Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ajit Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ2370, II(2000)DMC591
Author: M.R. Verma
Bench: M.R. Verma
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused-appellant Ajit Singh (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 1) has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of "payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and respondent-accused Nathi Devi (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 2) has been sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to imprisonment till rising of the Court and pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Sections 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that Usha Devi (since deceased) was married to accused No. 1 in the month of September, 1993. For a few months relations between them remained cordial, but thereafter the accused persons started harassing said Usha Devi on the allegation that she was corrupt. Therefore, Usha Devi on several occasions went to her parents' house and complained about the harassment meted out to her to her mother, Mangri Devi (P.W. 3) and sister-in-law, Bimla Devi (P.W. 4). About 15 days before 5.4.1994 due to such harassment she had come to her parents' house. On the next day accused persons also came to their house and took Usha Devi to their house. On 1.4.1994 brother of Usha Devi, namely Daulat Singh (P.W. 1) received a message from accused No. 1 to come to Darka because the accused intended to affect divorce between Ajit Singh and Usha Devi. Daulat Singh (P.W. 1), his mother, Mangri Devi (P.W. 3) and Narain Singh (P.W. 6) uncle of Usha Devi went to Darka. Accused persons Usha Devi and two other persons from Dugi Lag met them at Darka. At that time, Usha Devi disclosed that she wanted to reside in the house of her parents and not in her matrimonial house. However, accused Nathi Devi persuaded Usha Devi to accompany her to her matrimonial house which Usha Devi finally did and the brother, mother and uncle of Usha Devi returned back to their house. On 3.4.1994, Usha Devi again came to her parents' house, stayed there for some time and went back. During her short stay, she had been complaining about her harassment by the accused persons without any rhyme or reason. On 5.4.1994 Daulat Singh (P.W. 1) came to know from one Surinder Singh (P.W. 7) that dead body of a woman was lying in Naseri Ht Jungle. Therefore, Daulat Singh alongwith other villagers went to the spot and found that dead body was of her sister, Usha Devi. He then made a statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Ex. P.W. 1 /A to the police on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex. P.W. 9/A was registered in Police Station, Kullu. As per the F.I.R. Daulat Singh (P.W. 1) has reported that Usha Devi had committed suicide because of the harassment meted out to her by the accused persons. In the meanwhile one Kamal Thakur (P.W. 11), who had seen the dead body on 5.4.1994, but could not identify it, reported the matter to the police vide report Ex. P.W. 11 /A. Inspector Paras Ram (P.W. 12) the then S.H.O., Police Station, Kullu on receipt of information vide report Ex. P.W. 11/A, proceeded to the spot where Neerat Singh (P.W. 2), father of Usha Devi and her brother-in-law Bhagat Ram were already present. He prepared the inquest report Ex. P.W. 2/A and site plan Ex. P.W.-10/A and sent the dead body to District Hospital, Kullu for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. G.D. Gohar (P.W. 5) and the postmortem report prepared by him is Ex. P,W. 5/B, opining that deceased had died of poisoning, but the final opinion was reserved by him till the receipt of report from Chemical Examiner. At the time of postmortem he collected the viscera etc. of the deceased which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Bharari, Shimla. The report received from the said laboratory is Ex. P.W. 5/A about the analysis of the viscera opining that organo-phosphorus was found in the viscera. The Investigating Officer also took in possession from the spot a few hairs alongwith rubber band, one stopper containing words "Alembic", some vomitted substance and the Chappal vide memo Ex. P.W. 1 /B. A sample of the heirs of Usha Devi was also taken in possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. P.W. 1/C. The hairs found on the spot and the sample hairs were also sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and the report received from the said laboratory in this regard is Ex. P.W. 12/A opining that both the sets of hairs could be of one person. After collecting material and on being satisfied that the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Officer-in-Charge submitted a charge sheet against the accused.
