Punjab-Haryana High Court
Indraj And Others vs State Of Haryana on 25 January, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997
Date of Decision: 25.1.2010
Indraj and Others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate
General, Haryana, for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been instituted by Indraj, Balbir and Sarbati. They all are residents of village Surehti Kalan, Police Station Satnali, District Narnaul. They were named as accused in case FIR No. 181 dated 1.9.1995 registered at Police Station Satnali, under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. They were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, who acquitted their co-accused Dharambir alias Pappu.
The trial Court found the present appellants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. After recording their conviction for these offences, all the three appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304-B IPC and Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 2 also fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. However, no separate sentence under Section 498-A IPC was awarded.
Jaiwanti daughter of Jile Singh, complainant, was married with Balbir on 23.5.1991. Appellant Indraj and Sarbati are parents of Balbir. Jaiwanti died on 1.9.1995 in the house of the present appellant. As per medical evidence, Jaiwanti died due to consumption of aluminium phosphide, a poison.
Criminal proceedings against the appellants were set into motion on the basis of statement Ex.PG made by Jile Singh to Laxmi Narain, Assistant Sub Inspector, on 1.9.1995 at 4.50 P.M., at bus stand of Surehti Jakhal. Contents of his statement can be noticed as under:-
"Complainant stated that he is a resident of village Barela and do agricultural work. He has got one daughter named Jaiwanti, aged 20/21 years and one son Suresh, aged eight years. Jaiwanti was married to appellant Balbir son of Indraj, resident of Surehti Kalan, on 23.5.1991. The complainant had given dowry according to his capacity. After marriage when daughter of the complainant came to her parental house, she told that her in-laws and husband have stated that her father had not given anything in the marriage and in case she bring Rs.50,000/- then only she would be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home, otherwise she would be deserted and her husband would perform second Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 3 marriage. Thereafter, for a period of three years, Jaiwanti remained in the house of her parents and the accused had not gone to bring her back. Thereafter, a Panchayat of village Barela of the complainant went to Surehti Kalan, village of the accused, and got a compromise effected and it was agreed that Jaiwanti would be brought back to her matrimonial home. On the next day of Holi of 1995, Indraj came and Jaiwanti was sent along with him and Rs.10,000/- were also given, at that time, to Jaiwanti by her father. Thereafter, the daughter of the complainant came back to her parental house and told the complainant and his wife Krishna that accused had demanded more money. However, she was made to understand by her parents and on 18.8.1995 she was sent to her matrimonial home. At that time, daughter had told that she would be killed as money is being demanded. Complainant handed over Rs.10,000/- to her daughter and after advising her, sent her to matrimonial home. On 1.9.1995 complainant got information that Jaiwanti has been killed. Complainant along with his family members and his wife Krishna came to village Surehti Kalan. Complainant made a grievance that his daughter Jaiwanti has been murdered by Indraj, father-in-law, Sarbati, mother-in-law, husband Balbir and Pappu, Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 4 younger brother of the husband with common intention for not bringing adequate dowry".
The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The present appellants along with Dharambir alias Pappu (acquitted accused) were charged for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. In alternate, charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was also framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined Pandit Baseshar Dayal as PW.1. This witness stated that Jaiwanti deceased was the daughter of Jile Singh of his village. She was married in the year 1991 with Balbir and he had performed the marriage according to Hindu Rites. This witnesses stated that marriage party had returned on the same day.
Prosecution examined complainant Jile Singh as PW.6. He reiterated what was stated in the FIR and further added that at the time of marriage, he had spent Rs.1,00,000/- and he had given gold ornaments weighing about 10 tolas. He further stated that after the marriage of her daughter, she came on 24.5.1991 and disclosed that all the four accused had given beatings and had told that her father had not given dowry to their satisfaction. Jaiwanti stayed for a period of one month. Thereafter, Balbir came and Jaiwanti accompanied her husband to the house of her in-laws. The complainant stated that when her daughter came, she told him that Rs.50,000/- were demanded by the accused. Jaiwanti stayed for five days in her matrimonial home and returned to the house of her parents. She stayed there for about two years. Accused had not come to take her away. An application was sent Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 5 by him to the Police Station Satnali by registered post. Carbon copy of that application and postal receipts were exhibited as Ex.PE and Ex.PE/1. He also placed on record compromise Mark A which was later proved by another witness as Ex. PJ. This witness denied the suggestion that no meeting of Panchayat was held and the writing Mark A was not exhibited. In cross-examination, this witness further admitted that the dead body of his daughter was cremated by the accused and at that time, he was also present.
To corroborate the testimony of Jile Singh, PW.6, his wife Krishna appeared as PW.2. This witness, in her testimony further stated that in the Panchayat meeting compromise was effected and Indraj took the responsibility not to harass Jaiwanti in future.
PW.7 Mangli Ram, elder brother of complainant Jile Singh, deposed on identical lines and supported his brother Jile Singh regarding the demand of dowry, harassment and receipt of information regarding death of Jaiwanti.
Om Parkash, Patwari, Halqa Surehti Jakhal, appeared as PW.3 and proved scaled site plan Ex.PA.
PW.4 Dr. Lalit Mohan Sharma, on 2.9.1995 along with Dr. Usha Mathur, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jaiwanti. He found no external mark of injury and sent viscera to the Chemical Examiner. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PC, this witness opined that the cause of death was aluminium phosphide consumed by the deceased.
PW.5 Balbir Singh, Inspector, had partly investigated the case. PW.8 Laxmi Narain, Assistant Sub Inspector, was the Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 6 Investigating Officer. He deposed regarding various facets of investigation. He proved statement made by complainant Ex.PG, endorsement made thereupon Ex.PG/2 and registration of formal FIR. He also proved inquest report Ex.PD/1 and rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PN. In cross-examination, this witness stated that original of application Ex.PE was not received in the Police Station.
Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence.
All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused claimed innocence.
No witness was examined in the defence.
Before this Court advert to the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants and counsel for the State, it will be necessary to recapitulate following facts:-
a) Marriage of Jaiwanti, daughter of Jile
Singh PW.6, was performed with Balbir,
appellant, on 23.5.1991.
b) On 24.5.1991, Jaiwanti returned to her
parents' house and stayed there for five
days. At that time, she disclosed that she
was given beating by the husband and his
family members.
c) Jaiwanti, after return from her matrimonial
home, on the very next day, left and
stayed with her parents for a period of one
month.
Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 7
d) Thereafter, accused Balbir came to the
house of the complainant and took his wife
Jaiwanti.
e) Jaiwanti then stayed for five days in the
house of her in-laws and again returned to
the house of her parents and this time she
stayed with her parents for a period of two
years.
f) That the Panchayat was convened and
compromise Ex.PJ was effected.
g) As per compromise, on the next day of
Holi in the year 1995, father-in-law of
Jaiwanti, Indraj came and she returned to
her matrimonial home. At that time, she
was given Rs.10,000/- by the complainant.
h) This time also after 17/18 days, Jaiwanti
returned and disclosed to her parents that
all the accused have harassed her, gave
beating and have demanded cash amount.
i) Jaiwanti, on 18.8.1995, again left for her
matrimonial home and she expired on
1.9.1995.
Thus, it is apparent that in the four years old marriage, deceased Jaiwanti remained with the accused for a total period which was less than two months and according to counsel, it precisely comes to 33 days. It is in this context that compromise Ex.PJ on which implicit Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 8 reliance has been placed by the prosecution, assume importance. This compromise was drawn in the presence of Panchayat members. Compromise, when translated to English, read as under:-
"Compromise between Bride and Bridegroom side"
Today, on 17.2.1995, from village Barela, Sh. Jile Singh, Master Ji Mohar Singh Ji, Ram Singh Ji, Sagarmal Ji, and Captain Mangli Ram Ji, had come to village Surehti Kalan and have met Chaudhary Indraj Ji. Jaiwanti, daughter of Jile Singh, was married four years ago in village Surehti Kalan with Balbir son of Indraj. After some time of her marriage, boy and girl developed differences. Today, in the presence of the respectables of two villages, the differences have been happily resolved and Chaudhary Indraj had taken the responsibility of the children in the presence of persons of both the villages and has assured that there will be no reoccurrence and after Holi, Chaudhary Indraj will go to village Barela for bringing Jaiwanti to Surehti. Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has urged that from the day one, marriage had not worked as bridegroom and bride could not come to the terms and had developed differences. Therefore, the story that the accused were demanding dowry is a concocted version. Counsel further submits that no reliance can be placed upon Ex.PE and Ex.PE/1 as original of Ex.PE was never received in the Police Station. Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 9 Counsel further submitted that once Ex.PE was sent through registered post in the ordinary course, the same would have reached Police Station and acted upon by the police. Therefore, it is urged that Ex.PE is nothing but a padding.
Counsel for the appellants has relied upon judgment rendered by this Court in Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports 547 that demand of money can only make husband liable and not the parents. A further reliance has been placed upon judgment rendered in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others (SC) 2000 Criminal Law Journal 2993 to contend that there is a tendency to implicate the parents. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Subash and Others 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports 196 where precise or near about words of alleged taunting were not disclosed, and conviction of the appellants was not sustained.
The judgments relied upon by counsel for the appellants are not attracted in the facts of the present case. In Naresh Kumar's case (supra), demand of Rs.50,000/- was made for starting a shop. The judgment rendered in Kans Raj's case (supra) take note of general tendency, whereas Subash and Others' case (supra) is a case of its own facts. It has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 726, to determine what will constitute demand of dowry soon before death of victim, no straight jackets can be laid.
In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (1998) 3 Supreme Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 10 Court Cases 309, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that each case depend upon its own facts and circumstances.
In the present case, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that on the very next day of the marriage, deceased was turned out of her matrimonial house. Thus, the judgments relied by counsel for the appellants are not applicable on the facts of the case.
Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State has urged that testimony of PW.2 Krishna, PW.6 Jile Singh and PW.8 Mangli Ram aspire confidence and deceased was harassed, maltreated and given beating by the accused and was driven to commit suicide.
From the circumstances enumerated above, it is apparent that Jaiwanti was not comfortable with her stay in the house of accused. On the very next day of marriage, she returned to her parental house. She stayed for about one month. She was taken back and returned after five days. She stayed with her parents for about two years. Then she was taken back to her matrimonial home after festival of Holi in 1995. She stayed with her in-laws for 17 days and came back. She had again gone to her matrimonial home on 19.8.1995 and died on 1.9.1995. According to compromise Ex.PJ, there were differences between husband and wife. According to the complainant Jile Singh PW.6, his wife Krishna PW.2 and his brother Mangli Ram PW.8, accused were continuously demanding Rs.50,000/-, which according to their expectation, was not given at the time of marriage. Inadequacy of the dowry was the root cause of soured relations. Twice Jaiwanti was given Rs.10,000/- and once it was given in the presence of Indraj. Thus, the sequence of Criminal Appeal No. 1029-SB of 1997 11 events show that from the day one, deceased was harassed by her husband and in-laws. There is justification in the explanation given by the trial Court that normally when parties resolve their differences and arrived at a compromise then the reason that deceased was harassed for demand of dowry etc. are not mentioned in the writing. The very fact that the deceased was made to return to her parental house on the very next day and was turned out of her matrimonial home on a number of occasions prove that she was harassed for demand of dowry. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal, and the same is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 25, 2010 "DK"