Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar And Others vs State Of Haryana on 24 August, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal 908-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : August 24, 2010
Ishwar and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. S.N.Saini, Advocate
Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The appellants were tried for the offences under Sections 306/201 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 12/13.10.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, the appellants were convicted under Section 306 IPC. In addition, Ishwar, Rohtash and Subhash appellants were convicted under Section 201 IPC. Dharampati appellant was, however, acquitted under Section 201 IPC whereas Bharat Singh, who was tried for an offence under Section 201 IPC only was exonerated of the said charge. For the offence under Section 306 IPC, Rohtash and Subhash appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -2- two months whereas Ishwar and Dharampati appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, Ishwar, Rohtash and Subhash appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The facts giving rise to the present case are that on 12.3.1997 Ram Niwas, brother of deceased Geeta, submitted an application Ex.PE to SHO, Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PE/2 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat on the same day at 11.00 a.m. for offences under Sections 306/34 and 201 IPC. The contents of the application are reproduced here-in-under:-
To The S.H.O., P.S. Sadar (Sonepat).
Sir, It is submitted that I, Ram Niwas son of Teka, Jat, am resident of village Nizampur Majra, Post Office Farmaha. We were five brothers and four sisters. My two sisters Sunita and Geeta were married together about eight years ago. Sunita was married to Subhash and Geeta was married to Rohtash ss/o Ishwar, caste Jat, Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -3- r/o Malcha, P.S. Sadar Sonepat. Since then their in- laws, namely, mother-in-law Dharampati, father-in-law Ishwar, husband Rohtash and brother-in-law (Jeth) Subhash used to harass my two sisters by saying that they were not fit for their house. They did not know as to how they had come to their house despite belonging to a low family. They used to taunt them all the time and on many occasions, turned them out after beating them. However, considering the society, we had been sending back the sisters but they did not mend their ways. My elder sister Sunita flatly refused to go back by saying that she could not live there. For that reason, I performed the second marriage of Sunita in village Khadwali about nine months back. However, Geeta, the younger one did not agree for second marriage by saying that she would die only there as she had children whereas the elder one was issueless. About four months back, Geeta gave birth to a daughter. On that occasion, I went to Harsana-Malcha with Pillia where my sister Geeta told me that her in-laws had been harassing her and she would have to die. I assured her that I would make them understand. At that time, I was accompanied by my uncle Chandan's son Krishan. Both of us attempted to make them understand but they replied that she belonged to a poor family and had brought nothing. They further stated that they were able to get rid of one of the sisters and did not know as to when they would be ridden of the other. While we were about to leave when in our presence, mother-in-law Dharampati, father-in-law Ishwar, brother-in-law Subhash and husband Rohtash gave pushes to Geeta and turned her Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -4- out of the house. We brought Geeta with us. Now, on 28.2.1997 my brother-in-law Rohtash came to my house to take Geeta but she refused to go, saying that they had been harassing her and she would have to die.
However, my father persuaded Geeta and sent her with her husband. While leaving, Geeta asked me to enquire her well-being soon as she would be harassed there. Today in the morning, I alongwith Krishan went to the in-laws' house of Geeta at Harsana-Malcha to know her well-being. When we enquired from the in-laws of Geeta, they stated that she had already died and they had cremated her. When we asked as to how she had died they did not give any reason. We learnt on our own that Geeta had died on 9.3.1997 by taking something poisonous because of the harassment meted out by her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in- law. We were not informed about the same till today and even her dead body was cremated immediately after her death. Appropriate action be taken against them.
Thanks.
Applicant Sd/-In Hindi Ram Niwas s/o Teka village Dated:12.3.97. Nizampur Majra,Police Station Kharkhoda (Sonepat).
In the course of investigation of the case, ASI Ram Avtar prepared rough site plan Ex. PF of the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. The appellants were arrested on 15.3.1997. On 16.3.1997 accused Rohtash, Subhash and Ishwar made their respective disclosure statements and got recovered ashes and bones Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -5- of Geeta, which they had kept concealed in a pit near the railway track at Sonepat. The site plan of the place of recovery of ashes and bones was also prepared. Bharat Singh accused was also arrested in the case.
Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, the appellants and their co-accused Bharat Singh were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution had examined five witnesses.
PW1 HC Rajinder Singh proved the disclosure statements made by Rohtash, Subhash and Ishwar accused besides, the memo. regarding taking into possession of the bones and ashes. Complainant Ram Niwas and his sister Sunita were examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively whereas Krishan, the cousin of complainant Ram Niwas, was examined as PW4. All three of them deposed about the basic case of the prosecution regarding harassment of deceased Geeta at the hands of the accused. ASI Ram Avtar, who was the investigating officer of the case had appeared as PW5.
