Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Paul Son Of Sant Ram Son Of ... vs The State Of Punjab on 1 April, 2009
Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996
Dated of Decision: 01.04.2009
1. Surinder Paul son of Sant Ram son of Mehtab Rai, aged 26
years;
2. Sant Ram son of Mehtab Rai son of Hira Mal, aged 58 years;
3. Tara Rani wife of Sant Ram son of Mehtab Rai, aged 50
years;
All residents of Jalalabad District Ferozepur.
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, for the respondent - State.
Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate,
with Ms. Mridula Thakur, Advocate,
for the complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 2
SHAM SUNDER, J.
**** This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 06.06.1996, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which, it convicted the accused (now appellants), and sentenced them, as under:-
Names of the accused Offence for which Sentence awarded (now appellants) convicted 1 2 3
(a) Surinder Paul (i) Under Section To undergo rigorous 304-B of the imprisonment for a Indian Penal period of seven years
(b) Sant Ram Code. each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-
each, in default
(c) Tara Rani thereof, to further
undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a
period of six months
each.
(ii) Under Section To undergo rigorous
498-A of the imprisonment for a
Indian Penal period of two years
Code. each and to pay a
fine of Rs. 500/-
each, in default
thereof, to further
undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a
period of three
months each.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Raj Rani, mother of Neelam Kumari (now deceased), moved an application PE on 01.07.91, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, containing the allegations, Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 3 that her daughter Neelam Kumari, was married to Surinder Paul, accused, about three and a half years before 24.06.91, the date of occurrence, at Jalalabad. On the occasion of the marriage of Neelam Kumari, sufficient dowry was given to Surinder Paul, accused, and his parents as per their demand. It was stated that the accused, however, were not satisfied with the dowry given to them. It was further stated that, at the time of her marriage, the complainant had promised with the accused, to provide Maruti car after arranging money for the same, but she could not arrange the same. After two months of the marriage, accused Surinder Paul, was given a scooter, for getting extension of time, for providing the aforesaid car. It was further stated that accused Surinder Paul, got the said scooter transferred in his name. It was further stated that Surinder Paul husband of Neelam Kumari, Sant Ram father-in-law of Neelam Kumari, and Tara Rani mother-in-law of Neelam Kumari, started maltreating her, for not bringing the said car. They started saying that either she should bring the car, or should pay the price thereof. Neelam Kumari, came to her parents, a number of times, and disclosed her tale of woes, to her parents, and uncle Kashmir Singh. It was further stated that Raj Rani, her husband's brother Kashmir Singh, Jit Singh Chawla, and Madan Lal Kalra, protested against the demand, made by the accused, with regard to the car aforesaid. Raj Rani, complainant, told the accused that she was not in a position to give the car or money in lieu thereof, as promised. The accused, however, told the complainant and the aforesaid persons that demand of Rs. 1 lac, in lieu of the car, be met at the time of harvesting Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 4 of kharif crop. Thereafter, the accused returned. It was further stated that since the amount collected for the purchase of car, by Raj Rani, had been spent by her, on the marriage of her son Mohinder Paul, on 14.04.91, therefore, the demand of the accused, aforesaid, could not be met by her. It was further stated that the accused, however, continued maltreating Neelam Kumari, in connection with the demand of the car or in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs. 1 lac. It was further stated that three days prior to the occurrence, Neelam Kumari, came to her parents house, and told about the maltreatment, being meted out to her in connection with the aforesaid demand. She was consoled and sent back saying that payment of the amount aforesaid, shall be made to the accused, at the earliest, after making arrangement. It was further stated that Neelam Kumari, alongwith her minor daughter, by setting themselves ablaze, committed suicide, in the house of her in-laws, as she was fed up with the maltreatment, being meted out, to her, at the hands of the accused, in connection with the demand of Maruti car, or in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs. 1 lac. It was further stated by the complainant, that she was residing at village Boorwala, whereas, her son Baldev Raj, was residing at Jalalabad, and, as such, he, and her other sons, did not know about the maltreatment, being meted out to Neelam Kumari, at the hands of the accused, on account of the aforesaid demand. It was further stated that, on coming to know about the death of Neelam Kumari and her minor daughter, the complainant reached Jalalabad, in the afternoon of 26.04.91. She narrated the aforesaid facts before the Investigating Officer, but her statement was Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 5 not recorded.
3. On the application PE, endorsement PE/2, was made by the Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, to enquire, into the matter, and register the case, under the appropriate sections. On receipt of the application PE, with endorsement PE/2, first information report on 01.07.91, in Police Station City Jalalabad, was registered. Thereafter, Mr. R.P.S. Bajwa, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, went to the spot, and found all the accused guilty of the crime. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh, Sub Inspector, inspected the spot, and prepared rough site plan PF. The accused were arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Scooter Priya, which was produced by Baldev Raj, was taken into possession. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.
4. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, was framed, against the accused, which was read- over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Sandeep Kukkar, Medical Officer (PW1), who conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead-body of Neelam Kumari, aged about 27 years. The dead-body was identified by Mohinder Paul son of Diwan Chand, and Ajit Singh son of Fateh Chand, both residents of Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 6 Jalalabad. 82 per cent deep burns on the dead-body of Neelam Kumari, including front of chest and back of chest were present. Line of demarcation was present between burns and healthy skin on the back of chest. Superficial burns were present on the front of chest. Dr. Sandeep Kukkar, opined that Neelam Kumari, died due to shock, as a result of 82 per cent deep burns, which were sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. The burns were ante-mortem, in nature. The probable time that lapsed between injuries and death was instantaneous and between death and post-mortem was within 12 hours.
6. He also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Nadia daughter of Surinder Paul, aged about 2 ½ to 3 years, identified by Sohan Lal son of Diwan Chand and Vijay Kumar son of Diwan Chand, both residents of Jalalabad. The dead-body was found naked. Eyes were closed and mouth was semi open. Rigor mortis was present in upper limbs. Post-mortem staining was present on dependent parts. Partially scalp hairs were burnt. 55 per cent deep burns were present all over the body of Nadia, excluding back of chest, front of chest, and both legs on back side. Line of demarcation between burns and healthy skin was there. The doctor opined that the cause of death was due to 55 per cent burns, which resulted in shock, and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Burns were ante mortem in nature. The time that lapsed between injuries and death was between 2 to 3 hours and between death and post-mortem was between 5 hours and 5 minutes. The doctor handed over ear-rings and one gold bangle in respect of Neelam Kumari, to Constable Manjit Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 7 Singh, after duly converting the same, into parcel, after the post- mortem examination.
7. Kashmir Singh, brother-in-law of Raj Rani (brother of the husband of Raj Rani) (PW2), and Raj Rani, complainant (PW3), deposed, in terms of the prosecution version, as stated above, while narrating the facts of the case.
8. Inspector Gurdev Singh (PW4), received the application PE, given by Raj Rani, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, on the basis whereof, formal first information report PE/1, was registered. He stated that he conducted the investigation and arrested the accused.
9. Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW5), recorded the statement of Baldev Raj brother of Neelam Kumari, on 24.06.91, and made endorsement on the said statement PG. He prepared the inquest report PB of Neelam Kumari. He also prepared inquest report PD of the dead-body of Nadia. He also took into possession the ear-rings of Neelam Kumari, vide memo PH.
10. Amrik Singh, draftsman (PW6), prepared the scaled map PD of the place of occurrence, at the instance of Jit Singh, Sarpanch.
11. Gurmel Singh, Constable (PW7), took the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate, and other higher officers.
12. Mr. R.P.S. Bajwa, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fazilka (PW8), on receipt of the application PE, on 01.07.91, investigated the case, and found all the accused, guilty of the crime. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 8
13. 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. Tara Rani, accused, in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that Neelam Kumari, was under mental depression and she died of her own. It was further stated by her that they got her treated from Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, for about three years. It was further stated by her that no demand in the shape of Maruti car or cash amount was ever raised from Neelam Kumari, nor she was subjected to cruelty in connection therewith.
14. Surinder Paul, accused, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that Neelam Kumari, was not maltreated, in connection with the alleged demand of Maruti car or in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs. 1 lac. He further sated that she was got treated for depression from Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, for about three years. It was further stated by him, that on the date of occurrence, he and Baldev Raj, brother of Neelam Kumari, were sitting at the shop. It was further stated by him that he was residing on the first floor of the shop. Both of them heard shrieks and went upstairs. It was further stated that they took Neelam Kumari, and Nadia, to the hospital.
15. Accused Sant Ram, also took up the same pleas, as were taken up by Tara Rani, and Surinder Paul, accused, in their statements, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
16. The accused examined Dr. Jaswant Singh, Professor and Head, Department of Psychiatry, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala (DW1), Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 9 who proved prescription slip exhibit DX and photostat copy of the entry made by him in the register DY. He tried to prove that Neelam Kumari, was the patient of depression. Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence.
17. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.
18. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellants.
19. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
20. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that, no doubt, the marriage of Neelam Kumari, with Surinder Paul, was performed three and a half years before 24.06.91, the date of occurrence. He further submitted that Neelam Kumari, and Nadia, died, on account of burn injuries. He further submitted that Neelam Kumari, was not subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of Maruti car or in lieu thereof, cash amount of Rs. 1 lac, by the accused. He further submitted that the accused were satisfied with the articles of dowry, given at the time of marriage, and never nursed grudge in their mind against Neelam Kumari, or her parents. He further submitted that the relations between the accused and Neelam Kumari, were cordial. He further submitted that Neelam Kumari, was suffering from depression, and, on account of that reason, she set herself ablaze alongwith her minor daughter Nadia. He further submitted that even all the brothers of Neelam Kumari, namely Mohinder Paul, Vijay Kumar, Sohan Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 10 and Baldev Raj, at the time of preparation of inquest report, in clear-cut terms, stated that Neelam Kumari, committed suicide, as she was depressed and there was no foul play. He further submitted that the first information report, was got registered by Raj Rani, mother of Neelam Kumari, on 01.07.91, with an ulterior motive. He further submitted that all the necessary ingredients, required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, were not fulfilled. In the alternative, it was submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that, if the Court, comes to the conclusion that the offences, punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, were committed, at the most Surinder Paul, accused, could be said to be the beneficiary. He further submitted that the mother-in-law and father- in-law of Neelam Kumari, were not at all liable, for the alleged commission of offences.
21. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that all the accused continuously maltreated Neelam Kumari, in connection with the demand of Maruti car, or in lieu thereof, cash amount of Rs. 1 lac, till her death, as a result whereof, she alongwith her minor daughter committed suicide. He further submitted that Neelam Kumari, never told her tale of woes to her brothers who were residing separately and, as such, the statements allegedly given by them, at the time of preparation of inquest report, did not carry any weight. He further submitted that the conduct of Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, who prepared the inquest reports, and recorded the statements of the brothers of Neelam Kumari, was not Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 11 above-board, as he was out and out to save the accused, by preparing record favourable to them. He further submitted that Neelam Kumari, was not under depression and, as such, the question of commission of suicide by her, alongwith her minor daughter, on account of that reason, did not at all arise. He further submitted that the trial Court, was right, in recording conviction and awarding sentence.
22. For constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304- B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that a married woman died 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, by her husband or his relatives. It was admitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that Neelam Kumari, was married to Surinder Paul, three and a half years, before the date of occurrence. It was also admitted that she alongwith her minor daughter died, in the house of Surinder Paul, accused, within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances i.e. by burn injuries. Two ingredients required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, were admitted, and even proved from the evidence, produced by the prosecution. Now let us see, as to whether, the third ingredient, that Neelam Kumari, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, aforesaid, soon before her death was proved or not. Only after the proof of the three ingredients, required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, that statutory presumption under Section Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 12 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, could be drawn, that the accused were liable for the commission of dowry death.
23. The conduct of Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdip Singh, who prepared the inquest reports of the dead-bodies of Neelam Kumari, and Nadia, could not, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be above- board. He apparently manipulated the records, as would be demonstrated hereinafter. The death of Neelam Kumari, and Nadia, took place on 24.06.91, at about 10.30 AM, in the house of Surinder Paul, accused, at Jalalabad. Report No. 10, dated 24.06.91, was statedly recorded at 11.00 AM, by Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, at a place, other than the place, where the dead-bodies of Neelam Kumari, and Nadia, were lying. The inquest report, under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be prepared by a Police Officer, with a view to ascertain the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injuries, as may be found on the dead-body and stating, as to, in what manner or by what weapon or instrument, such injuries/marks appeared to have been inflicted. The object of the proceedings, aforesaid, is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances, or whether unnatural death had taken place and, if so, what was the apparent cause of death. There is no other object of the preparation of inquest report, under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the time of preparation of inquest reports, it was not to be determined, by the Investigating Officer, as to whether, the accused were innocent or guilty. He was also not required to record the statements of any of the Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 13 persons, for finding the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, was in a hurry to hush up the matter, he recorded the statement of Baldev Raj, at 11.00 AM, on 24.06.91, and the inquest report was also apparently, prepared at 11.00 AM, on 24.06.91. It must have taken sometime by the Investigating Officer, to reach the spot. In these circumstances, the time of recording the statement of Baldev Raj, and time of inquest proceedings could not coincide. Not only this, even Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, enclosed a Panchayatnama, with the inquest signed by a number of persons, in support