3. The accused came to be tried on a charge under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu.
4. To prove charge against the accused, prosecution examined P.W. 1 Daulat Ram, brother of the deceased, P.W. 2 Neerat Singh, father of the deceased, P.W. 3 Mangri Devi, mother of the deceased, P.W. 4, Bimla Devi, sister-in-law of deceased, P.W. 5, Dr. G.D. Gohar, who conducted postmortem on dead body of the deceased, P.W. 6 Narain Singh, uncle of the deceased, P.W. 7, Surinder Singh, who saw the dead body of the deceased in the jungle, P.W. 8 L.H.C. Kehar Singh, P. W. 9 H.C. Om Parkash, who are the witnesses about keeping of the case property in the police statin, sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory and about recording of the F.I.R., P.W. 10 K.K. Indoria, who verified the investigation of the case as a Supervising Officer, P.W. 11 Kamal Kumar, who lodged the report Roznamcha Ex. P.W. 11/A, P.W. 12 Inspector Paras Ram, Investigating Officer in the case and a formal witness H.C.Sato Kumar, who produced the record.
5. Statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded wherein they denied the incriminating evidence against them. It has further been stated by accused No. 1 that Usha Devi wanted to marry one Bhushan Kumar of Bhuti, who had consumed poison soon after the marriage of Usha Devi with the accused. At that time deceased disclosed to accused No. 1 that she wanted to marry Bhushan Kumar and he should divorce her. It was for this reason that a meeting for discussing the divorce was arranged. However, Mangri Devi, mother of Usha Devi, advised her to live in her matrimonial house and had also asked her to come to her parents' house on the next day being Sunday and her father would also be present there. On Sunday, i.e. 3.4.1994, Usha Devi left for her parental house informing the accused that she would return after 4-5 days, his sister Meena kumari also accompanied Usha Devi up to water-mill which fall on way to the parental house of Usha Devi. Meena Kumari stayed back at the water mill and Usha Devi from there proceeded towards her parents' house and what happened thereafter is not known to the accused persons. It is further his case that deceased was forcibly married by her parents to him and it was not a love marriage. More or less to the same effect is the version given by accused No. 2.
6. Accused led defence and examined D.W. 1 Jai Ram, D.W. 2 Prithvi Raj, D.W. 3 H.C. Sato Ram and D.W. 4 Dr. Prem.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge finally convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid, hence the present appeal.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the records.
9. It may be pointed out at the very outset that there is no dispute that the deceased and accused Ajit Singh were married on 25.9.1993. It is also not disputed that on 3.4.1993 the deceased visited her parents' house and on 5.4.1993 her dead body was found in a jungle near the house of her parents. Further, there is no dispute that Usha had committed suicide. Accused Nathi Devi in her statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was specifically stated about the commission of suicide by Usha though for other reasons. Even otherwise in view of the material on record, particularly the medical opinion, it is established that Usha committed suicide
10. The dispute between the parties is as to the causes and reasons for committing suicide by the deceased. According to the prosecution it was the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by the accused which led her to take the extreme step of doing away with her life, whereas according to the defence the deceased committed suicide because of her forcible marriage with the accused by her parents though she wanted to marry one Bhushan Kumar with whom she was in love.
11. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused persons is not natural and consistent and there are contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws. who are all near relations of the deceased. Therefore, on the basis of such evidence the accused could hot be convicted. The learned Counsel has further urged that it is fully established on the basis of the material on record that the deceased had love affairs with one Bhushan Kumar and wanted to marry him. However, the parents of the deceased forced her to marry accused Ajit Singh. After about 4 days of the marriage said Bhushan Kumar attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison which shocked the deceased. She was, therefore, interested in marrying said Bhushan Kumar after getting divorce from accused Ajit Singh which he was prepared to do. Lastly the prosecutrix left her matrimonial house saying that she would return after four or five days. However, instead of returning to the matrimonial house, she committed suicide in the village of her parents.
