Smt. Kasturi Devi vs State of Haryana

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.—Shrimati Kasturi Devi has challenged her conviction and sentence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his order dated 27th/28th November, 1984. She has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months under that charge Two co-accused of the Appellant, namely, Tek Ram, her son, and Partap Singh, her husband, were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the learned trial Judge.

Shrimati Santosh (since deceased) was married to Tek Ram co-accused of the Appellant (since acquitted). She was married six years before her death She had also a six-months old son from the loins of Tek Ram, Shrimati Santosh many a time complained to her parents that she was ill-treated and beaten by her parents in-law for bringing inadequate dowry. Tek Ram went to Delhi a month before the death of Shrimati Santosh. At the time of the birth of the son the parents of Shrimati Santosh had given gifts worth Rs. 8000 as chhuchhak. Shrimati Santosh still complained to her parents that her in laws were not happy with the amount and that they beat and tortured her. On Tek Chand''s visit to Delhi, Shrimati Chandrawati protested to him against the bevaviour of his parents. On 29th February, 1984, Shrimati Chandrawati received a telephonic message that Shrimati Santosh had been burnt to death On receipt of the telephonic message both Chandrawati and her husband Babu Ram PW4 went to Rohtak at the place of the in-laws of Shrimati Santosh. Shrimati Shakuntla, elder sister of Santosh, PW7 and Sadhu Ram, another relation of Shrimati Shakantla, also accompanied them. At Rohtak these prosecution witnesses heard the whisper of the women in the neighborhood that Shrimati Santosh had been throttled by her mother-in-law and that she had been burnt by sprinkling kerosene on her body. On hearing about the death of his daughter, Babu Ram PW had almost a paralytic attack and was rendered unfit to speak. Application Exhibit PF thumb marked by Babu Ram and Chandrawati PWs was filed with the Rohtak police. Babu Ram PW went to Police Station City, Rohtak, and made a statement before. Inspector Balbir Singh PW11. On the basis of the same, formal first information report Exhibit PO was recorded there. Inspector Balbir Singh then along with some police officials west to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Exhibit PP. He also took into possession a letter produced by Tek Ram The letter is Exhibit DB which was not posted Inspector Balbir Singh directed Assistant Sub Inspector Laxmi Narain to conduct the inquest report on 29th February, 1984. Dr. D.K. Sharma PWl performed autopsy on the deadbody of Shrimati Santosh on Ist March, 1983, at 12.30 p.m. Following is the report of his post mortem examination:

Body was 1.70 cm. long Rigor mortis and post mortem staining were present. It was moderately nourished and moderately built. The body was covered with green printed sari. Golden koka was present on the left nostril. Silver paijeb and green glass bangles were present in both the arms.

The scalp hair, the pubic, the axillaries hair and both the eyebrows were burnt.

The tongue was burnt and was protruding in between the lips.

The whole body was burnt from scalp to the abdomen. Sub-coetaneous tissues exposed and there was peeling of the skin.

The legs and the perinea region was also burnt.

There was burn in the back of the body. Both the lungs and the pleura were congested Trachea and larynx were healthy. The brain, spinal cord and membranes are congested. Both the chambers of the heart were full of blood. Abdominal wall burnt. Liver, spleen, kidneys and peritoneum are congested. Large intestines and small intestines had gas and faucal matter. In my opinion, the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock and toxaemia as a result of burns described which are ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature. The duration between injury and death was from few minutes to an hour and between death and post mortem 24 hours. It was hundred per cent burns with one and two degree burns mixed. It was not third degree. There was burns in the neck. The contusion on the neck after burns cannot be seen property. It is correct if the lips are closed the enhances of tongue being burnt are less. After burns when the subcutaneous water of the soft tissue collects in the loose subcutaneous tissue just as lip, the lip looks like very much swollen and they become apart and the tongue is seen through that swollen aperture of the lips. I have not mentioned that the lips were swollen in this case.

