Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh on 12 January, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.219-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 12th January, 2011
Satish Kumar
... Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate
Standing Counsel for UT Chandigarh.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been filed by Satish Kumar, husband of deceased Sushma. He was tried, along with his mother Usha Rani, in a case FIR No.371 dated 13.12.1999 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 16th January, 2002 acquitted Usha Rani, however, held the appellant Satish Kumar guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304-B IPC. No sentence under Section 498-A IPC was awarded to the appellant separately, as the trial Court was of the opinion that the offence punishable under this Section is included under Section 304-B IPC, being an aggravated form Criminal Appeal No.219-SB of 2002 2 of the offence. Challenge in the present appeal is to the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.
Marriage of the deceased Sushma was solemnized with the present appellant on 6th February, 1998. On the night intervening 12th and 13th December, 1999, she consumed some poison and died in her matrimonial home. Cause of death, as per the medical evidence, was consumption of Aluminum Phosphide, an insecticide (poison), which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Since counsel for the parties have not raised any argument regarding the cause of death and the medical evidence, therefore, this part of the evidence is not noticed in this judgment.
Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of a statement Ex.P9 made by Raj Kumari, mother of the deceased Sushma. To appreciate the rival arguments raised before me, it will be necessary to reproduce the translated version of the FIR, which reads as under:
"Statement of Raj Kumari, wife of Lachhman Dass Sethi, resident of Anand Bagh, Vishwakarma Colony, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana.
Stated that on the above noted address, I reside along with my family. I have four daughters and one son. My youngest daughter Sushma was married in February 1998 with Satish Kumar son of Ram Sarup, resident of House No.4060, Palsora Colony, Sector 55, Chandigarh according to Hindu rites and customs. After a few months of the marriage, on trivial issues, there used to be a bickering or quarrel between husband and the wife. The main reason for the dispute was that my son-in-law was addicted to Alcohol. In spite of this, we made our son-in-law see reason. Another cause of the dispute was that my daughter has given birth to a child and a caesarian operation was performed. My son-in- law was not giving enough money to my daughter for expenses. My daughter was also beaten by her mother-in- law in the hospital. For the last many months my daughter Criminal Appeal No.219-SB of 2002 3 was upset. My another daughter was married with Kanhaya Lal. Both of them visited the house of the accused and told Satish Kumar to be reasonable and not to harass my daughter Sushma. At that occasion, Satish retorted and stated that my daughter Sushma had given birth to an illegitimate child. We have been advising my daughter and son-in-law to live amicably. About 15 days ago, my daughter Sushma and son-in-law Satish had come to Pinjore. Satish had left my daughter there, saying that he will not keep her. On the next day, I came to Chandigarh along with my daughter Sushma. Sushma complained that due to caesarian operation she was having pain in her abdomen and legs and their house No.3079 is on the first floor. Therefore, the accused should take a house on rent on the ground floor at village Balongi. My daughter told that she feels pain while using stairs. But her mother-in-law had not agreed and stated that they will reside there only. My son-in-law, after consuming liquor (Alcohol), used to mercilessly beat my daughter. I told my son-in-law not to give beating to my daughter Sushma, but he replied that he will beat her in this manner only and stated that we should give him a scooter and a TV, otherwise Sushma should be taken away from his house. My son-in-law used to beat my daughter Sushma for not bringing adequate dowry. We informed his relations in Rajpura. I had to go to Rajpura to attend some marriage and I also thought that I shall gather all the relations at Rajpura and bring the discord to their notice. I had gone to Rajpura on 6th December, 1999. On 8th December, 1999 my daughter Sushma and my son-in-law Satish also came to Rajpura. Satish returned to Chandigarh immediately after attending the marriage and left my daughter Sushma at Rajpura. My daughter was not ready to accompany him. She stated that in case she returns home, her mother-in-law and husband will ill-treat her for bringing less dowry. I, being a lady and poor, thought that I shall take my son along and shall talk to the accused. Therefore, I, my son and my another daughter, came to Chandigarh on 12th December, 1999. We met Satish at his shop in village Balongi. I left my daughter there with her Criminal Appeal No.219-SB of 2002 4 husband and came back. We have got information on telephone that my daughter Sushma has consumed poison. I reached the house of the accused along with my son and learnt that my daughter Sushma has died, as she was compelled by the accused Satish and his mother Usha to consume poison."
From the tenor of above said statement made by the complainant, following facts emerge:
(a) After some time of the marriage, on trivial issues and petty matters, husband and wife used to quarrel;
(b) The accused used to consume liquor (Alcohol) in excess and give beatings to his wife;
(c) The deceased Sushma had delivered a child after caesarian operation was performed upon her and as an after-effect of the operation, she used to have pain in her abdomen and legs, and therefore, it was difficult for her to use stairs of the house. It has come in evidence that the deceased and the accused were living on the first floor and demand of the deceased that they should shift to the ground floor, was not accepted;
(d) In spite of the various entreaties made by family of the deceased, the accused could not leave his addiction to Alcohol;
(e) The accused used to harbor a grudge that the child born out of the wedlock was illegitimate;
(f) The accused was not paying adequate amount towards expenses of wife;
(g) The accused was demanding a scooter and a TV, and was therefore, dissatisfied with the dowry given in the marriage.Criminal Appeal No.219-SB of 2002 5
It is the last circumstance, which this Court has to consider with circumspection. To rule out this part of the FIR and statements of the witnesses, there are two vital aspects of the case, which are required to be highlighted. It has come in the FIR that when the complainant Raj Rani PW-3 left Rajpura, she formulated an opinion that she would go to the house of the accused along with her only son. Therefore, it is to be inferred that the discord between husband and wife, and the non- fulfillment of the demands of the accused for a scooter and TV, were brought to the notice of the only son of the complainant. The only son of complainant, namely Lalit Kumar, appeared as PW-7. He had not uttered a single word regarding demand of dowry or that the accused used to demand a scooter and TV, and for this reason the deceased was harassed. Furthermore, another witness Kanhaya Lal PW-4, who is another son-in-law of the complaint Raj Rani PW-3, had been confronted with his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The following portion of his cross-examination is required to be reproduced:
"... ... ... I have not stated in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. regarding raising of dowry demand by accused from late Sushma. I stated to the police that accused Satish alleged that the son born to Sushma was illegitimate. I met Satish on two occasions, firstly when we came to his home for patch-up and secondly, when he came to our home at Rajpura ... ... ..."
Thus, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, i.e. the entire reading of complaint specifies various reasons that (i) due to trivial issues, there used to be a difference of opinion between husband and the wife, (ii) accused suspected infidelity on the part of the deceased and paternity of the child, (iii) he was suffering from a bad habit of excessive consumption of Alcohol, (iv) the demand of the deceased that Criminal Appeal No.219-SB of 2002 6 after caesarian operation, they should reside on the ground floor, was not accepted; and (v) accused husband was not meeting expenses of the wife; were the root cause which led deceased to consume poison. This Court is of the opinion that the allegation that deceased was harassed due to demand of dowry, was later-on introduced, as a made-up affair, as a result of consultations and deliberations. This view formulated is further supported by the fact that Lalit Kumar, brother of the deceased, appearing as PW-7 had not stated anything in support of the allegation of demand of dowry. Kanhaya Lal PW-4 had been duly confronted with his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., where demand of dowry was not mentioned.
That being so, this Court is of the view that there was no demand of dowry soon before the death of Sushma and hence conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC is hereby set aside. However, since he was treating the deceased with cruelty, causing harassment and subjecting her to ill-treatment and also used to give her beatings, Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted and a presumption can be drawn against the appellant. The marriage, as stated earlier, was performed on 6th February, 1998. The deceased committed suicide on the night intervening 12th and 13th December, 1999. Thus, the appellant is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Conviction and sentence awarded to him under Section 498-A IPC is maintained.
Having returned a finding that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, this Court has to consider the quantum of sentence, which can be awarded to the appellant in the present case. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year 1999. A period of more than 11 years has elapsed. The appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. It is further stated that the child born out of the wedlock, who is now aged about Criminal Appeal No.219-SB of 2002 7 11/12 years, is being brought up by the appellant. At the same time, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that within one year and ten months of the marriage, the deceased had committed suicide. She was driven to point of no return by the conduct of the appellant to consume Aluminum Phosphide. Thus, taking into consideration the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment is awarded to the appellant under Section 306 IPC.
With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 12, 2011 rps