Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chhabil Dass vs State Of Haryana on 1 October, 1991
Equivalent citations: I(1992)DMC279
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th May, 1989, passed by the Sessions Judge Bhiwani, whereby appellants Chhabil Dass and Inder Sain were convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, (for short 'the Code') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : Rajbala (deceased was the daughter of Manbhari (P.W. 7) and sister of Ramesh (P.W. 6). Her father had died. The marriage of Rajbala was solemnized with Inder Sain accused about a year prior to 4th May, 1988. Inder Sain and his brother Chhabil Dass accused were joint in residence as also in business. For about six months after the marriage of Rajbala, she did not air any grievance to her brother and mother. Thereafter she complained to them that she was being harassed and tortured by both the accused for having not brought sufficient dowry in the marriage Chhabil Dass accused had been compelling her to sleep with him and to have sexualintercourse. About 11/2 months prior to 4th May, 1988, Rajbala came to the house of her parents and told them that she was being continuously harassed by both the accused for not bringing sufficient dowry and that Chhabil Dass had been treating her as his wife and compelling her to have sexual intercourse with him against her wishes. She also told her mother and brother that the accused were demanding Rs 5,000/- more by way of dowry. Ramesh and Manbhari (P.Ws) thereafter arranged a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of loan from Dinod Gramin Bank and paid the same to the accused. Both the accused then assured that they would not give any cause for complaint in the future.
3. On 4th May, 1988, in the morning hours Ramesh (P.W. 6) came to the house of the accused at Tosham to see his sister Rajbala. She told Ramesh that there was no improvement in the behaviour of the accused and that they were demanding Rs. 2,000/- more by way of dowry.
4. On 4th May, 1988, at about 8 p.m., Laxman (P.W. 8) and Sat Dev (P.W. 11), while sitting at their saw mill near the house of the accused noticed smoke coming from the house of the accused and also heard shrieks of "hai, hai". They rushed to the house and found that the room from which smoke was coming was bolted from inside. That room was broken open by them. Other persons including Mange Ram (P.W. 3) also arrived at the spot. Rajbala was found under the flames of fire lying upon the Darri spread on the floor. A Pipi of kerosene oil was also found lying nearly. Kerosene oil was found splattered. Sub-Inspector Bal Kishore (P.W. 10), who happened to be present at Tosham Chowk also reached the spot on hearing about it. Rajbala was still alive. She was rushed to the Civil Hospital, Tosham, by the aforesaid persons where Dr. U.K. Lamba (P.W. 1) tried to save her life. She was in gasping condition, unconscious and unable to give any statement. She was having almost hundred per cent burns Within a few minutes Rajbala expired in the hospital.
5. Dr. Kapil Kumar (P.W. 2) along with Dr. S.C. Batra and Dr. Monika Goel conducted post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Rajbala. It was found that Rajbala had died of hundred per cent burns and consequent shock. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was also opined that the death had taken place within a few hours of the receipt of burn injuries.
6. Investigation of this case was taken up by Sub-Inspector Bal Kishore (P.W. 10). He took into possession burnt skin of hand of Rajbala, ash, Pipi of kerosene oil, darri, bunch of hair of the deceased from the spot. He also prepared rough site plan (Exhibit P.U.) with correct marginal notes. The accused were arrested on 15th May, 1988. After completion of investigation, challan against, the accused was put in a the Court.
7. At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. U.K. Lamba (P.W. 1), Dr. Kapil Kumar (P.W. 2), Mange Ram (P.W. 3), Hanuman (P.W. 4), Kanwarpal Draftsman (P.W. 5), Ramesh (P.W. 6), Shrimati Manbhari (P.W. 7), Laxman (P.W. 8), Capt. Jaswant Singh (P.W. 9), Sub Inspector Bal Kishore (P.W. 10), Sat Dev (P.W. 11), Sumer Singh, Manager, Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Dinod (P.W. 11) and R.N. Mehta, Manager, Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank (P.W. 13).
8. Statements of the accused were thereafter recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they admitted that accused Chhabil Dass was having illicit sexual relations with Rajbala. However, both the accused stated that this illicit relationship of Rajbala and Chhabil Dass was with the sweet will and consent of Rajbala because accused Inder Sain was impotent. It was also admitted by the accused that Rajbala had suffered burn injuries in their house on 4th May, 1988 and after her removal to the hospital she succumbed to the injuries the same day. It was also admitted by the accused that Dr. Kapil Kumar had conducted autopsy on the deadbody of Rajbala and it was found that she had died of ante mortem burn injuries. The accused denied the prosecution version that they had been harassing and torturing Rajbala to force her to bring more dowry and cash from their mother and brother or that they had demanded firstly Rs. 5,000/- from Rajbala and got the same form the mother and brother of the deceased. They also denied having demanded Rs. 2,000/- more. Both the accused, however, admitted that Shrimati Manbhari had obtained loan of Rs. 5.000/- from Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Dinod disbursed by way of cheque which was drawn in favour of Kejriwal Trading Company, Tosham, firm owned by Chhabil Dass accused and that he had collected the amount of the said cheque from the bank. However, the accused stated that they had supplied goods to Shrimati Manbhari from their shop in respect of the amount of the cheque to enable her to run a shop in the village which was the purpose for which she had got the loan sanctioned. Both the accused stated that they were innocent and were falsely involved in this case. No evidence was led by them in defence.
