Punjab-Haryana High Court
Azad Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
-1-
Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
Date of Decision: January 13, 2010.
Azad Singh and another ... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana ...Respondent
1. Whether the 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 ?
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Tarunvir Vashisht, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellants Azad Singh and his mother Smt. Bhali Devi against the judgment of conviction dated 4.3.1999 and the sentence order dated -2- Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
5.3.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jind, whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code). Under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Code, both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under Section 498-A read with section 34 of the Code, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Code, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences except the sentence in lieu of fine were ordered to run concurrently. The total amount of fine, if recovered,was ordered to be paid to the parents of deceased Smt. Neelam.
The instant case was registered on the basis of complaint (Exhibit P.D) made by Jagbir Singh to the Superintendent of Police, Jind. Smt.Neelam (deceased), cousin sister of complainant Jagbir Singh was married with appellant Azad Singh on 5.6.1994. The `Muklava' ceremony had taken place five/six days after the marriage. Appellant Bhali Devi is the mother-in-law of Smt. Neelam. After about five/six months of the marriage, the appellants started harassing and beating Smt.Neelam on account of insufficiency of dowry. Whenever Smt.Neelam used to visit her parental house, she used to tell -3- Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
all these things to her family members. Sometimes the appellants used to send Smt.Neelam to her parental house after beating her. On 16.12.1997, Jai Singh, brother of Smt.Neelam had gone to her matrimonial house and on his return on 17.12.1997, he told Jagbir Singh (complainant) and other members of the family that the appellants had been giving beatings to Smt.Neelam on account of demands of dowry. She also told Jai Singh that the appellants were demanding Refrigerator, Scooter, 28 blankets and equal number of Ladies' Suits for the occasion of `Makar Sakranti'. She further disclosed that the appellants had threatened her that in case their demand was not met, they would not let her survive. On 20.12.1997, a telephonic message was received at the house of the parents of Smt.Neelam from appellant Azad Singh that Smt.Neelam was seriously ill and he asked the family members of Smt.Neelam to reach Pillukhera immediately. On receipt of this message, Jagbir Singh, Jai Singh and Ms.Sheela went to Pillukhera in a Jeep and reached there at about 7 P.M. On reaching the house of the accused, they saw that Smt.Neelam was lying dead on a cot and was covered with a quilt. On removing the quilt, it came to their notice that there was a wound on her neck. The appellants told them that Smt. Neelam had committed suicide. The appellants refused to get the post mortem of Smt.Neelam conducted and forcibly cremated her dead body despite the protest of the witnesses for post mortem examination. Jagbir Singh, Jai Singh and Ms.Sheela returned back to their house in Village Kharbala (Hissar). On the next day, -4- Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
complaint (Exhibit P.D) was made before the Superintendent of Police, Jind, by Jagbir Singh leading to the registration of the instant F.I.R against the appellants.
After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session.
Charge under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Code was framed against the accused, who did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Constable Jaidhan Singh (P.W.1) Assistant Sub Inspector Chander Bhan (P.W.2), Constable Dilbag Singh (P.W.3), Sub Inspector Balbir Singh (P.W.4), complainant Jagbir Singh (P.W.5), Jai Singh (P.W.6) and Sub Inspector Hans Raj (P.W.7).
In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Azad Singh denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He stated as under:-
" I started the business of tent house in
Israna, Distt. Panipat. For that purpose I
borrowed Rs.20,000/- from my father-in-law.
The business did not run well and I could not return the amount to my father-in-law.
Whenever my wife Neelam used to visit her parents' house they used to pressurize her -5- Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
for the return of the amount and she used to tell all these things to me. As I was unable to return the amount so there was a pressure on the mind of my wife on this account. Secondly my wife could not give birth to any child. She used to remain depressed and frustrated and on this account she suffered blood pressure and died a natural death. Her parents and brother were duly informed at the time of her death. They came and the dead body of my wife was cremated in their presence. They did not raise any objection. I never demanded any dowry nor I harassed my wife. On the next day of the cremation some relatives including the brother of my wife came to my house for condolence and demanded Rs.20,000/-. I showed my inability and after due deliberations and consultations they lodged a false F.I.R against me and my mother. "
In her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Smt. Bhali Devi also denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication besides reiterating what has been stated by appellant Azad Singh in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -6-
Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
At the outset, it may be mentioned here that keeping in view the evidence of the prosecution, its case against appellant Smt. Bhali Devi is not free from doubt. In complaint (Exhibit P.D) made by Jagbir Singh to the Superintendent of Police, Jind, leading to the registration of the instant case against the appellants, no specific allegations have been made against Smt.Bhali Devi. General allegations have been levelled against Smt. Bhali Devi that she was hand in glove with appellant Azad Singh in torturing Smt.Neelam on account of insufficiency of dowry. It is a tendency on the part of the family of the victim to rope in as many members of the family of the in- laws of the victim in a case like this as possible. However, in this case, in a way, appellant Azad Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reproduced above, has admitted that he had taken Rs.20,000/- from his father-in-law for running the business of tent house, which, as per his averment, he could not return. The role of appellant Azad Singh in the commission of the crime will be discussed in the later part of the judgment. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that appellant Smt.Bhali Devi had nothing to do with the demand of dowry, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the prosecution against Smt.Bhali Devi is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and she is entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt. -7-
Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
The question arises as to whether accused-appellant Azad Singh is liable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Code for which offences he has been found guilty by the learned trial Judge. Section 304-B of the Code, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:-
" 304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where
the death of a woman is caused by any
burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown
that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death".
