Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 3 November, 2011
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002
Date of decision : November 03, 2011
Satish Kumar
....Appellant
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. RS Ghuman, Advocate, for the appellant
Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Accused Satish Kumar has filed the instant criminal appeal assailing his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide judgment dated 29.4.2002 and order dated 1.5.2002 thereby convicting the accused appellant under section 304-B IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs 500/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, while acquitting appellant's father Balwan Singh and younger brother Rajinder Kumar co-accused by the same judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -2-
Prosecution case in brief is that marriage of Sunita (since deceased) with appellant Satish Kumar was solemnised on 7.3.1999. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage. However, all the three accused were not happy and satisfied with the dowry and demanded more dowry including motorcycle from the deceased and harassed her for the same. She always narrated it to her parental family whenever she visited them. Parents of the deceased assured the accused to satisfy the demand of motorcycle in due course. About 10 days prior to death of Sunita, her brother Mahavir Singh complainant had visited her in her matrimonial home to bring her to parental home. Even at that time, the accused made demand of motorcycle. The deceased insisted to accompany her brother because she apprehended physical harm at the hands of the accused. However, in spite of request by the deceased and complainant Mahavir Singh, the accused did not send the deceased with the complainant. On 9.5.2000 at 6.00 AM, telephonic message was received from the accused that Sunita had died. Accordingly, Ram Kumar, father of the deceased, Mahavir Singh complainant, brother of the deceased, and other relatives went to the house of the accused where dead body of Sunita was lying. Mahavir Singh reported the matter to the police and thereupon FIR was registered and investigated. Inquest report of the dead body was prepared. Post mortem was got conducted on the dead body. Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia on account of ante-mortem hanging, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Rough Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -3- site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Accused Satish Kumar was arrested on 12.5.2000 whereas other two accused were arrested on 13.5.2000. They made confessional statements. Accused Satish Kumar also made disclosure statement and got recovered a rope. On completion of investigation, police presented report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of all the three accused under sections 302, 304-B and 498-A read with section 34 IPC.
Charge under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and in the alternative under section 304-B IPC was framed against all the three accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Dr. RK Singla, PW1 stated about post mortem examination conducted by him along with Dr. Mrs Shashi Singla on the dead body of the deceased and about the cause of death.
Constable Rajinder Singh, PW2 is a formal witness. He had taken the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination.
Karan Singh, PW3 stated that marriage of deceased with Satish Kumar accused was solemnised on 7.3.1999.
Complainant Mahavir Singh, PW4 and his father Ram Kumar, PW5 broadly stated according to the prosecution version.
Head Constable Rajinder Singh, PW6 stated about confessional statement made by accused Satish Kumar.
Kali Ram, PW7 stated that Sunita since deceased was married Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -4- with Satish Kumar accused on 7.3.1999. He attended the marriage which was a decent marriage. After the marriage at the time of departure of marriage party, Satish Kumar demanded motorcycle. The said demand was reiterated by Balwan Singh accused. Father of the deceased promised to give motorcycle after 2/3 months. However, Satish Kumar and his father were not satisfied with dowry. Later on Sunita met violent death which was dowry death.
ASI Ravinder Kumar, PW8 stated that he recorded formal FIR on receiving statement of Mahavir Singh.
SI Virender Singh, PW9 stated that he prepared report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in this case.
Kuldeep Singh, Draftsman, PW10 stated that he prepared scaled site plan of the place of the occurrence.
ASI Ajmer Singh, PW11 stated about investigation of the case conducted by him.
Constable Gurmail Singh, PW12 stated that he delivered special report of the case to Illaqa Magistrate.
Shashi Bhushan, Photographer, PW13 proved photographs taken at the spot.
The accused in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. while admitting the factum of marriage of deceased Sunita with accused Satish Kumar broadly denied all other incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -5- Accused Satish Kumar alleged that he along with his wife was residing separately from his father and brother i.e. co-accused. He also stated that the deceased had love affair with one Sanju who was on visiting terms at her parental home. They also used to exchange love letters. It continued even after the marriage. It was also alleged that he was not willing to marry Sunita but the marriage was performed against wishes of Sunita. On 8.5.2000, he caught Sunita writing letter to Sanju resulting in exchange of hot words. He slapped her. Resultantly she committed suicide in early hours of 9.5.2000 while he was out of his house. Parents of the deceased were informed. The said letter dated 8.5.2000 was recovered by the police but has been withheld from the court. Parents of Sunita demanded marriage expenses and on refusal this false case was lodged.
In defence, the accused examined two witnesses.