On 2nd March, 1984, Sub Inspector Sarup Singh PW 9 accompanied by a team led by Hans Raj Aggarwal of F.S.L. were to the house of the Appellant and took three swabs ore from the floor of the room, the second from the position of the head of the dead body and the third from the staircase, and some burnt ash of clothes of Shrimati Santosh was taken into possession and sealed into parcel. On 9th March, 1934, Birham Datt Inspector, C.I.D., PW 10, arrested the Appellant and her co-accused. On 3rd May, 1984, Ramesh Kumar produced one letter Exhibit DD which was taken into possession by inspector Birham Datt. Letter Exhibit DD along with Exhibits DB and DC were sent for comparison to the Director, FSL., Madhuban On 5th July, 1984, Samer Singh produced sehra PK/1 which was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PK. The Appellant and her co accused after due investigation were sent up for trial.

When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the prosecution allegations and came out with the following version:

On 29-2-1984 at about 3 p.m. when I was present in my house and my son Tek Ram and husband Partap were away to their shop, son of Tek Ram aged about six months fell down from a cot on the ground floor and started weeping. My daughter in-law Santosh deceased at that time was busy in dressing herself on the first floor of our house. I called her twice thrice and she came down. My grandson continued to weep. I reprimanded by saying that "Chule Main Jai Teri Bindi Tiki, Tou Apne Baclche Ko Bhi Nahi Sambhal Sakti" My grandson who was in my lap continued to weep. Santosh having felt hurt went upstairs again and after some time. I heard her sobbing voice (karahna ki awaz) and then I went upstairs and found that Santosh had committed suicide by burning herself. I sent Tinku, a boy living in the neighbourhood, to infirm my husband Partap at his shop in Bara Bazar. Several men and women gathered there and expressed their concern on the foolish act of Santosh. My husband came to our house. He was apprised about the incident. He then went to inform my sob Tek Ram as also the local police. Tek Ram came to his house and after same tine Assistant Sub-Inspector of city police came to the spot. He examined several men and women as alto me and my co-accused. Suicide note Ex. DC was found by the ASI wherein Santosh stated that she was committing suicide of her own accord. I, my husband and son or any other family member never demanded any dowry or chhuchhak We never torturned or harassed Santosh. She was living happily with us, and we have no dispute with her or her parents. She was sensitive and emotional type of girl who would feel small things. ASI after having felt satisfied from our statements and the statements of Mohal-lawala about suicide left the house and sent the deadbody for post mortem. The parents of Sontosh and her sisters and brother-in-law. Om Parkash had arrived at Rohtak and visited her house. Om Parkash had stayed with us for the night of 29-2-1984 and 1-3-1984. We had informed them on 29-2-1984 as per telephonic message through Devinder my son residing in Delhi and also Shiv Charan nephew of my husband. We apprised them about the suicide committed by Santosh over a petty matter regarding the fall of son of Tek Ram from the cot They felt satisfied about our innocence Thereafter they went to the house of Premo with whom I have strained relations. My husband had prevented Premo after a year of the marriage of my son Tek Ram from visiting our house on account of her bad habits, back biting and bad reputation Babu Ram and others were instigated by Premo who poisoned their ears as a result of which Babu Ram, Premo and certain other relations and friend of theirs conspired and got a false case registered against us. I was informed by my husband four days after the death of Santosh at the shop of Banwari, that Babu Ram, Sadhu Ram and Radha Sham demanded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation in consideration of not pursuing the mattar and that he had refused to concede their demand. Babu Ram is a greedy person. He has been exploiting his sons-in law also am innocent. The allegations are baseless We have Sunar baradari at Delhi as also at Rohtak They (i.e. members of the Sunar Baradari) never pointed out about any complaint of Babu Ram or her family members.