When the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied each and every allegation of the prosecution appearing against them. They claimed to be innocent. According to them, Geeta died on 12.3.1997 on account of abdominal pain. When Rohtash tried to take her to the doctor at Sonepat she Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -6- passed away. The parents of the deceased were immediately informed. They had reached their house and participated in the cremation of Geeta. Lateron, when they tried to take away the articles belonging to Geeta, the accused objected to the same. As such, a false case was lodged against them. Infact, they had never given beatings to Geeta or demanded any dowry nor maltreated her. In defence, the accused examined DW1 Joginder Singh and DW2 Inder Singh.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version regarding the harassment of the deceased for having brought inadequate dowry and on account of the same Geeta ending her life by taking some poisonous substance and, therefore, the appellants abetted the commission of suicide. Further, Ishwar, Rohtash and Subhash were found guilty of destroying the evidence of crime by cremating the dead body of Geeta without waiting for the arrival of her parents. Accordingly, the appellants were convicted under Section 306 IPC. In addition, Ishwar, Rohtash and Subhash appellants were convicted under Section 201 IPC. All of them were sentenced, as mentioned above.
At the outset, it may be noticed that during the pendency of the appeal, Ishwar appellant expired on 5.2.1999. This information was brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the appellants on 20.7.2010. While adjourning the hearing of the appeal, the Court Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -7- directed the learned State counsel to verify the said fact. On the adjourned date, i.e. 12.8.2010, learned State counsel after obtaining instructions from HC Mahesh Kumar confirmed the factum of death of Ishwar. However, he requested for a short adjournment for producing the verification report. Today, at the time of hearing of the appeal, learned State counsel produced the report made by ASI Lajja Singh of Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, as per which the factum of death of Ishwar stands duly verified. Alongwith the report, the death certificate issued by Additional District Registrar(Birth & Death), Sonepat has been appended. The report and the death certificate are taken on record.
In view of the death of Ishwar appellant, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appeal qua his conviction and sentence stands abated.
Learned counsel for appellants Dharampati, Rohtash and Subhash has submitted that none of them ever maltreated deceased Geeta or demanded any dowry. Infact, she passed away on 12.3.1997 due to acute abdominal pain. Her parents were immediately informed, who were present at the time of her cremation.
A perusal of the statements of PW2 Ram Niwas, PW3 Sunita and PW4 Krishan would reveal that deceased Geeta and her sister Sunita were married to two brothers, namely, Rohtash and Subhash respectively, on the same day. From the very beginning of their Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -8- marriages, the accused used to harass both the sisters for bringing insufficient dowry. They also used to say that the two sisters belonged to a poor family and they had not brought dowry as per their status. The accused used to give beatings to deceased Geeta and her sister Sunita. Their harassment and beatings came to such a point that Sunita refused to stay with the accused and got remarried to one Jai Bhagwan. However, deceased Geeta continued to live with the accused as she was having a child. Though her brother Ram Niwas and cousin Krishan had tried to make the in-laws of Geeta understand yet their behaviour towards Geeta did not improve. Four months prior to her death, Geeta gave birth to another child. At that time both Ram Niwas and Krishan went to the in-laws' house of Geeta by taking Pillia. At that time, Geeta told them that her in-laws had been harassing her very badly and she was fed up from them. Ram Niwas told to her that he would make them understand but despite the same the attitude of the accused towards Geeta remained the same and she was sent back with Ram Niwas and Krishan after being pushed out from the matrimonial home. About two weeks before her death when Rohtash accused came to the house of complainant Ram Niwas in order to take back Geeta, she showed her reluctance in accompanying her husband as she still apprehended her harassment. Though Geeta was told that her in-laws would be told to mend their ways yet Geeta wanted that her brother should enquire her welfare at the earliest possible. On 12.3.1997, complainant Ram Niwas and Krishan went to the in-laws' house of Geeta to find out her welfare.
Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -9- There they came to know that she had died and even her last rites had been performed. On enquiry made from the village folk, they were told that Geeta was fed up from her in-laws and, therefore, took some poisonous substance and died.
