Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep vs State Of Haryana on 15 July, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) Crl. Appeal No.90-DB of 2008
....
Sandeep.
....... Appellant through
Vinod Ghai,Advocate.
Versus
State of Haryana.
...... Respondent through
Shri Saurabh Mohunta,
Deputy Advocate
General, Haryana.
(2) Crl. Appeal No.93-DB of 2008
....
Azad Singh and another.
....... Appellants through
Vinod Ghai,Advocate.
Versus
State of Haryana.
...... Respondent through
Shri Saurabh Mohunta,
Deputy Advocate
General, Haryana.
Date of Decision: 15.07.2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
....
Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008
-2-
....
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J.
The appellants of the two appeals captioned as above have been held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short `the I.P.C.') by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as `the trial court') vide judgment dated 19.1.2008 and have been sentenced vide the order of sentence of the same date, as under:-
Name of the Offence Period of Fine Period of
appellant. punishable sentence. imposed. sentence in
under section. (in Rs.) default of
(rigorous payment of
imprisonment) fine.
(rigorous
imprisonment)
Sandeep 304-B of Life 10,000/- one year
the I.P.C. Imprisonment.
498-A of 3 years 2,000/- 6 months
the I.P.C.
406 of 2 years 1,000/- 3 months
the I.P.C.
Azad 304-B of 10 years 10,000/- 9 months
Singh the I.P.C.
498-A of 3 years 2,000/- 6 months
the I.P.C.
406 of 2 years 1,000/- 3 months
the I.P.C.
Bedo 304-B of 10 years 10,000/- 9 months
the I.P.C.
498-A of 3 years 2,000/- 6 months
the I.P.C.
406 of 2 years 1,000/- 3 months
the I.P.C.
Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008
-3-
....
The case set up against them by Police Station, Rai is as under:-
Padam Singh, complainant is a resident of village Rohat, District Sonepat. He is doing business as property dealer. He had one brother and one sister. His father died about 22 years back. He has been the eldest amongst brothers and sister. Younger to him has been his sister Geeta, aged 22 years and the youngest of the three had been Kadam Singh, aged 20 years. The complainant married Geeta on 13.2.2005 with Sandeep son of Azad Singh, a resident of village Asawarpur as per Hindu rites. He gave dowry in the marriage beyond his capacity. The in-laws of Geeta started harassing her soon after the marriage for more dowry. Padam Singh and others on his side, pleaded with the in-laws of Geeta several times and tried to tell them to see reason. They, however, did not care for such entreaties Once in the month of August,2005, Sandeep, husband of Geeta demanded a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs on the pretext of getting her admitted in J.B.T. course.
Padam Singh along with his uncle (tau) Azad Singh gave this money at village Asawarpur. However, Geeta was not got admitted anywhere nor was she kept well. Sandeep, the husband, Azad Singh, father-in- law, Bedo, mother-in-law and Parveen, sister-in-law of Geeta used to beat her and taunt her telling her that she had come from a beggar's family. About three months back, Geeta gave birth to a son named Jatin. On the birth of Jatin, demand for a maruti car was made in Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -4- ....
`Peelia'. It was made clear that if the demand for car was not met, they will make pucca arrangement of Geeta. Padam Singh told the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law of Geeta that it was not within their capacity to give a car. On 16.2.2006, some unknown person made a telephonic call at about 8.00 A.M. from village Asawarpur to Karan Singh son of Siri Lal, resident of Rohat, uncle of the complainant, that Geeta had been taken to Civil Hospital, Sonepat and that the complainant and others should take care of her. On this information, Padam Singh accompanied by his tau Azad Singh, his mother Kamla and some other villagers reached Civil Hospital, Sonepat where Geeta was found admitted with 100% burns. Padam Singh, Azad Singh and Kamla enquired from Geeta on which she told them that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband had set her afire by pouring kerosene on her for not bringing car as demanded by them. She requested them for saving her life. The doctor then referred Geeta to P.G.I.M.S.,Rohtak for treatment. When Padam Singh and others were taking Geeta to P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak, she breathed her last at the main gate of the hospital itself. Geeta was brought back to the hospital and got checked up from the doctor. She was declared dead by the doctor.