Ved Pal, DW1 and Dhup Singh DW2 stated that accused Balwan Singh and Rajinder Kumar were residing separately from accused Satish Kumar. They were paying separate chula tax. Ved Pal was Sarpanch at the time of his examination whereas Dhup Singh had remained Sarpanch earlier for two terms.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide impugned judgment dated 29.4.2002 convicted accused Satish Kumar under section 304-B IPC but acquitted his co-accused Rajinder Kumar and Balwan Singh, and after hearing on sentence, vide order dated 1.5.2002, convict Satish Kumar was sentenced as already noticed hereinbefore. Feeling aggrieved, the convict Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -6- has preferred the instant criminal appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that except oral statements of Mahavir Singh complainant, PW4 and Ram Kumar, PW5 (brother and father respectively of the deceased), there is no documentary evidence to prove demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased for the same. It was contended that the deceased had appeared in matriculation examination as admitted by the complainant but no letter was written by the deceased to her parental family regarding alleged demand of dowry and her harassment for the same. It was also submitted that no report was lodged earlier with the police in this regard nor relatives or friends were informed nor any Panchayat was convened. It was also pointed out that the complainant stated in his cross-examination that engagement ceremony had taken place 1½/2 years prior to the marriage and neither at the time of engagement ceremony nor during the intervening period till marriage, there was any demand of dowry by the accused. It was also submitted that Sunita had passed middle examination at the time of marriage and the appellant motivated her to appear in matriculation examination as admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination. It was also submitted that appellant had written two letters to his in-laws i.e. to complainant party, but the same did not contain any demand of dowry. It was also pointed out that according to Ram Kumar, PW5, the deceased had Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -7- visited their house about six months prior to her death and during this period, complainant Mahavir Singh had visited her about 10 days prior to her death. It was also canvassed that information regarding death of Sunita was given to her parents by the accused themselves and they did not cremate the dead body before arrival of the complainant party. Reference was also made to defence version to contend that the deceased committed suicide because she was reprimanded by the appellant on being caught writing love letter to Sanju.
On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that Mahavir Singh complainant, PW4 and Ram Kumar, PW5 have deposed about demand of dowry by the accused and harassment of the deceased for the same. Their statements are corroborated by PW7 Kali Ram. This evidence is sufficient to prove all ingredients of offence of dowry death. It was also pointed out that death of Sunita occurred after 14 months of her marriage and therefore, there was no occasion for the deceased to have written letters to her parental family. It was also pointed out that the appellant is husband of the deceased who died in the matrimonial home and appellant is responsible for her death.
I have considered the rival contentions. Merely because there is no written document about demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased for the same, it cannot be said that the same is not proved. Ordinarily in such cases, there cannot be any written document. On the other hand, it is admitted case of the parties that marriage of the deceased Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -8- with the appellant took place on 7.3.1999 and the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 9.5.2000 i.e. one year two months after the marriage. Accordingly, first two ingredients of the offence of dowry death i.e. death of the deceased took place within seven years of her marriage and the death took place otherwise than under normal circumstances, are not in dispute. Thus, the only ingredient that remains to be adjudicated upon is as to whether there was demand of dowry and harassment or cruelty towards the deceased for or in connection with such demand soon before her death.
To prove this remaining ingredient of the offence of dowry death, prosecution has led sufficient evidence. There are statements of Mahavir Singh complainant, PW4 (brother of the deceased) and Ram Kumar, PW5 (father of the deceased). They have deposed that the accused had been making dowry demand from the deceased and had been harassing her for the same. The deceased had been telling them about it. Mahvir Singh, PW4 even visited the deceased in her matrimonial home 5/6 times as stated by him. Even then, he was told about demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased for the same. Statements of these two witnesses are further corroborated by testimony of Kali Ram, PW7. It is, thus, manifest that the appellant had been demanding dowry including motorcycle from the deceased and had been harassing her for the same. This continued till soon before her death because Mahavir Singh had gone to the house of the appellant even 10 days before the death of the deceased. Even otherwise, there was consistent and continuous demand of dowry and harassment of Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -9- the deceased during the short span of her married life total spanning over one year and two months only. Thus, the demand and harassment continued till soon before her death. Thus, all ingredients of offence of dowry death are established.
