Tara Chand vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Gian Chand and his brother Tara Chand were prosecuted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Shri K.C. Dang, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, acquitted Gian Chand but convicted Tara Chand under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to five years'' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved, Tara Chand has filed this appeal.

Prosecution case in brief is that Rajo deceased was married to Tara Chand about two years prior to the incident. She was kept with love and affection for the first six months after the marriage. But thereafter, her inlaws started illtreating her. The reason for the illtreatment was that they had a feeling that dowry was inadequate.

On 12.6.1985, ASI Rohtas Singh was on his way to village Nadana. Tara Chand accused met him near the bridge and made statement Exhibit PC to the effect that his wife Rajo Devi had committed suicide by hanging. ASI Rohtas Singh sent the statement to Police Post and himself proceeded to village Shekhanpur. There he prepared the inquest report Exhibit PB and sent the dead body of Rajo to Civil Hospital, Karnal, for postmortem examination. On the following day, he went to Civil Hospital, Karnal, where Prem Chand PW father of Rajo made a statement to the effect that his eldest daughter Rajo was married with Tara Chand, resident of village Shekanpur, about two years back. Tara Chand and his elder brother used to taunt Rajo that she was of dark complexion. Tara Chand was also making demand for money. Prem Chand had paid Rs. 200/ or Rs. 100/ to Tara Chand on three four occasions but demand of Tara Chand remained unsatisfied. On his (Prem Chand) refusal to spare further amount, Tara Chand started teasing his daughter Rajo. In spite of his best efforts, Tara Chand continued to illtreat her daughter and she being fed with the treatment of her husband committed suicide. Earlier to suicide on 5.6.1985, Rajo and Tara Chand had come to his (Prem Chand) village had Rajo and complained that Tara Chand is pressing her for money and wants Rs. 5,000/ Prem Chand told Rajo and Tara Chand that he has no money but gave a good trinket bearing the inscription of Om on it. He was informed on 2.6.1985 that his daughter has died because of abnormal pain. He went to village Shekhanpur along with his wife Phullo and other family and Panchayat members from there they went to Civil Hospital, Karnal, and found the dead body of Rajo there.

On the basis of statement of Prem Chand, a case was registered in Police Station Butana. The accused were arrested and after investigation challenged, tried and convicted as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. Sukhbir Singh PW1 who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead by Rajo and opined that she died of asphyxia due to hanging. PW2 Prem Chand father of Rajo deceased supported the prosecution case and stated that she was illtreated by the accused and she committed suicide due to the harassment caused by the accused. Kali Ram PW3 was Member Panchayat who had participated in the Panchayat called by Prem Chand which had advised Tara Chand not to misbehave with the deceased. PW4 Phullo Devi mother of the deceased also supported the version given by PW2 and PW3, PW5 J.B. Gupta had prepared the scaled plan Exhibit PE. PW6 ASI Rohtas Singh is the Investigating Officer.

After close of the prosecution evidence accused in his statement had denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He further stated :

"I or any other member of my family never maltreated Rajo Devi on any account. We never demanded and dowry or money from the parents of Rajo. On the contrary, we were a happy couple and I used to pamper my wife. On the day of occurrence my sister''s son had fallen ill and I had taken him and my sister to Taraori for his treatment. On that before I left, my wife insisted that I should buy new clothes for my brotherinlaw who had been brought from his village 78 days prior to the day of occurrence. Earlier, may wife and brotherinlaw had lived with me at Panipat and I had left them in my village only 4 days prior to the day of occurrence. I had come to my village on 12.6.1985 when Rajo insisted on getting new clothes stitched for my brotherinlaw. I did not have sufficient money for the purpose and, therefore, I gave him one khesi and one metre cloth and sent my brotherinlaw along with my father to their village and myself left with my sister and her son for Taraori. When we came back I found my house locked from inside. We knocked at the door but it was not opened. We saw through the chinks in the door that my wife was hanging with the rafters of the roof with a rope. We raised alarm on which a number of persons collected there. We unhinged one of the doors and found my wife dead. I informed the Police. There was no dispute at all between our family and my wife on any account. I have been falsely involved in the case as my fatherinlaw wanted money to hush up the matter. I am innocent."

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help.