9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire evidence led in the case.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellants contested the prosecution version with regard to the demand of dowry and the receipt of Rs. 5,000/-. The prosecution version that a loan of Rs. 5,000/- was taken from Dinod Gramin Bank and the cheque issued by the Bank was handed over to appellant Chhabil Dass, it is contended, is contrary to the documentary evidence on record. The Counsel referred to the statement of Sumer Singh, Manager (P.W. 12) to contend that loan amount, in fact, was not paid in cash and was given to the party who had supplied the goods. Besides, the loan was sanctioned on 17th February, 1988 in favour of Shrimati Manbhari for a specific purpose that she required this amount for running a Karyana shop. Much emphasis was laid upon the statement of Sumer Singh (P.W. 12) where this witness in crossexamination deposed as under :
"Before releasing the payment of the loan amount, we satisfy that the goods which are to be purchased from the loan amount have actually been collected by the applicant and in this case also, we had made a satisfaction to this effect. The bills of the goods purchased against the loan amount were also collected by us and placed on the file".
The statement of Sumer Singh (P.W. 12), so far as it states that this amount was not paid in cash, cannot be believed on its face value. As has been commonly observed, the loans are invariably advanced without actually verifying the particulars supplied by a loanee, which in fact is done in connivance with one or the other functionary of the Bank. Otherwise also, it does not inspire confidence for the reason that Shrimati Manbhari had no shop nor she intended to set up a shop as such. As regards the assertion that she had taken the advance for her son Ramesh who intended to install a Karyana shop is again without any merit. In fact, during cross-examination Shrimati Manbhari (P.W, 7), in answer to the question put to her, stated" my son Ramesh also used to live at the shop of the accused after marriage of Rajbala. He used to return to Bajina in the evening". It cannot be sheer coincidence that amount of loan i.e. Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn and paid to none else but Chhabil Dass appellant. The connected objection of the learned Counsel with regard to the plea of payment of Rs. 5,000/- that there is no specific averment as regards cheque in the First Information Report is simply to be noted and rejected. The First Information Report is not intended to be an elaborate document. The purpose of First Information Report is to inform the police giving in brief the facts leading to the occurrence so that it starts acting in this regard. It is not a substantive price of evidence. The statement of Shrimati Manbhari is consistent in this regard. She is emphatic in her assertion that this loan was taken by her because she had no other means to meet the dowry demand of the accused.
11. The Counsel also tried to highlight the statements of Ramesh (P.W. 6) and Manbhari (P.W. 7) where these witnesses have stated that it was about one and a half months before the death of Rajbala that a demand of Rs. 5,000/- was made by the accused whereas loan was already sanctioned on 17th February, 1988 though encashed on 14th March, 1988. The statements of these witnesses, who are otherwise found to be truthful, cannot be discarded on account of such like minor discrepancies. These witnesses are simpleton, illiterate and rustic. Minor errors in narration of events cannot be construed so as to discard their sworn testimony. Even otherwise, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of demand of dowry, though such a demand is not met, yet it would make the accused liable for the offence. The death of Shrimati Rajbala was suicidal. The circumstantial evidence in the nature of the statements of Lakshman (P.W. 8) and Sat Dev (P.W. 11) supports the theory of suicidal death. According to these witnesses, when they arrived at the house of the accused, the room from which the smoke was coming out was found bolted from inside which they had to break upon and made an attempt to extinguish the fire. Even Sub-Inspector Bal Kishan (P.W. 10) who rushed to the spot found the body of Rajbala still ablazed. He found that one plank of the broken door having been detached from the hinges was lying at the spot.
12. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Shrimati Shanti and Another v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1226 has analysed the ambit of Sections 304B and 498A of the Code and Section 113B of the Evidence Act; wherein it was observed as under :
"A carful analysis of Section 304B shows that this Section has been following essentials :
(1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.
Section 113B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before the death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, then the Court shall presume that such person has committed the dowry death. The meaning of "cruelty" for the purposes of these Sections has to be gathered from the language as found in Section 498A and as per that Section "cruelty" means "any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life etc. or harassment to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." As per the definition of "dowry" any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either at or before or any time after the marriage, comes within the meaning of "dowry".
13. We have carefully examined the prosecution case and are satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellants treated the deceased cruelly and the same squarely comes within the meaning of "cruelty" which is an essential under Section 304B of the Code and that such cruelty was for demand of dowry. It is the admitted fact that ' the death in this case occurred within seven years of marriage. As has been proved on record Rajbala died otherwise than under normal circumstances-by committing suicide.
14. Consequently we find no merit in this appeal and hereby dismiss the same.