On receipt of a telephonic message from Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat, Ram Tirath, A.S.I. along with other police Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -5- ....
officials reached Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat. He collected two ruqas of the doctor regarding admission and death of Geeta. He had found Padam Singh present near mortuary of Civil Hospital, Sonepat. He recorded the statement of Padam Singh and had made his endorsement thereon. He had sent it to Police Station, Rai where Rajpal, A.S.I. registered a case for an offence punishable under section 304-B of the I.P.C. Special report of the case was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and others through Naveen Kumar, constable. Ram Tirath, A.S.I. then conducted inquest proceedings. He recorded the statements of Azad Singh and Kamla. He made a written request for conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of Geeta. Dr.Alankrita and Dr.R.K.Kataria of Civil Hospital, Sonepat conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Geeta on 16.2.2006 itself. They found her to have superficial to deep burns on whole of the body. According to them, the cause of death was due to shock and suffocation as a result of burn injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. After the post mortem examination, the dead body of Geeta was handed over to her relatives. Ram Tirath, A.S.I. then accompanied by the complainant went to the spot. He had found the bedding and the mattress to be burnt at the spot. He got the spot photographed. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -6- ....
thereof. He had found a match box, a half burnt chunni, a burnt hawai chappal at the spot which he converted into a parcel and sealed it with the seal of `PS'. He took the said parcel into possession by way of recovery memo. The appellants were not found at the spot. Returning to the police station, Ram Tirath, A.S.I. handed over the case property to the M.H.C. On 17.2.2006, F.S.L. team was called to the spot. Ram Tirath, A.S.I. accompanied the said team. Deputy Superintendent of Police (City) also visited the spot to verify the investigation. Smt.Kamlesh Rani, Senior Scientific Officer, F.S.L., Madhuban prepared her report Exhibit PX about the visit of the team to the scene of crime. The appellants and the complainant party were called to the police station, but the appellants did not come there. Ram Tirath, A.S.I. kept searching for them. On 23.2.2006, Padam Singh, complainant had handed over the list of dowry articles given in the marriage. The same was taken into possession. On 23.2.2006 itself, Sandeep and Bedo, appellants, were arrested. They were produced by Rohtas of village Asawarpur. The appellants produced the dowry articles which were taken into possession vide a recovery memo.
On 25.2.2006, Padam Singh produced invitation card got printed for the marriage of the deceased. The said card was taken into possession by way of a recovery memo. On 7.3.2006, a site plan to Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -7- ....
scale of the place of occurrence was got prepared from Constable Inderpal - draftsman. Taking photographs from the photographer on 8.3.2006 and recording the statements of the witnesses, challan against Sandeep and Bedo, appellants was prepared by Nar Singh, S.I., S.H.O. Charge against Sandeep and Bedo for an offence punishable under section 304-B of the I.P.C. with an alternative charge for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. and section 406 of the I.P.C. was framed on 24.4.2006 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Padam Singh was then put in the witness box and after recording his statement and tendering report Exhibit PB of the F.S.L., an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for brevity "the Cr.P.C.") was made for summoning Azad Singh, appellant and Parveen as additional accused. The trial court allowed the said application vide order dated 29.7.2006. On appearance of Azad Singh and Parveen, charge was again framed against the four for an offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498- A with an alternative charge for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 as well as under section 406 of the I.P.C. vide order dated 24.8.2006. The appellants and Parveen pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.
The order dated 29.7.2006 of summoning Azad Singh and Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -8- ....
Parveen was challenged before this Court and vide order dated 13.3.2007, the said order was set aside qua Parveen. So, Azad Singh faced trial along with Sandeep and Bedo on the said charge.
The prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses in all at the trial. The appellants were examined thereafter in terms of section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The marriage of Geeta, sister of Padam Singh, complainant with Sandeep on 13.2.2005 has been admitted. Giving of dowry in the marriage or demand thereof at the time of marriage or thereafter as well as harassment of Geeta on account of the same have been denied. Sandeep, appellant, has claimed himself to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated by the complainant on account of natural hatred that developed in his mind after the death of Geeta. According to him, the complainant and his family members were not having cordial relations with the deceased and were not on visiting terms with her. He has added that when Geeta gave birth to a male child, the deceased had to remain admitted in the hospital for weeks together because it was caesarean delivery. He has further stated that none from the side of the complainant came to see her. He has even denied the complainant to have given "Peelia". He has further stated that on account of this conduct of the complainant side, Geeta felt aggrieved and disappointed. He has even gone to the extent of saying that whenever Geeta tried to talk to the complainant or his mother, she Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -9- ....
was rebuked by them. Geeta is consequently said to have become mentally upset on account of which she committed suicide by burning herself after confining in a room which was bolted from inside. The same is the stand of Azad Singh and Bedo, the two other appellants before us. In their defence, they have examined seven witnesses and tendering some documents in evidence, they closed the same.
Hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by the counsel for the complainant and learned defence counsel, the trial court held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A and 406 of the I.P.C. He did not find the prosecution to have succeeded in bringing home the charge for an offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellants. Hearing on quantum of sentence was given thereafter on the same day and the sentence detailed as above was awarded to the appellants.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the two appeals have been brought by the appellants.
We have heard Shri Vinod Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Saurabh Mohunta, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. We have also gone through the record carefully.
Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -10- ....
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Padam Singh, PW10, Kamla, PW11 and Ajay Kumar, PW12 have stated that they reached Civil Hospital, Sonepat where they found Geeta admitted with 100% burns. They have stated that they went to see her inside the hospital and Geeta told them that on account of non- giving of car by them, her husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law had burnt her after pouring kerosene on her. According to learned counsel for the appellants, this statement has been disbelieved by the trial court and that too for very good reasons. He has contended that Dr. J.K.Tyagi, PW9 conducted medico-legal examination of Geeta on 16.2.2006 on her arrival in the hospital. According to him, this witness has admitted in very clear terms that Geeta could not tell him any thing being unconscious. He has further submitted that Geeta was examined by him at 8.50 A.M. and without becoming conscious, she died. He has, thus, submitted that three witnesses, who are the main witnesses of the prosecution have told a lie on a very important aspect of the case which makes them unreliable.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Azad Singh, appellant, the father-in-law of the deceased, is admitted by Padam Singh, PW10 to be a well-to-do person having good property and a car. According to him, there was no occasion for him to have made any demand for dowry upon Geeta. He has Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -11- ....
submitted that the complainant has tried to implicate Azad Singh, Bedo and Parveen in view of the tendency developing in the society of roping in all the relations of the in-laws of the deceased. He has further submitted that demand of dowry does not attract the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B of the I.P.C. unless it is accompanied by harassment of the woman by the husband or his relatives in connection with the said demand. He has submitted that in a case where the persons other than the husband have been roped in on the charge of dowry death, the overt acts attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has cited before us Kans Raj Versus State of Punjab, 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 695 in support of his submission.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that if abetment of suicide by the bride is in connection with demand of dowry, then the offence punishable under section 304-B of the I.P.C. is attracted, but if the harassment is not proved to be in connection with demand of dowry, then the offence that would stand attracted is punishable under section 306 of the I.P.C. He has submitted that the demand in this case in August,2005 had been for Rs.1.5 lacs which amount was demanded in connection with admission of Geeta in J.B.T, course. According to him, Padam Singh is not proved on record to be a property dealer or a well-to-do person.
Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -12- ....
He has submitted that Padam Singh claims to have arranged this amount from here and there including withdrawal of Rs.45000/- from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mission Road, Sonepat. He has submitted that neither passbook of that bank has been produced by him nor the persons from whom he arranged the balance were examined. He has further submitted that Azad Singh, appellant had a car with him and there was no occasion for him and others to have demanded the car. He has contended that these circumstances clearly show that there was no harassment of the deceased in connection with demand of dowry and, therefore, section 304-B of the I.P.C. does not stand attracted against them.
The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellants has been that no good reason has been given by learned trial court for awarding the maximum punishment to the appellants. According to him, it is not a case where any sentence above the minimum one provided for the offence was required to be awarded to the appellants.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that the marriage having taken place on 13.2.2005, Geeta died on 16.2.2006. According to him, she survived only for 368 days after marriage. He has further submitted that the deceased had given birth to a male child three months earlier to her Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -13- ....
death. According to him, Geeta would not have committed suicide if she was not harassed in connection with demand of dowry. He has submitted that the statements of Padam Singh, Kamla and Ajay Kumar could not be entirely rejected for the reason that they are found to be telling lie on one aspect of the case. According to him, the English maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" does not apply to the conditions in India. He has, thus, supported the judgment of conviction of the appellants, as also the sentence awarded to them.