In defence Assistant Sub-Inspector Laxmi Narain, C.I.A. Staff, was examined as DWI. He stated that on 29th February, 1984, he was posted as duty officer in Police Station City, Rohtak. He on the basis of the original daily diary report dated 29th February, 1984, stated that it was in his hand and under his signatures and that the certified copy of the same was Exhibit PC/1 This report was written at the instance of Partap Singh co-accused of the Appellant. After writing the report, this witness visited the spot and prepared inquest report Exhibit PD. He recorded the statements of Tek Ram, Mange Ram, Ramesh Jain and Tinnu and the Appellant. A burnt piece of sari, a piece of petticoat, one burnt half piece of gunny bag lying under the body, one empty bottle of kerosene, one match box and one letter lying in the niche were found by the Assistant Sub Inspector. The letter recovered is Exhibit DC. The site was got photographed. Letter Exhibit DC and the aforesaid articles were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit DE in the presence of Mange Ram and Ramesh Jain. Except the letter the remaining articles were sealed. This witness confirmed that in portion A to A of inquest report Exibit PD it was recorded that it was a case of suicide. He further stated that the family members of the deceased used to reside on the ground floor and that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination at about 11 or 11:30 p.m. He handed over the inquest report, Exhibit PD, to the Inspector. DW2 Ramesh Chand Jain stated that he owned Malabar Hotel, a cloth shop and a shop for the sale of sewing machines and that he was a wealth tax and income tax payer. Tek Ram co-accused of the Appellant was employee in his shop for the sale of sewing mechines for the last nine or ten years On 29th February, 1984, at about 5 p.m. the father of Tek Ram had come to the shop of this witness. He informed Tek Ram that his wife had been burnt and that he was going to the police station. This witness and Tek Ram then went to the house of Tek Ram. Tek Ram told this witness to send a telegram and a telephonic message to the parents of Shrimati Santosh at Delhi This witness and Tek Ram reached the house of the Appellant at 5.30 p.m., and found Mange Ram and Kasturi Appellant there. The deadbody was on the first floor. When this witness enquired from the Appellant about the cause of the death of Shrimati Santosh, the Appellant told him that Vikas, the son of Tek Ram co-accused of the Appellant was lying on the cot and had fallen down and started weeping. Santosh deceased was dressing herself on the first floor The Appellant scolded her saying that "Bhar me jai tera bindi tiki Larke ko nahi sambhal sakti" According to this witness, the Appellant further told him that Santosh then went upstairs and the Appellant heard some shrieks This witness further stated that in the meantime the police came to the spot. Letter Exhibit DC and the articles mentioned in memo Exhibit DE were seized by the police This witness left for his bouse on that day. Next day he went to the house of Tek Ram and found that the father-in-law of Tek Ram and some other people had come there. Some 100 to 150 persons had participated in the cremation of Shrimati Santosh. They included the Appellant, her co-accused and the in-laws of Tek Ram. In the presence of this witness Assistant Sub-Inspector Laxmi Narain prepared the inquest report. DW3 Tinku son of Azad Singh stated that his house was in front of the house of the Appellant and her co-accused. The Appellant asked this witness on 29th February, 1984, at about 4.30 p.m. to call Partap from his shop in Bara Bazar. DW 4 Ram Chander stated that his house was in front of the house of the Appellant. On 25th February, 1984, at about 6 30 p.m. a number of persons of the locality had gathered near the house of Partap and he learnt that Shrimati Santosh had committed suicide. This witness was summoned to the police station where his signatures were obtained by the Station House Officer. After tendering into evidence receipt mark 1 the defence evidence was closed.