Though it had come in evidence that when Geeta had given birth to a second child, she had some problem in her abdomen yet when she left the house of the complainant, she was perfectly all right. No suggestion was put by the defence either to Ram Niwas or Krishan that soon before her death, she was having an acute abdominal pain and that the accused were taking her to a hospital and she had died on the way. The prosecution had claimed that the complainant party was not present at the time of cremation of Geeta. However, the accused had relied upon the testimonies of DW1 Joginder Singh and DW2 Inder Singh to show that Geeta had died on account of abdominal pain and her parents alongwith some others were present at the time of her cremation. According to DW1 Joginder Singh, the cremation had taken place at about 8/8.30 a.m. and the police had reached the spot at about 5/5.30 p.m. However, in his examination-in-chief, he stated that when the police had reached the cremation ground the body of Geeta was under
flames. If the cremation had taken place at 8/8.30 a.m., the fire would not have been in progress at 5/5.30 p.m. when the police had reached the spot. Further, he had no personal information about the cause of death of Geeta. On the other hand, he claimed to have been told by Ishwar Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -10- accused that Geeta had died on account of stomach ache. To the same effect was the testimony of DW2 Inder Singh when he stated it was Ishwar accused, who had told him that Geeta had died on account of stomach ache. In his cross-examination, DW2 Inder Singh stated that on the day of death of Geeta, he was working in the Forest Department and was posted at Punhana. However, on 12.3.1997 he was on leave. He had been working at Punhana from 30.4.1988 to 30.4.1997. He had been visiting his village of and on. He then volunteered to state that he had been visiting the village once or twice in a month, again said, even twice or thrice in a month. Both DW1 Joginder Singh and DW2 Inder Singh belonged to the village of the accused and lived in their neighbourhood. It appears that both of them deposed for the sake of helping the accused, who were their co-villagers.
According to the appellants, Geeta had died on 12.3.1997 and not on 9.3.1997 as claimed by the prosecution. In support of it, it has been submitted that if Geeta had died on 9.3.1997 and cremated on the same day, her ashes and bones would have been picked up by the Investigating Officer on 12.3.1997 whereas the ashes and bones were shown lying in the cremation ground even on 16.3.1997 as depicted in the site plan Ex.PH.
According to PW5 ASI Ram Avtar, the accused were arrested on 15.3.1997 and on 16.3.1997 Ishwar, Rohtash and Subhash accused had suffered their respective disclosure statements that they had Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -11- kept concealed the ashes and bones of Geeta in a pit near the railway track at Sonepat. Only they knew about it and could get the same recovered. All three of them, thereafter, led the police party to the designated place and got recovered the ashes and bones from there. ASI Ram Avtar also deposed that as per his investigation, Geeta had died on 9.3.1997. Site plan Ex.PG pertains to the place from where the bones and ashes were recovered at the instance of Ishwar, Rohtash and Subhash accused while site plan Ex.PH relates to the place where the dead body of Geeta was cremated. Mark A in the site plan Ex.PH was in respect of the place where the dead body was cremated and some bones and ash was still present. Mark A in the site plan Ex.PG pertained to the place from where the bones and ashes of Geeta were recovered at the instance of the three accused. Therefore, the defence is not right in asserting that the bones and ashes were recovered from the cremation ground on 16.3.1997. Rather, they were recovered from a pit adjoining the railway track.
It is true that PW2 Ram Niwas was brother of deceased Geeta, PW3 Sunita her sister and PW4 Krishan her cousin yet that is not sufficient to discard their testimonies. The statements made by the aforementioned three witnesses were consistent and clear that it were the accused, who had been maltreating and harassing Geeta and because of the same, she was left with no other option but to end her life by consuming some poisonous substance.
Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -12- In view of the above, no case is made out for reversing the conviction of appellants Dharampati, Rohtash and Subhash, as recorded by the trial Court.
When Dharampati appellant was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, she had given her age as 68 years. She had also stated that she was suffering from tuberculosis (TB) and only one left in the house to look after four years' old son of the deceased. She has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Out of the same, she has already served a period of four months and twenty one days, as described in the custody certificate produced by learned State counsel. She has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than thirteen years. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for about twelve years.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending Dharampati appellant behind the bars, once again, for undergoing her remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if her substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by her. However, at the same time, no case is made out for showing any leniency to Rohtash and Subhash appellants in the matter of their sentences of imprisonment despite the fact that both of them have already undergone about eight months in jail, Crl. Appeal 908-SB of 1998 -13- as reflected in the custody certificates, out of sentences of five years imposed upon them.
Resultantly, the appeal qua Ishwar appellant is disposed of as having abated. The conviction of Rohtash and Subhash appellants under Sections 306 and 201 IPC and that of Dharampati under Section 306 IPC is maintained. The substantive sentence of imprisonment of Dharampati appellant is reduced to that already undergone by her. The sentence of fine alongwith its default clause is, however, maintained. The sentences of imprisonment and fine alongwith their default clauses in respect of Rohtash and Subhash appellants are maintained. The appeal qua Dharampati, Rohtash and Subhash appellants is disposed of, accordingly.
( T.P.S. MANN )
August 24, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1