As per the provisions of Section 304-B of the Code, the offence of "dowry death" consists of three ingredients i.e death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; that the death occurs within seven years of her marriage; and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for or in connection with any -8- Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
demand for dowry. If these three ingredients are there, the offence of "dowry death" can be said to be complete and proved.
In this case, as has been held by the trial Court, Smt.Neelam died within seven years of her marriage. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, accused- appellant Azad Singh has admitted in answer to question No.1 that his marriage with Smt.Neelam was solemnized in June, 1994 i.e about three and a half years prior to her death. Death of Smt. Neelam occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. The fact that soon before her death Smt. Neelam was subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellant Azad Singh for or in connection with any demand of dowry, is also proved on record as is evident from the evidence led by the prosecution. Both Jagbir Singh complainant (P.W.5) and Jai Singh (P.W.6), besides stating that Smt. Neelam Singh being continuously harassed by appellant Azad Singh, stated that on 16.12.1997, Jai Singh (P.W.6), who is brother of Smt.Neelam (deceased) had gone to the matrimonial house of Smt. Neelam and on his return on 17.12.1997, he told Jagbir Singh (P.W.5) and other members of the family that Smt. Neelam had been given beatings on account of demands of dowry. Smt. Neelam had told Jai Singh that there was demand of Refrigerator, Scooter, blankets and and Ladies' Suits. She had further disclosed to Jai Singh (P.W.6) that there was a threat to her life in case the demand was not met. On 20.12.1997, a -9- Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
telephonic message was received at the house of the parents of Smt.Neelam from appellant Azad Singh that Smt.Neelam was ill and he asked the family members of Smt.Neelam to reach Pillukhera immediately. On receipt of this message, Jagbir Singh, Jai Singh and Ms.Sheela (wife of the brother of Jai Singh) went to Pillukhera in a Jeep. On reaching the house of the accused, they saw that Smt.Neelam was lying dead on a cot and was covered with a quilt. On removing the quilt, it came to their notice that there was a wound on her neck. On an inquiry, it was revealed to Jagbir Singh, Jai Singh and Ms. Sheela that Smt. Neelam had committed suicide by hanging. When Jagbir Singh, Jai Singh and Ms.Sheela asked the accused to get the post mortem of Smt.Neelam conducted, the accused started threatening them. Despite the protest of the witnesses for post mortem examination of Smt.Neelam, the accused cremated her dead body. Jagbir Singh, Jai Singh and Ms.Sheela, being frightened, returned back to their house in Village Kharbala (Hissar). On the next day, complaint (Exhibit P.D) was made before the Superintendent of Police, Jind, by Jagbir Singh, which was signed by Om Parkash, Jaswant Singh, Ram Mehar Singh, Sultan Singh, Mahender etc. as well and on its basis the instant case was registered against the accused. The above discussed evidence clearly establishes that soon before Smt.Neelam ended her life, she was subjected to cruelty by accused-appellant Azad Singh on account of demand of dowry. So, the third ingredient of the offence of "dowry death" i.e whether the deceased was subjected -10- Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
to cruelty or harassment soon before her death for or in connection with dowry demands by accused-appellant Azad Singh, stands proved from the evidence on record. Besides, as noticed above, appellant Azad Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, stated that he had started the business of tent house in Israna, Distt. Panipat. He had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from my father-in-law. However, his business did not run well and he could not return the amount to his father-in-law. He further stated that whenever Smt. Neelam used to visit her parents' house they used to pressurize her for the return of the amount and she used to tell all these things to appellant Azad Singh. He stated that Smt. Neelam used to remain depressed and frustrated as he was unable to return the amount. The appellant took a unique stand that on the next day of the cremation of Smt. Neelam some relatives including the brother of Smt.Neelam came to his house for condolence and demanded Rs.20,000/-. He showed his inability and thereafter the instant F.I.R was lodged. As noticed above, there is overwhelming evidence in the form of the statements of Jagbir Singh (P.W.5) and Jai Singh (P.W.6) that the dead body of Smt.Neelam was cremated by the accused despite protests by them as they wanted to get post mortem of Smt.Neelam conducted. Therefore, the question of any member of the complainant party to go to the house of the accused for condolences on the next day and demand return of the amount of Rs.20,000/- did not arise. The accused cremated the dead -11- Criminal Appeal No.292-SB of 1999.
body of Smt.Neelam despite protests by the complainant party to subject the dead body to post mortem examination. It was done by the accused to destroy evidence. It lends complete support to the testimonies of Jagbir Singh (P.W.5) and Jai Singh (P.W.6) that there was a wound on the neck of Smt.Neelam when they saw her dead body.
For the aforesaid reasons, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused-appellant Azad Singh under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Code. The impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court in respect of appellant Azad Singh is, therefore, upheld. The sentence imposed upon appellant Azad Singh also commensurates with the offence committed by him. The impugned sentence order is also, accordingly, upheld.
The net result is that this appeal qua appellant Smt.Bhali Devi is accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order qua her is set aside and she is acquitted of the charge framed against her by giving her the benefit of doubt. However, this appeal qua appellant Azad Singh is dismissed.
January 13, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE