Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Narain vs State Of Haryana on 22 July, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997
Date of Decision : July 22, 2010
Shiv Narain
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. I.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate with
Mr. M.S. Kohli, Advocate
Mr. Raja Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Hry.
T.P.S. Mann, J.
The appellant, alongwith his maternal grand- mother Chhano Devi, who had adopted him as her son, was named as accused in case FIR No. 248 dated 27.9.1994 registered at Police Station, Samalkha under Sections 304-B/34 IPC for causing the dowry death of Baljit Kaur. During trial of the case, Chhano Devi died and, accordingly, vide order dated 15.2.1996, the trial Court deleted her name from the array of the accused. The proceedings continued against the appellant and vide judgment and order dated 12/13.12.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Panipat, he was convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -2- rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed the present appeal in which he was granted the concession of bail vide order dated 2.2.2000.
According to the prosecution, Baljit Kaur, since deceased, aged about 22 years was married to the appellant on 8.3.1991. Her parents had given sufficient dowry to the appellant and his family at the time of the marriage. However, her in-laws were not satisfied with it. When Ramesh Kumar, brother of Baljit Kaur, went to meet her, she apprised him of her maltreatment at the hands of the appellant and his adoptive parents. Because of that, Baljit Kaur went to her parents' place and resided there for 1½ years. Afterwards, Amar Singh, the natural father of the appellant, came to the parents of Baljit Kaur and assured them that she would be kept nicely in the matrimonial home. On the undertaking given by Amar Singh as well as his brother Hawa Singh, who was accompanying him, the parents and the brothers of Baljit Kaur persuaded her to rejoin the appellant and her in- laws. Accordingly, she went back to the matrimonial home. About two months later, Teka Ram, maternal grand-father of the appellant, died and when Ramesh Kumar, brother of Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -3- Baljit Kaur and others went to her matrimonial home to offer condolence, Baljit Kaur wept loudly and told her relatives that she was still being maltreated by her husband and mother-in-law. Even at the time of kirya ceremony, she, once again, narrated her tale of woes. On 26.9.1994, Baljit Kaur died due to hanging. The appellant came to know about it at 11.00 A.M. but despite the same, he informed the police only at 6.30 P.M. His statement was recorded by ASI Mohinder Singh, who went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and brought down the dead body. He arranged for the photographer. He also prepared inquest papers and waited for the arrival of the relatives of the victim as he had already sent a message in that regard through Police Station Assandh. ASI Mohinder Singh recovered rope Ex.P1 from the spot. The dead body was taken to the General Hospital, Panipat for post- mortem. On arrival in the hospital, Ramesh Kumar made statement Ex.PB. As it disclosed commission of offence under Sections 304-B/34 IPC, ASI Mohinder Singh made his endorsement Ex.PB/1 over the same and sent it to Police Station, Samalkha at 12.40 P.M. on 27.9.1994, whereupon FIR Ex.PB/2 was registered on 27.9.1994 at 1.30 P.M. Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -4- During investigation of the case, the appellant and his adoptive mother were arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, followed by commitment of the case, charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed. The plea of the accused was of denial.
In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 Ramesh Kumar, brother of the deceased, PW2 Ram Singh, Photographer, PW3 Hukma Devi, mother of the deceased, PW4 Dr. C.V. Singh of General Hospital, Panipat, who had conducted post- mortem, PW5 ASI Mohinder Singh, who had recorded statement Ex.PB and conducted the entire investigation and PW6 Mukesh Kumar, Draftsman, who proved scaled site plan Ex.PF. The prosecution also tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.PE of C. Ranbir Singh before closing the evidence.
The plea of the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he was innocent. The witnesses had deposed falsely. The mother of Baljit Kaur used to remain ill. Baljit Kaur was also unable to conceive and for all those reasons she remained in deep depression and, therefore, committed suicide on her own. He had Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -5- never raised any demand of dowry nor maltreated her for and in connection with the same.
In defence, the appellant examined DW1 Sunehri, who was the next door neighbour of the appellant.
As mentioned above, the trial Court believed the prosecution case against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him.
From the testimony of PW4 Dr. C.V. Singh, it is made out that the dead body of Baljit Kaur had the following injuries :-
"1. There was a ligature mark in circulating the neck situated anteriorly above the thyroid cartilage and posteriorly along the hair line. The length of the ligature was 28 cm and the width was 4 cm in front and 3.5 cm on the left side of neck and 5 cm on right side of neck. There was an inverted 'V' shaped knot on the right side of neck, 4 cm above and posterior to the angle of mandible was present.
It was brown hard and deep grooved with margin lacerated. From the left side, 2.5 cm lateral to the lower lobe of her ear, the ligature mark was going upward and backward above the Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -6- thyroid cartilage, along the border of mandible. Clotted blood was present.
On dissection the groove was hard and white, border were congested with effusion of blood in the tissues was present.
2. An abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on left side of forehead, 1cm lateral to left eye brow. Clotted blood was present.
3. An abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the forehead on the left side 5cm above the medial part of left eye brow. Clotted blood was present.
4. A contusion 3.5 cm x 4 cm on posterior aspect of left arm in the middle with center red and periphery was blue.
5. A contusion 3.5 cm x 2.5cm on medial aspect of left arm on the middle, blue in colour.
6. An abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on posterior aspect of right forearm 4cm below the elbow joint, clotted blood was present.
