Surinder Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Bhalla, J.—Deceased Bala daughter of Umed Singh (PW 3) was married to accused Surinder Singh about six years before her death. She could not give birth to any child. On that account, as well as for the reason that her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of her marriage, this young lady was being harassed. On many occasions, she went to the house of her father at times accompanied by her husband Surinder Singh and brought money on one pretext or the other. Money was extorted by the greedy son-in-law from mother and father''s sister of Bala deceased as well. Ultimately, on 18-10-1987, Karan Singh elder brother of accused Surinder Singh went to the father of the deceased and informed that Bala was having pain in the abdomen. After he left delivering that message, Umed Singh (PW 3) felt suspicious and started for Bahadurgarh, where his daughter Bala was residing with the accused and his parents. On reaching there, he found that Bala was dead. He noticed an injury on her right eye and that made him further apprehensive. The in-laws were not permitted to cremate the dead body and the police on its arrival was also told that the same would be cremated on the following day.

Inquest was prepared by S.I. Godhu Ram (PW 12) and dead body of Bala was then sent for post-mortem examination. Autopsy on the dead body of Bala deceased was performed by Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW 8) on 19-10-1987 at 2.13 P.M. As many as three injuries were noticed on the dead body. Ex. PA is the correct carbon copy of the post-mortem report. Viscerae were sent for chemical examination and after the receipt of report Ex. PE of the Chemical Examiner, the doctor opined vide Ex. PD that death was due to poison aluminium phosphide.

Application Ex. PG complaining with regard to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry was given by Umed Singh and ultimately on completion of usual investigations, husband Surinder Singh and his mother Jeeto were challaned.

On trial, the trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 16th and 17th of September, 1988, convicted Surinder Singh under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as per details given in the judgment whereas Jeeto was acquitted. u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code, Surinder Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Feeling aggrieved by his convictions and sentences, accused-appellant Surinder Singh has preferred present appeal Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 1988.

It is not disputed that Bala died in the house of accused Surinder Singh on 18-10-1987. It is also obvious from medical evidence coupled with the report Ex. PE of Chemical Examiner that death was due to poisoning meaning thereby that her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. It has neither been disputed that Bala died within seven years of her marriage. Her death, therefore, would be called "dowry death", as the term has been defined in Sub-section (1) of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code provided it can be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband. In this connection, we have direct evidence of Umed Singh (PW 3) that he noticed an injury on the right eye of her daughter. According to him, it was swollen and blue. Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW 8) also found three injuries on the dead body, one of which was bluish contusion, another lacerated wound and the third abrasion. In the cross-examination an attempt has been made to show that the injuries on the dead body were old and were not caused on 18th of October, 1987. Irrespective of that, the presence of the injuries on the dead body at the time of post-mortem examination even if they were of the duration of more than 24 hours confirms that Bala was subjected to cruelty before her death.

Cruelty or harassment of the deceased was in connection with demand for dowry is amply borne out on the record through the statements of Umed Singh (PW 3), Sunita (PW 6), Shanti (PW 7), Surinder Singh (PW 10) and Sahabo (PW 11). Umed Singh the father has stated that in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given by him and that accused Surinder Singh came to him alongwith his daughter after about one year of the marriage at Nangloi and extracted money from him. According to Umed Singh he paid money to the accused more than twice at Nangloi. Sunita (PW 6) is a tenant in the house of Umed Singh at Nangloi and this independent witness has also stated on oath that Bala daughter of Umed Singh used to complain about ill-treatment, that some time she took money from Umed Singh and that she used to say that she was harassed by her husband Surinder Singh. She has further added that the deceased used to tell her that on demands being not met, she was harassed. In cross-examination this witness has stated that twice a sum of Rs. 2,000/- each was paid in her presence. Shanti (PW 7) is sister of Umed Singh. She has also stated that Bala used to tell her that whenever she met her she was harassed. According to her, she also paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- when accused Surinder Singh and Bala came to her and made such demand for purchasing buffalo. Surinder Singh (PW 10) brother of the deceased has stated that after 2/3 months of the marriage, accused Surinder Singh started harassing his sister Smt. Bala. According to him every time Bala came to their house or he visited their house, one thing or the other used to be delivered to avoid her harassment. He has further stated that once, on his visit to Bahadurgarh, accused demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Sahabo (PW 11) mother of the deceased has also stated about making of payments of Rs. 700/-, Rs. 800/- and Rs. 900/- on three different occasions. According to her she used to give her daughter money whenever she came and told that her son-in-law was demanding such and such amount. All this evidence confirms harassment of Bala deceased in connection with demand for dowry and has rightly been relied upon by the trial Court.

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has contended that alleged element of harassment was delayed and no complaint with regard thereto was ever made before the death of Bala. Delay in such matters to our mind is not material. All parents always try that their daughters should settle down and are bound to give long rope. Realising such a situation, the legislation has also prescribed long period of seven years with regard thereto. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant under the circumstances does not cut ice with us. Delay in presentation of application Ex. PG too is immaterial. It has come on the record that Umed Singh father of the deceased reached Bahadurgarh on 18th of October, 1987, itself and did not permit the cremation of the dead body. He has also slated in his statement as PW 3 that police came there and he told them that the cremation would be done next day. Post-mortem examination of the dead body was performed on 19th of October, 1987 and viscerae were sent for chemical examination to rule out poisoning. When no action to the satisfaction of the father of the deceased was taken by the police for a couple of days thereafter, he moved application Ex. PG on 26-10-1987 to put everything in black and white. In the given circumstances, the same cannot be taken to be delayed one or treated as an afterthought on the part of the complainant party.

In view of the discussion made above, the death of Bala occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it having been shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty/harassment by her husband in connection with demand for dowry, in view of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, it would be called "dowry death" and such husband shall be deemed to have caused death. In Sub-section (2) of the said section, it is further stated that whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life. Such presumption having not been rebutted by the appellant, we hold that he has rightly been convicted and sentenced u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code having been established whereby appellant has been made responsible for causing the death of Bala, question of any conviction u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide or u/s 498A of the said Code for Bala''s subjection to cruelty does not arise. In the absence of suicide, question of its abetment would not arise and subjection to cruelty stands merged into causing her death. Convictions under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, cannot be sustained. Convictions and sentences of accused-appellant Surinder Singh under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code accordingly are set aside but his conviction and sentence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code are affirmed. The result is that we see no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.