12. It clearly emerges from the material on record that marriage of the deceased and accused Ranjit Singh was not attended by her father (P.W. 1). He has stated that he did not attend their marriage since he was out of station due to employment. He was admittedly employed at Manikaran, a station not very far off from his village. He is an employee of Forest Department and not shown to be in any emergency service of the nature which disabled him from attending the marriage of his daughter. In such a situation it cannot be said that he had forcibly married his daughter to Ajit Singh, but the inference can be that he was not interested in marrying his daughter to the accused. The witness has admitted that the marriage of Usha with Ajit Singh was not arranged by him, but she married him of her own choice. This statement is corroborated by the statements of brother of the deceased (P. W. 1) and her mother (P.W. 3). P.W. 6 Narain Singh has also denied their marriage as arranged by the parents of Usha. D.W. 1 Jai Singh has also admitted that the marriage between Usha deceased and Ajit Singh was a love marriage. In view of this evidence and there being no evidence to the contrary, the contention for the accused that Usha was married by her parents to accused Ajit Singh against her wishes and forcibly is not sustainable. On the contrary it is fully and firmly established that their marriage was as per their mutual choice and love.
13. In view of the above findings it is ruled out that the deceased was in love with one Bhushan Kumar and wanted to marry him. Had it been so, the deceased would not have entered into a marriage with accused Ajit Singh of her own accord and choice, as concluded hereinabove.
14. It is also not established that before marrying the accused, the deceased had a love affair with said Bhushan Kumar, therefore, his taking poison led the deceased to attempt to seek divorce from accused Ajit Singh and then marry Bhushan Kumar. It however emerges undisputably from the statements of M.H.C. Sato Ram (D.W. 3) and Dr. Prem (D.W. 4) that on 29.9.1993 said Bhushan Kumar was brought to the District Hospital, Kullu as a case of poisoning. However, there is no evidence that he had consumed poison because of the marriage of deceased with accused Ajit Singh. In fact, there is no evidence to prove that there was any love affair between him and the deceased. On the contrary in view of the statements of P.W. 12 Paras Ram, DI and P.W. 10 K.K. Indoria, who enquired into this aspect of the defence plea, what can be gathered is that father of Bhushan Kumar is a Compounder, therefore, some medicines are kept at their house. Bhushan Kumar developed headache and took some medicine which reacted. If so, the reason for admission of Bhushan Kumar in the hospital as a case of poisoning lay somewhere else making it out to be a case of accidental consumption of some poisonous substance and not a case of attempt to commit suicide consequent upon the deceased marrying accused Ajit Singh. Therefore, the defence of the accused that it was due to consumption of poison by. Bhushan Kumar alleged lover of the deceased, that the deceased wanted to marry him after getting divorce from accused Ajit Singh is untenable and unsustainable.
15. The failure of the accused to establish their defence, however, does not . mean success of the prosecution. It is well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt, and in doing so, the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. Therefore, the prosecution evidence has to be examined and considered on its own merits.
16. According to the prosecution the deceased was led to commit suicide because of harassment and torture at the hands of the accused persons. They used to call her Badmash, Kanjar and an unchaste woman and thus unworthy of being kept in their house. It is so stated by Daulat Ram (P.W. 1), brother of the deceased, Neerat Singh (P.W. 2) father of the deceased, Mangri Devi, mother of the deceased (P.W. 3) and Bimla Devi, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) (P.W. 4) of the deceased. This version is based on the complaints made to them by the deceased. It is further evident from the statements of P.W. 1 Daulat Ram, P.W. 2 Mangri Devi and P.W. 6 Narain Singh that on 1.4.1993 at village Darka the matter regarding Usha was discussed between them and the accused persons in the presence of Usha and two other persons from the village of the accused. As per the version of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 6, the deceased had refused to live in the house of the accused and wanted to live in the house of her parents because the accused persons used to maltreaty torture her. She was, however, advised to go to her matrimonial house which she did. There is yet another instance given by P.Ws. Daulat Singh and Mangri Devi. According to them about 15 days before her death the deceased had come to their house and complained of ill-treatment by the accused person. On the next day both the accused went to the house of Daulat Singh and after reconciliatory discussion the deceased returned to her matrimonial house with them. I find the version of P.Ws- on this count natural, believable, trustworthy and reliable. The reasons are obvious. The witnesses are not to gain anything by making false allegations against the accused. Secondly it is the case set up by the accused themselves that the deceased originally wanted to marry Bhushan Kumar, with whom she was in love. It simply means that the accused were and are satisfied that before marrying the accused, Ajit Singh the deceased had love affairs with Bhushan Kumar. It is immaterial that their suspicions have been found to be unfounded. What is material, is that they believed it. If so, in the ordinary course of human conduct in Hindu society such belief will invariably result in insult, harassment, torture and beating of the woman believed to have had pre-marital love affairs with a person other than her husband. In such a situation the irresistible conclusion is that being satisfied of the love affairs of the deceased, the accused had been harassing and torturing the deceased as is stated by P.Ws. Daulat Singh, Neerat Singh, Mangri Devi, Bimla Devi and Narain Singh.