7. A contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on left side of back of scapular region, blue colour was present."
Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -7- PW2 Ram Singh, Photographer had deposed that on 26.9.1994 he went to village Manana at the instance of the police for taking photographs. He proved photographs Exs.P2 to P5. He also deposed that the feet of the deceased were touching the floor. No stool/table/ladder was found present in the room when he inspected the room which was bolted from inside and the police had got it opened by managing entry from the other side.
The defence did not conduct any meaningful cross-examination of PW4 Dr. C.V. Singh. Only two questions were asked to which the witness replied that the possibility of the injuries being suffered by the deceased as a result of fall on hard surface could not be ruled out and in a normal life, the blood would clot within 4 to 6 minutes after injuries. When re-examined by prosecution, the witness stated that when he mentioned about injuries on the body of Baljit Kaur to be the result of fall, he meant injuries No.2 to 7 only. He never meant to say that even injury No.1 which was ligature mark on the neck could be caused by a fall. He went on to state that possibility of injuries No. 2 to 7 being result of violence at the hands of other persons could not be ruled out. Keeping in view the description of injury No.1 and the opinion of PW4 Dr. C.V. Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -8- Singh that the cause of death was asphyxia and veinus congestion due to hanging, the Court has no hesitation to conclude that the death of Baljit Kaur had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.
It is the consistent case of PW1 Ramesh Kumar that the marriage of his sister Baljit Kaur was solemnized with the appellant about three to four years before her death. Even the appellant, in reply to the second question put to him when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he was married with Baljit Kaur on 8.3.1991. The occurrence having been taken place on 26.9.1994, a period of seven years had not elapsed since her marriage. Therefore, the second ingredient of the offence under Section 304-B IPC also stands established.
PW1 Ramesh Kumar had testified that while solemnizing the marriage of his sister Baljit Kaur with the appellant, sufficient dowry in cash and kind was given. However, the appellant and his adoptive mother were not satisfied with the same and demanded more and more in cash and kind. They started maltreating her for bringing inadequate dowry. When the witness went to meet her, she complained to him about her maltreatment at the hands of Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -9- the appellant. She even insisted for being taken to her parents' house. Thereafter, she stayed at her parents' house for about 1½ years. Later on, Amar Singh, the natural father of the appellant, while accompanied by his brother Hawa Singh, came to the parents' house of the deceased and assured them that Baljit Kaur would be kept nicely in the matrimonial home, whereupon the witness and his family members persuaded Baljit Kaur to go back to the matrimonial home. About two months later, the adoptive father of the appellant died. The witness, alongwith his family members, went to offer condolence. Even at that point of time, Baljit Kaur told him that she continued to be maltreated by her husband and in-laws. Even when kirya ceremony was held, she, once again, apprised her brother about her maltreatment.
Smt. Hukma Devi, mother of deceased Baljit Kaur while appearing as PW3, corroborated the testimony of her son PW1 Ramesh Kumar as she mentioned the various instances about maltreatment of Baljit Kaur at the hands of her husband and in-laws.
In view of the above, the prosecution was successful in establishing that soon before her death, Baljit Kaur was subjected to harassment by her husband and Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -10- other relatives in connection with demand for dowry. As all the ingredients of dowry death stood proved, the prosecution had rightly called for raising a presumption of terming the death of Baljit Kaur as dowry death and the appellant and his relatives deemed to have caused her death.
The appellant had tried to rebut the presumption by pleading that his wife Baljit Kaur used to remain in depression for the reason that her mother remained ill and she herself was unable to conceive. In her testimony, PW3 Smt. Hukma Devi stated that Baljit Kaur had become pregnant once but suffered natural miscarriage. At that time, she was staying with her parents. There was no occasion for calling doctor as it was early natural miscarriage. The witness termed it as incorrect that as she remained ill Baljit Kaur was depressed and also for the reason that Baljit Kaur was unable to deliver a child. It may also be noticed that not a very long period had expired since the marriage of Baljit Kaur with the appellant. In such a short period, no married woman would go into depression if she is not able to conceive, especially when she had already conceived once Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -11- but her pregnancy resulting therefrom had suffered miscarriage.
The defence had examined DW1 Sunehri, who was a next door neighbour of the appellant, to show that Baljit Kaur was never maltreated by her in-laws or that she had been in depression because of not delivering a child and her mother remaining ill. However, no reliance can be placed upon her testimony as her husband Om Singh was on visiting terms with the appellant and for that reason she would have soft corner for the appellant and to come to the Court for making a statement in his favour. Moreover, marriage of Baljit Kaur had, admittedly, been solemnized with the appellant about 3½ years earlier but according to DW1 Sunehri, the marriage was about two years before the death of Baljit Kaur. Moreover, in the event of Baljit Kaur talking to this witness in confidence, about her matrimonial life, the witness would have known as to how many brothers Baljit Kaur had and what were their names. She would have also known the name of the parents of Baljit Kaur, besides, the profession of her father. When asked, she feigned ignorance about all these facts. As such it is difficult to believe that deceased Baljit Kaur had been expressing her mind to DW1 Sunehri that she had been Criminal Appeal 13-SB of 1997 -12- suffering from depression as she could not deliver a child and her mother remained ill.
In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. However, the Court finds that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant for the said offence is excessive and requires to be reduced to the minimum as provided by law.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC is maintained. His sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
T.P.S. MANN
July 22, 2010 JUDGE
satish