of Deewan Singh, Shamsher and Balwant, all residents of village Jewra went there in village Buran. Shiv Parkash and his parents were persuaded and they said that they would not harass Sumitra any more. But Shiv Parkash and his parents continued harassing my sister.

About 15 days back, I had gone to village Buran to meet my sister and she told me that her husband and mother-in-law and father-in-law, were harassing her in connection with dowry. She told that it was difficult for her to live there. Today, the in-laws of Sumitra brought Sumitra in C.M.C. Hospital and Sumitra was in an unconscious condition at that time. She had given some poison or administered some spray etc. and because of this, she died today in the evening. Legal action be taken against the accused persons. My statement has been recorded....

The prosecution had examined 13 witnesses. Complainant Wazir Singh, brother of deceased Sumitra, appeared as P.W. 11 and stated that in the year 1992, Sumitra was married with the present Appellant Shiv Kumar and at the time of marriage, they had given dowry, according to their capacity. After six years of her marriage, the accused started harassing Sumitra. They had given buffalo to the accused. Thereafter, his sister Sumitra gave birth to a female child named Mukesh. They had arranged for a cash amount of Rs. 20,000 and gave the same to father-in-law of deceased Sumitra. Daya Singh, father of deceased Sumitra, appeared as P.W. 12 and corroborated the testimony of P.W. 11 Wazir Singh.

P.W. 5 Dr. H.C. Popali stated that on 6.10.2000 at about 10.45 A.M., deceased Sumitra Devi wife of Shiv Parkash, aged about 26 years, was admitted in the hospital as a case of suspected poisoning. P.W. 6 Dr. D.N. Bagri had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sumitra Devi on 7.10.2000 at about 9.30 A.M. and stated that viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner and after the receipt of a report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PM, he opined that the cause of death of Sumitra Devi was consumption of color-compound group of insecticides. It being material evidence, this Court need not to notice all other witnesses, who had advanced investigation.

I have heard Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the Respondent.

The acquittal of Appellant and his co-accused for the offence u/s 306 IPC has not been assailed by the State by filing any appeal or revision, therefore, their acquittal for the said offence has attained finality. The trial Court held that the Appellant was addicted to liquor and under its influence, he used to give beatings to his wife. Hence, the Appellant alone is responsible for the death of deceased Sumitra. It will be necessary to notice following observations made by the trial Court:

In the FIR, there is the indication as to what is the real cause of the cruelty, if any, in this case. The FIR Ex. PF alleged that Shiv Parshad is in the habit of drinking liquor. A person, who is in the habit of drinking liquor, may be instrumental in the cruelties to the hapless woman in the house and in the present case also this appears to have happened. The responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of the wife is the basic duty of the husband and a person, who, is in a habit of drinking liquor, cannot be held to be not guilty, if under the influence of liquor, he has been subjecting his wife to small and big cruelties every day. It was observed in the case of ''Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana 1997(2) RCR 682 that a bride is entrusted with people in whose custody she has been put and if she is deprived of her life, the person to whom she stood entrusted, must necessarily account for. If we apply the ratio of this authority of our Hon''ble High Court, then Shiv Parkash is the only person responsible for her untimely death due to suicide. He being the bed room companion of Sumitra, the onus was very heavy on him to explain the circumstances in which she died and how, he stood absolved. To my mind, Shiv Parkash cannot be allowed to say that he is innocent in this case. If, there is cruelty on the woman in the house, where the husband is addicted, the other relations of the husband cannot be held guilty. It was observed in the case of ''Raj Rani v. State 2000 (3) CCJ 179 by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the suicide note contained serious allegation against the husband for being an addict of the narcotic drugs. On the ratio of the said decision of the case of Smt. Raj Rani (supra)'', it cannot be held that the parents of Shiv Kumar, who were having a separate mess and were living separate from him are also responsible for any such cruelty. Parents, who, are not beneficiaries, would not be the cause of cruelty to the daughter-in-law. It was so observed in the case of ''Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 (2) RCR 521...

After holding that only Appellant alone is responsible, the trial Court held that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the offence will fall u/s 498-A IPC. The trial Court has further held as under:

To my mind, in this case, there is no cogent and convincing evidence regarding any demand of dowry having been made by any of the accused. It appears that whatever was given by parental side in the shape of cash or buffalo, was due to their own love and affection and without any demand. The offence of cruelty in connection with demands of dowry does not stand proved. But it stands proved that the woman was subjected to cruelty by Shiv Parkash, who, is in the habit of drinking liquor. I, therefore, find that none of the accused is guilty of the offence u/s 306 read with Section 34 IPC. All the three accused are acquitted so far as Section 306 IPC is concerned. Sish Ram and Santro also are acquitted u/s 498-A IPC. However, Shiv Parkash, the husband of the deceased, is held guilty u/s 498-A IPC only....

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that since the trial Court has held that no dowry was being demanded, therefore, no offence u/s 498-A IPC is made out against the Appellant. I am afraid that this argument cannot be accepted. Section 498-A IPC reads as under:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

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.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) Any willful 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

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.

Section 498-A IPC prescribes punishment for causing cruelty to the wife. Explanation (a) includes any willful conduct, which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. It is not dependent upon demand of dowry. If cruelty is caused to wife, this, in itself, will constitute the offence u/s 498-A IPC. Giving beatings to the wife, under the influence of liquor by the husband constitutes cruelty and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court had committed an error in convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence u/s 498-A IPC.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that when the occurrence took place, Sumitra had given birth to a female child and she was aged about 4 years. He has further contended that now the daughter is aged about 14 years and she is being looked after by the Appellant. He has further urged that in case the Appellant is sent behind the bars, at this stage, it will eclipse the matrimonial prospects of the daughter. It is further urged that there is nobody in the family to look after the daughter and if the Appellant is sent behind the bars, she may go to the vagaries. Therefore, this Court should consider reduction in the sentence.

Though the welfare of the child, especially the daughter, is of paramount consideration, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that a young lady, aged about 26 years, had committed suicide due to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the Appellant. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the Appellant is in the corridors of the Court for the last more than ten years and has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial.

After giving thoughtful consideration to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as spelt out by learned Counsel for the Appellant, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment, awarded upon the Appellant, is reduced to that of two years. However, sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact.

With the modifications in the sentence, awarded upon the Appellant, the present appeal is dismissed.