The medical evidence coming in the statement of Dr.J.K.Tyagi, PW9 has ruled out the possibility of Geeta having told Padam Singh and others of her being set on fire by pouring kerosene on her by the appellants. Learned trial court has rightly rejected the evidence of Padam Singh, Kamla and Ajay Kumar in this regard. Geeta had been brought to Civil Hospital, Sonepat at 8.50 A.M. as is revealed by the medico-legal report Exhibit PK. Padam Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 16.2.2006 at about 8.00 A.M., an anonymous call was received on the telephone of his tau Karan Singh telling that Geeta had been admitted in Civil Hospital, Sonepat. If as per the medical evidence, she was brought to the hospital at 8.50 A.M., there could no no call received on telephone of Karan Singh at 8.00 A.M. that Geeta had been admitted in Civil Hospital, Sonepat. If Geeta had been admitted in hospital at 8.50 A.M. Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -14- ....
and the call had been made telling the complainant side that Geeta had been admitted in hospital, then the said call must have been made after 8.50 A.M. and in these circumstances, there was no possibility for Geeta to have told Padam Singh and others at about 9.00 A.M. that she was set afire by the appellants and Parveen.
However, the fact that Padam Singh and others have told a lie in this regard would not be a circumstance sufficient to discard their statements in toto. The court is obliged to shift falsehood in the statements from truth and to place reliance on the statements that inspire confidence.
It is a case where Geeta died a year after her marriage. It is pertinent to note that three months prior to her death, she was blessed with a son. A woman, who had been blessed with a son, cannot be believed to have committed suicide for any flimsy reason, projected by the appellants in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
Padam Singh, PW10 has stated that in August,2005, Sandeep, appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs on the pretext of getting Geeta admitted in J.B.T. course. This amount is stated by Padam Singh, PW10 to have been paid to Sandeep alone. Padam Singh has stated in his cross-examination that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.45000/- from the joint account of his grand-mother Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -15- ....
Same Kaur and his tau Azad Singh. He has given the name of the bank and address of the branch. It is correct that he did not bring the passbook of the said account carrying the said entry of withdrawal. However, he was not obliged to bring the same unless he was asked to do so. If the defence wanted to challenge him on this part of his statement, he could be asked to bring the said passbook, as also to bring other persons from whom he had arranged the amount. So, the statement of Padam Singh in this regard cannot be discarded.
Padam Singh, PW10 has also stated that after the birth of male child to Geeta, a demand for car was made to be met in "Peelia".
"Peelia" is the name given to the customary gifts given on the occasion of birth of a child to the bride by the parental side of the bride. A car does not fall within the category of such customary gifts and demand of a car is nothing but demand of dowry. However, as has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants, demand of dowry does not constitute an offence punishable under section 304-B of the I.P.C., unless it is accompanied by cruelty or harassment by the husband or relatives of the husband towards a woman. This proposition of law is laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Amar Singh Versus State of Rajasthan, 2010(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 53.
As is clear from the statement of Padam Singh, PW10 the demand of Rs.1.5 lacs was made by Sandeep upon Geeta and the Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -16- ....
amount was paid to him. No role of Azad Singh and Bedo, appellants comes in evidence with regard to this demand. The other demand is of car and the evidence of involvement of Azad Singh and Bedo in this demand comes by way of sweeping statements where what to talk of strict proof of the overt acts of the parents of the husband, there is no specific statement regarding the overt acts of the parents of the husband. What Padam Singh has stated in this regard is that Sandeep, husband of Geeta and his other family members, i.e., parents and sister made a demand for maruti car in "Peelia" and they threatened that they will make some pucca arrangement of Geeta if the car was not given. This statement on the part of Padam Singh does not satisfy the requirement of proof of overt acts attributed to parents-in-law as has been laid down in Kans Raj's case (supra).
However, before we further comment on the involvement of Azad Singh and Bedo, it may be clearly noticed from the evidence on record that it is a case of harassment of the deceased for demand of dowry and not otherwise. Therefore, there is no question of the present case having been covered under section 306 of the I.P.C. instead of section 304-B of the I.P.C.
Coming to the evidence against Azad Singh and Bedo, appellants, the parents of the husband, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove its case against them as per the standard of proof laid Crl.Appeal No.90-DB of 2008 -17- ....
down in Kans Raj's case (supra), The sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence punishable under section 304-B of the I.P.C. is the maximum sentence provided for the offence. We do not find this case to be a rare case in which awarding of maximum sentence provided for the offence could be held justified.
Keeping in view all these circumstances, we accept appeal no.93-DB of 2008 brought by Azad Singh and Bedo and setting aside the judgment of their conviction and order of sentence, acquit them of the charge. We further partly accept appeal no.90-DB of 2008) and while upholding the conviction of Sandeep as recorded by the trial court, modify the sentence awarded to him by reducing the same from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence punishable under section 304-B of the I.P.C.
The other parts of the sentence awarded to him by the trial court shall remain the same. However, the substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
(HEMANT GUPTA ) ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE JUDGE
JULY 15,2011
"SCM"