The prosecution is depending on the testimony of Prem Chand, Kali Ram and Phullo Devi PWs. Prem Chand in his statement has stated that for the first six months, Rajo was kept with love and affection by the accused. It is after six months that he started demanding money. He had demanded Rs. 200/ which were paid and after some months, he again paid Rs. 300/ and after some time he again paid Rs. 250/. On 5.6.1985, there was a demand of Rs. 5,000/ made by Rajo at the asking of the accused. He has further stated that his daughter had complained about the maltreatment in the presence of Tara Chand, Kali Ram PW3 has stated that he was member of the Panchayat where Rajo had demanded Rs. 5,000/ for Tara Chand and they had told Tara Chand to behave. Phullo Devi PW4 has also stated that they had paid certain amounts to Tara Chand and Tara Chand had demanded Rs. 5,000/. Prem Chand and Phullo Devi have further stated that as Rajo was of dark complexion, she was not liked by the accused.

I have perused thee evidence with care. In this case after the death of Rajo, it was Tara Chand who had gone to the police and had lodged the report vide his statement Exhibit PC. He had informed the parents of Rajo about the incident. Rajo was kept with love and affection for the first six months of the marriage. It is only after that the relations started straining and according to PWs demand for money was made. The prosecution witnesses have given three instances of the demand of money. On all the three occasions, it was Rajo deceased who had made the demand at the asking of Tara Chand. Demand was met. But the last demand of Rs. 5,000/ was not met and then it is alleged that the deceased was harassed. No PW has given any details as to how the deceased was harassed. It is also in evidence that father of Tara Chand is alive and living in is the same house but strangely Prem Chand, his wife or anybody else did not inform father of Tara Chand about the demand of money or any harassment caused by Tara Chand to be deceased. It was an arranged marriage and in such a marriage if the husband misbehaves with girl, the parents of the girl normally approach the father of the husband and inform him about the misbehaviour of his son but strangely enough, the parental side of the deceased did not inform father of Tara Chand nor anybody else in the village of Tara Chand was informed about the misconduct. It is a matter of judicial notice that if a Panchayat of one village is collected and they visit another village, they always contact the Panchayat member of that village or if Panchayat members are not available, some other respectable or relation of the person concerned is contracted so that a representative gathering of that village is also present. It is not the prosecution case that a Panchayat had gone to the village of the accused but the case of the prosecution is that a Panchayat was convened in the village of the father of the deceased. I have not been able to appreciate why a Panchayat was convened in the village of the father of the deceased. Kali Ram has given the reason for convening the Panchayat that Panchayat talked to Tara Chand who has present in the house of his inlaws. If the situation was that bad that a Panchayat had to be called to talk to Tara Chand, then it is expected that father of Tara Chand would have certainly been contacted. It appears that the PWs had introduced this convening of the Panchayat in the house of Prem Chand to talk to Tara Chand as if it is stated that Panchayat had gone to the village of Tara Chand, then somebody from that village will be normally associated and in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the evidence of the convening of Panchayat may not become shaky. I am not impressed by the statement of Kali Ram that a Panchayat was convened and he participated in the same at the house of Prem Chand to talk to Tara Chand. The close relations of Tara Chand were the proper persons to talk to Tara Chand as Rajo was residing with Tara Chand and according to PWs, Rajo and Tara Chand had come from the village of Tara Chand to the village of Rajo and after making the demand of money had gone back to the village of Tara Chand. In such a situation, no Panchayat was required to be convened and if any Panchayat was needed to persuade Tara Chand to behave, it was to go to Tara Chand in his house in his village and in that situation, talking to his father and other respectable villagers would certainly have been required. This aspect of the prosecution evidence is not impressive. Stray incidents of demand of petty amounts will not establish that it was a case of cruelty towards the deceased. It was the deceased who used to demand money on behalf of the accused in the presence of the accused at her parental house and she always used to go back with the accused to his village. There is no evidence how she was maltreated in the house of the accused. PWs had levelled allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against Gian Chand accused also but the trial Court did not accept their version qua Gian Chand had acquitted him. There is no other evidence to distinguish the case of Tara Chand. The allegations of demand of dowry and maltreatment i.e. harassment to the deceased were made against Tara Chand and Gian Chand in the same terms. The allegations qua Gian Chand have not been accepted. Although legally Tara Chand can be convicted on the same evidence which was not acceptable qua Gian Chand but in the circumstances of the case as there as no evidence how deceased was harassed and how accused was cruel to her, I do not think it proper to accept the prosecution evidence qua Tara Chand also.

Taking an overall view of the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Tara Chand is entitled to benefit of doubt. This appeal is accordingly accepted and he is acquitted of the charge.