The prosecution, besides Dr. D.K. Sharma, FW1, examined Kesar Das PW2. He took the photographs of the deadbody of Shrimati Santosh, which are Exhibits PE/1 to Exhibit PE/2. Exhibits PE/3 to P4 are their negatives. PW3 Shrimati Chandrawati mother of Santosh stated about the ill-treatment meted out to her daughter by the Appellant of which many a time Shrimati Santosh complained to her. On learning about the death of her daughter she along with her husband and other relations went to the police station and made application Exhibit PF. Babu Ram PW4 father of Shrimati Santosh was tendered for cross examination. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded a note that the witness was suffering from paralysis and was hardly able to understand questions and give rational answers. PW5 Moti Ram drafasman prepared site-plan Exhabit PJ PW6 Radhe Sham stated that on 5th July, 1984, in his presence Samer Singh produced a sehra which was taken into possession by the police vide memo Exhibit PK., which bears his signatures Sehra is Ex PK/1. This sehra was distributed at the time of the marriage of Tek Ram with Shrimati Santosh PW7 Shrimati Shakuntla is the elder sister of Shrimati Santosh (since deceased). She stated that after her marriage many a time Shrimati Santosh complained to her that she was being maltreated and beaten by the Appellant for bringing inadequate dowry. To the same effect is the statement of Sadhu Ram PW 8 who is a close relation of Babu Ram father of Shrimati Santosh. He also accompanied Babu Ram after learning about the death of Shrimati Santosh PW9 Sarup Singh Sub-Isspector took swabs from different places on 2nd March, 1984. PW10 Birham Datt Inspector partly investigated the case, recorded the statements of the witnesses, took into possession letter Exhibit DD produced fey Ramesh Kumar PW11 Inspector Balbir Singh recorded me first information report, investigated the case and took into possession the latter produced by Tek Ram vide memo P.Q. The letter is Exhibit DB After tendering into evidence the report of the Assistant Director F.S.L., Madhuban, Exhibits PR and PS the prosecution closed its case.

Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has contended is the foremost that in all probability Shrimati Santosh has committed suicide because she was a highly sensitive type of lady end that it was not due to torture or ill treatment of the mother in law that the was forced to act so desperately as to finish her life. In this context, he has referred to the statement of PW3 Chandrawati mother of Shrimati Santosh that she had seven married daughters and that earlier also one daughter, namely, Usha had committed suizide. But I do not think that from this fact it can be inferred that Shrimati Santosh did not commit suicide due to the torture end ill treatment of her mother in law. Exhibit DC is a letter which has been written by Shrimati Santosh shortly before committing suicide. That letter, I think, has been rightly used as a dying declaration by the learned trial Judge, The translation of that letter reads as under:

I have died of my own accord. I was not liked by my mother-in law She daily used to taut me saying that if I died, she could marry her son again. Leave it. You should not protest to your a other and look after my son properly.

This letter and another letter Exhibit DB alleged to have been written by Shrimati Santosh to her parents about a month earlier to her death were proved by the defence. These letters were also sent to the expert at Madhuban for comparison. According to the report of the expert, Exhibit DF, both letters Exhibits DB and DC were in the same handwriting A bare reading of letter Exhibit DC suggests that Shrimati Santosh did not commit suicide because she was hypersensitive or of excitable nature Rather it shows that she resorted to this extreme step as she was too much harassed and tortured by her mother-in-law. Otherwise, letter Exhibit DC shows that Shrimati Santosh was of such a good nature that she suggested to her husband that he should not protest to his mother but should only took after her son. The dying declaration stands fully corroborated by the evidence of PW 3 Shrimati Chandrawati, mother of Shrimati Santosh PW 1, Shrimati Shakuntla sister of Shrimati Santosh and PW 8 Sadhu Ram, uncle (phupha) of Shrimati Santosh. They have also stated consistently that Shrimati Santosh was ever complaining that she was being harassed and tortured by her mother-in-law and that at times she was even beaten up by her.

Shrimati Santosh committed suicide within less than seven years of her marriage Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case a presumption under the amended Section 113A of the Evidence Act would be that the Appellant has abetted the commission of suicide by Shrimati Santosh. The Appellant in her defence has miserably failed to rebut this presumption. Thus I have no hesitation in coming to a finding that the conviction of the Appellant has been rightly recorded by the learned trial Judge.

It appears from Exhibit DC that Shrimati Santosh was so good-natured and considerate that in this letter she even wrote to her husband not to protest to his mother about the suicide but should only look after the child. So, I am of the view that the Appellant has driven such a good lady to commit suicide by her callous and inhuman conduct. Therefore, I feel that no reduction in the sentence is called for. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.