As noticed hereinbefore, it may be highlighted at the risk of repetition that the deceased died just 14 months after her marriage. She died in the matrimonial home. Admittedly, even according to the defence version, the deceased committed suicide. It is also established by medical evidence. Appellant is husband of the deceased. It is, thus, manifest that the appellant is responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased. There is positive evidence led by the prosecution to depict that the deceased committed suicide because of demand of dowry being made from her by the appellant and for the same, appellant was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment. The defence version that the appellant had caught the deceased writing love letter to one Sanju on the preceding night and scolded her for the same leading to commission of suicide by the deceased early next morning, remains completely unsubstantiated. There is not even an iota of material on record to substantiate the said defence version. The alleged letter being written by the deceased has not seen the light of the day. As an escape route for not producing the said letter, the appellant pleaded that the police had recovered the said letter and destroyed the same. However, again there is no material on record to substantiate the version that any such letter was seized by the police. Even otherwise, if the Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -10- deceased was having love affair with Sanju and the love affair continued even after the marriage of the deceased with the appellant, the deceased would not have committed suicide merely because there was exchange of hot words between appellant and the deceased when the latter was caught by the former while writing love letter to Sanju. In this context, it is also worth mentioning that the deceased did not commit suicide immediately after the appellant had allegedly caught her writing love letter and there was exchange of hot words. On the other hand, this incident allegedly took place on 8.5.2000 whereas the deceased committed suicide in early hours of 9.5.2000 and therefore, there was sufficient time for the tempers to cool down and better sense to prevail. There is nothing on record to substantiate the defence version that the deceased committed suicide for the alleged reason.
The mere fact that there was no demand at the time of engagement ceremony or till before the marriage would not be sufficient to conclude that there was no demand of dowry even after the marriage. Possibly the appellant might be expecting more dowry in the marriage and the dowry given in the marriage was below his expectation and therefore, he made demand of more dowry including motorcycle.
The fact that the appellant motivated the deceased to appear in matriculation examination has no link with the instant case. It has no bearing on the merits of the case. This circumstance would not show that there was no demand of dowry by the appellant and there was no Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -11- harassment of the deceased by him.
There was no occasion for the deceased to have written letter to her parental family regarding demand of dowry and her consequent harassment because during the short span of one year two months of her married life, she had visited her parental family 3/4 times and even her brother had visited her on 5/6 occasions during the same period. Consequently, she had ample opportunity to communicate with their family members face to face and to narrate her tale of woes to them. Even otherwise, it is not very common to write letter regarding demand of dowry etc. by a married woman to her parental family. In any event, merely because no such letter was written by the deceased, the prosecution evidence cannot be discarded or doubted.
The fact that the appellant had written two routine letters to his in- laws without mentioning any demand of dowry is also of no help to the appellant. The appellant very well knew that writing of any such demand in the letter would be strong piece of evidence against him.
Merely because no report was earlier made to the police regarding demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased is also not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case. It is well known that if any such report is made to the police, then chances of rehabilitation of the wife in the matrimonial home are almost eliminated. The marriage lasted for one year two months only and obviously the family members of the deceased wanted to settle the matter themselves. They had even assured the accused that Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -12- motorcycle would also be given in due course. In this view of the matter, it was prudent on the part of the family members of the deceased not to have reported the matter to the police and also not to have taken the matter to relatives, friends or Panchayat. Such matters are taken to relatives, friends or Panchayat when efforts of the family members fail. The matter is taken to police when efforts of friends, relatives and Panchayat also fail. In the instant case, however, no such occasion arose because the deceased was forced to commit suicide just after one year two months of her marriage with the appellant.
The fact that the accused informed the complainant party about death of the deceased would not by itself be sufficient to exculpate the appellant. The deceased had died just one year two months after the marriage and therefore, her dead body could not have been cremated by the accused without informing her parental family. If they had done so, it would also have given rise to adverse presumption against them. As already noticed hereinbefore, the defence version remains completely unsubstantiated.
For the reasons aforesaid, I conclude that the prosecution has led sufficient, cogent and credible evidence to prove all ingredients of the offence of dowry death against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction of the appellant is well founded. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is affirmed.
As regards quantum of sentence, only minimum sentence of Criminal Appeal No. 1236-SB of 2002 -13- imprisonment for seven years provided under section 304-B IPC has been imposed on the appellant by the trial Judge, notwithstanding the aggravating circumstance that the deceased had died just one year two months after her marriage. Consequently, sentence of imprisonment also does not warrant any reduction being the minimum sentence awardable for the offence. However, sentence of fine of Rs 500/- imposed by the trial court has to be set aside because section 304-B IPC does not provide for imposition of any fine on the convict. Accordingly, sentence of fine of Rs 500/- imposed by the trial court is set aside.
Subject to setting aside of sentence of fine of Rs 500/-, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed. The appellant who is on bail shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment.
( L.N. Mittal )
November 03, 2011 Judge
'dalbir'