Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir Singh Son Of Sewa Ram vs The State Of Haryana on 15 May, 2009
Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
Date of Decision : 15.05.2009
Satbir Singh son of Sewa Ram, Accountant, r/o
Ramesh Nagar, Tehsil Camp, Panipat.
.... Appellant.
Versus
The State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Shalini Attri, AAG, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.10.1995, and the order of sentence dated 21.10.1995, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which it convicted Satbir Singh, accused, (now appellant), as under:-
Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--2--
Name of the The offence for Sentence awarded accused (now which appellant) conviction was recorded.
Satbir Singh U/S.304-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Satbir Singh U/S 498-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years.Fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences of the accused were
ordered to run concurrently. However, Subhash and his wife Shamo, accused were acquitted of both the charges, framed against them, by the trial Court.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Anita, aged about 21 years, daughter of Patti Ram, (PW-2) and sister of Rakesh Kumar, (PW-3), was married to Satbir, accused, on 28.06.1993, at Delhi. After the marriage, Satbir, accused and Anita started residing at Panipat. 15 days prior to the incident i.e. 24.05.1994, a female child was born to Anita, at Panipat. At the time of marriage, Patti Ram, father of Anita, had given sufficient cash and dowry. However, Satbir, accused alongwith his co- accused (since acquitted ) was not satisfied with Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--3--
the same. They started harassing Anita and demanded more and more dowry in the shape of cash, and kind. The accused threatened Anita that in case, her parents failed to fulfill the demand, she would be done to death. It was further stated that before her marriage, Patti Ram had opened a bank account with Canara Bank, at Delhi, in her name. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was credited, in that account, and after the marriage, her daughter was forced to withdraw a sum of Rs.7500/- from the same. In fact Satbir, accused, her husband, withdrew that amount from that bank. Similarly, on another occasion, on the strength of a cheque, Satbir Singh withdrew another amount of Rs.33,000/- from this account. Despite this, the accused did not mend their ways and continued maltreating her daughter, Anita, for bringing insufficient dowry. She was also subjected to cruelty by the accused and asked to bring more dowry.
2-A. On 22.05.1994, Rakesh Kumar, (PW-3) alongwith his wife Smt. Alka came to Panipat, and brought customary Chhuchhak, but all the accused as well as Smt. Munni Devi, sister of Satbir, Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--4--
accused and Subhash were not satisfied with the articles brought by them and told them that in case, they were not able to bring additional amount within two days, Anita may have to suffer badly. Thereafter, Rakesh and his wife requested the accused to allow Anita to accompany them to Delhi, the house of her parents, but they ( accused ) did not allow her to go with them. Rakesh and his wife, thus, came back to Delhi and told about the whole occurrence to Patti Ram and his wife.
3. On 24.05.1994, at about 10.00 am, Anita, suffered extensive burn injuries, in the house of her husband at Panipat and succumbed to the same. On learning this, Patti Ram, father, Rakesh Kumar, brother and others came to Panipat and found that the dead body of Anita was lying in the kitchen. Patti Ram, (PW-2) made statement, Ex. PB, to Chandgi Ram, Sub Inspector, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex.PB/1 was registered. Thereafter, the Police went to the house of Satbir, accused, and found the dead body of Anita, lying in the kitchen. The inquest proceedings were conducted. Post-mortem examination was got conducted. . The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The doctor, at the Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--5--
time of post-mortem examination, gave his opinion, that Anita died due to extensive burns all around the body and the same were sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. Satbir,accused was arrested on 27.05.1994. After the completion of investigation, Satbir, accused was challaned.
4. On his appearance, in the Committing Court, the accused was supplied the copies of all the documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4-A. After recording some evidence,Subhash and Shamo Devi,accused were summoned to face trial.On their appearance,they were supplied the copies of all the documents,relied upon by the prosecution. A fresh charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5 The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Rajiv Sethi, Medical Officer, Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--6--
(PW-1), Patti Ram, complainant, (PW-2),Rakesh Kumar, brother of the deceased,(PW-3), Bhaiya Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector,(PW-4), Prem Singh, Sub Inspector,(PW-5), Ramesh Kumar, (PW-6), Dr. Vijinder Singh Deputy Director, (PW-7), and Chandgi Ram, Sub Inspector, (PW-8). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
6. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. It was stated by them, that after the marriage only for one month, Satbir and his wife stayed with Subhash and his wife. Thereafter, they started residing separately. It was further stated by them, that Satbir was working as an Accountant with the firm, whereas, his brother Subhash was separately carrying a milk dairy business, and was residing separately from them. It was further stated by them, that none raised any demand of dowry either at the time of marriage, or Chhuchhak. It was further stated by them that Subhash and Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--7--
Shamo, accused were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence. It was further stated that Munni Devi, elder sister of Satbir, had come to Panipat to take care of Anita. She placed the water and Mangoes belonging to the landlady, namely Smt. Balvinder Kaur, in their fridge. Anita, wife of Satbir, objected to it, which led to quarrel between them. Thereafter, Munni Devi left the house in a huff. Satbir Singh, accused, reprimanded his wife, Anita and when he went out to attend to his work, and even the land-lord and landlady were away, Anita, committed suicide. It was further stated that, on learning about it, Satbir, accused gave information to the Police, and also informed the parents of Anita. It was further stated that Anita was short tempered,as well as hyper sensitive.