17. In view of the above discussion, contention of the learned Counsel that P.Ws. Daulat Singh, Neerat Singh, Mangri Devi, Bimla Devi and Narain Singh cannot be relied upon because of their being closely related to the deceased, does not hold good. Even otherwise there is no proposition of law that statements of near relations should be discarded and are not to be believed simply because they are related to the victim. On the contrary they are, natural and reliable witnesses because a woman who is being tortured by her in-laws will only complain to her near relations about her ill-treatment/by her in-laws.
18. To impeach the testimony of the prosecution witnesses it was also contended by the learned Counsel that P.W. 1 Daulat Singh had identified the dead body of deceased on 5.4.1994. However, his statement under Section 154, Cr. P.C. was recorded on 6.4.1994 at 10.00 a.m. and thus, there was ample time for deliberations and to make out a false case against the accused. In this regard a reference may be made to the statement of P.W. 12 Inspector Paras Ram, who has recorded the statement of Daulat Ram under Section 154, Cr. P.C. (Ex. P.W. I/A). He has admittedly recorded the statement on 6.4.1994. He has explained in his statement that Daulat Ram had been telling him verbally during the night also against the accused persons, but since he had already requested for some Gazetted Officer to reach the spot, therefore, his (Daulat Ram) statement was recorded only after arrival of K.K. Indoria, who reached on the spot at about 9.45 a.m. on 6.4.1994. He has denied that the statement was manipulated by him during the night and that is why it was recorded on 6.4.1994. Thus, what is clear from his statement is that P.W. Daulat Singh had though stated facts of the case to him orally during the night, but at that time the Investigating Officer did not record his statement because he had already requested for deputing a Gazetted Officer on the spot. Therefore, such , statement was recorded only after arrival of the Gazetted Officer on the spot. Thus the delay in recording the statement appears to be due to misconception of the law and procedure on the part of Inspector Paras Ram and cannot be held fatal to the prosecution case nor the statements of the witnesses can be disbelieved for this reason.
19. In view of the above discussion and conclusions the prosecution has proved that the cause of committing suicide by Usha deceased was the harassment. and torture met out to her by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge thus rightly convicted the accused persons.
20. In the ordinary course keeping in view the quantum of punishment awarded to the accused by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, this Court would have issued a notice to the accused persons for enhancement of punishment. However, this course is not being adopted for the reasons assigned hereinafter. Firstly the State has not chosen to file appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused. Secondly, as advised by her mother (P.W. 3)', the deceased visited the house of her parents on 3.4.1994. She appears to have left the house of her parents on the same day and while on way to her matrimonial house, she committed suicide at a place nearer to her parents house than her matrimonial house. It is evident from the desire she expressed earlier that due to being tortured by the accused, she did not want to live in her matrimonial house, but wanted to stay in her parents' house. It was this aspect of the matter to discuss which she was asked by P.W. 3Mangri Devi to come to their house as her father would also be at home on that day. It is admitted case of the prosecution that after such visit, her parents again sent her back to her matrimonial house where she never reached. This means that she was asked to return to her matrimonial house against her wishes. It must have added to her already filled in cup of frustration. This, in my view, is a mitigating circumstance justifying lesser punishment to the accused persons. Lastly, the case against the accused persons is now pending for the last more than 5 years. On this count also any interference in the punishment awarded to the accused is not called for at this belated stage.
21. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
22. Accused Nathi Devi had already undergone the imprisonment awarded to her and has also paid the fine. Therefore, no further directions in her case are called for. Accused Ajit Singh, execution of sentence against whom had suspended, will surrender to his bail bonds and appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu within three weeks of the date of this judgment, who will commit him to the Jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. In the event of his failure to do so, the learned Sessions Judge to secure his presence by issuing a non-bailable warrant and on production to commit him to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him.