7 In their defence, the accused examined Kuldip Singh, DW1. Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence.
8. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Satbir, accused, but Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--8--
acquitted Subhash and Shamo, accused.
9. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by Satbir Singh,appellant.
10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
11. For constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution was required to prove that the death of a married lady, took place, within seven years of her marriage, otherwise, than under normal circumstances, and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. Once these ingredients are proved, by the prosecution, then statutory presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act, operates that it was a case of dowry death. No doubt, such a presumption, is rebuttable. In the instant case, the marriage of Anita with Satbir Singh was performed on 28.06.1993 and she died on 24.05.1994, otherwise, than under normal circumstance i.e. by extensive burn injuries. It Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--9--
means that two ingredients required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, were proved, from the evidence, on record.
12. Now, let us see, as to whether, the third ingredient, that she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death, by the accused, stood proved or not. The Counsel for Satbir Singh, appellant, however, submitted that there was no specific allegation of demand of dowry, and subjection of Anita to cruelty by Satbir Singh, accused, in connection therewith, soon before her death. He further submitted that the prosecution, thus, miserably failed to prove that Anita, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death and, as such, no offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was made out. He further submitted that the trial Court was wrong, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence to the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 304- B of the Indian Penal Code. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--10--
correct. Patti Ram, (PW-2), who is the father of the deceased, in clear-cut terms stated that sufficient dowry, at the time of marriage of Anita, was given to the accused. He further stated that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry, given to them. He further stated that the accused used to harass his daughter Anita, on account of insufficient dowry. He further stated that the accused had been demanding cash as well as other articles in the shape of dowry, after the marriage, from Anita. He further stated that the demand for cash, used to be conveyed to him through his son Rakesh, by his daughter Anita. He further stated that the accused used to tell his daughter Anita, that in case, she did not bring the cash, in the shape of dowry, she would be done to death. He further stated that the demand of cash, in the shape of dowry, after the marriage, was made thrice. Not only this, Patti Ram, (PW-2), had opened an account in Canara Bank, in the name of her daughter Anita, at Delhi, before her marriage, in which a sum of Rs.40,000/- was credited. It was further stated by him that on one occasion, a sum of Rs.7500/- was withdrawn, by Satbir Singh, Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--11--
accused from the said account, after the marriage. It was further stated by him that similarly, a sum of Rs.33,000/- was further withdrawn from the said account, on the strength of a cheque, issued by his daughter and the same was actually received by Satbir, accused, from the bank. It was further stated by him, that an amount of Rs.47,000/- was paid to the accused, after collecting the same, from different persons. It was further stated by him that despite that, the accused was not satisfied and he continued harassing his daughter, on account of insufficient dowry. It was further stated by him, that Anita, gave birth to a female child about 15 days, before the occurrence. The statement of Patti Ram, (PW-2) was duly corroborated by Rakesh Kumar, brother of the deceased. It may be stated here, that a married lady, as and when, subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, by the members of her in-laws family, in the first instance, does not make the things public. She, in the first instane, tells the tale of her woes to her parents, including brother. It was, under these circumstances that Anita, as and when tortured, in Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--12--
connection with the demand of dowry, by the accused, she told about the same, to her parents, including her brother. There was specific demand by the accused, in respect of cash, from time to time, from Anita, in the shape of dowry. The torture of Anita in connection with the demand of dowry and that she had brought insufficient dowry, continued right from the inception of her marriage, until her death. Even from the account of Anita, which was opened in her name, by her father, at Delhi, before her marriage, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn by the accused. This also clearly showed that the accused used to torture Anita, in connection with the demand of dowry, and the same continued until her death. Had no demand of dowry, in the shape of cash, been made or had she been not tortured, on account of such demand, and that she had brought insufficient dowry, there would have been no reason on her part, to commit suicide. She had given birth to a female child, 15 days before the incident. She had been married only for the last one year. If she was living comfortably with her husband i.e. Satbir Singh, she could not think of committing suicide. The trial Court was,thus, Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--13--
right, in coming to the conclusion, that Anita was tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry, and that she had brought insufficient dowry, soon before her death by the accused. The findings of the trial Court, in this regard, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, warrant no interference, and are liable to be upheld. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the appellant has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, since 24.05.1994 when the FIR was registered, against him, and a period of more than 14 years has already lapsed. He further submitted that during this period, the accused, suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. He further submitted that lenient view may be taken and the sentence awarded to the accused, be reduced to the period already undergone, which may be of a few months. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--14--
mere fact that the accused has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings for the last 14 years, in itself, is not sufficient to show any sympathy in the matter of sentence by reducing the same to the period already undergone. The appellant has been on bail through-out, after the filing of the appeal. In State of Karnataka v. Murlidhar (2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 1377, it was held that imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences, involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and, public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentence or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive, in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--15--
inbuilt in the sentencing system. Thus, in view of the above, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.
16. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal filed by Satbir Singh is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled.
18. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit the compliance report within two months.
Crl. Appeal No. 687-SB of 1995
--16--
19. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and the compliance report is sent within the time frame.
20. The Registry shall keep track of the matter, and put up the compliance report, if received, within the time frame. Even if, the same is not received, within the time frame, the matter shall be put up, within 10 days, after the expiry of the same.
(SHAM SUNDER)
May 15, 2009 JUDGE
dinesh