of the accused. It was not his duty to obtain the Panchayatnama, to find out the truth or otherwise of allegations and, as to whether, the accused committed any crime, or not. When the brothers of Neelam Kumari, were under an extreme shock and agony, immediately on account of her death and death of her minor daughter, it could not be imagined that they would make statements that the accused were not guilty of the offence. The statements allegedly made by the brothers of Neelam Kumari, immediately after her death and the death of her minor daughter could, therefore, not be said to be voluntary. Even Raj Rani, PW3, when appeared, as her own witness, stated that her sons never accompanied her, as and when she approached the accused alongwith other persons in the form of Panchayat. She further stated, during the course of her cross- examination, that the accused never allowed Neelam Kumari, to call on her brothers. She further stated that Neelam Kumari, never told the tale of her woes, to her sons, when they happened to meet her at night on Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 14 24.06.91. It was further stated by her, during the course of cross- examination, that she told her sons about the demand of the accused and harassment they were causing to Neelam Kumari, for non- fulfillment of their demand, about five days, after the death of Neelam Kumari. Thus, it was proved that Neelam Kumari, never told her tale of woes, during her life time, to her brothers. Even otherwise, a married woman, can only confide, in her parents, to narrate the tale of her woes. She confided in her mother, and uncle Kashmir Singh, in narrating her tale of woes, at the hands of he accused, in connection with the demand of Maruti car, or in lieu thereof, the cash amount of Rs. 1 lac. Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, was, thus, out and out to save the accused by allegedly recording the statements of the brothers of the deceased, at the time of inquest proceedings, which he was not required to do, under the provisions of law. No help, therefore, can be drawn, from the alleged statements, made by the brothers of the deceased, at the time of preparation of inquest proceedings by Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. Such record was fabricated by Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, to ensure that the accused escaped the dragnet of law. It is settled principle of law, that if the Investigating Officer, does not conduct the investigation, in a proper manner, then the case of the prosecution is not to suffer, as the investigation is not in the hands of the complainant. If the irregularities or illegalities committed by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, are taken into consideration, for granting benefit to the accused, then every negligent or dishonest Investigating Officer, shall leave lacunae, in the Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 15 investigation or fabricate a record, to create an escape route for the accused. The Court, is not to play in the hands of the Investigating Officer. In this case, when Raj Rani, PW3, mother of Neelam Kumari, deceased, came to know with regard to the connivance of Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, the Investigating Officer, with the accused, she submitted the application PE, before the Senior Superintendent of Police. The first information report was registered. The investigation was conducted by a Gazetted Officer, in the name of R.P.S. Bajwa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, and he found all the accused guilty of the crime, under Sections 304-B read with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation conducted by a senior Officer of the Police, therefore, also casts a cloud of doubt, on the alleged Panchayatnama, which was attached with the inquest proceedings by Gurdip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, and the alleged statements made by the brothers of Neelam Kumari, deceased. Even otherwise, the statements recorded, at the time of inquest proceedings, did not constitute the substantive evidence. These could only be used, for the purpose of contradiction of the persons, who made the same, had they appeared in the Court, as prosecution witnesses. None of these persons, appeared as a prosecution witness, in the Court. No help, therefore, could be drawn from such statements by the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that such statements of the brothers of Neelam Kumari, deceased, exonerated the accused, therefore, does not carry any weight, in view of the substantive evidence, produced by the prosecution. The submission of the Counsel Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 16 for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
24. Raj Rani, PW3, made a consistent statement to the effect that the accused made a demand of Maruti car, or in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs. 1 lac, from Neelam Kumari. She also stated that even three days before her death Neelam Kumari, told her and Kashmir Singh, her uncle, that she was being subjected to cruelty by the accused, in connection with the demand of aforesaid car, or cash in lieu thereof, in the shape of dowry. She also stated that her husband is simpleton. Even Kashmir Singh, PW2, uncle of Neelam Kumari, deceased, corroborated the statement of Raj Rani, in all material particulars. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when a married woman is subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, she, in the first instance, narrates her tale of woes to her parents. The parents can be said to be the best persons, in whom she can confide, to tell the tale of her woes. In this case, Neelam Kumari, as and when, was subjected to cruelty, narrated her tale of woes, to her mother and uncle Kashmir Singh. There was no reason, on the part of Raj Rani, and Kashmir Singh, to depose falsely. They had no ill-will, grudge or enmity against Surinder Paul, accused, to make a false statement. There was also no reason, on the part of Neelam Kumari, to commit suicide alongwith her minor daughter, had she been not subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of Maruti car, or in lieu thereof, cash amount of Rs. 1 lac, at least by Surinder Paul, accused, her husband. She was married only three and a half years, before the occurrence, and had a minor Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 17 child in her lap. She must have entertained high hopes, to enjoy her married life. Under these circumstances, it could hardly be imagined that she could take such an extreme step. No doubt, a plea was taken up by accused Surinder Paul, to the effect, that Neelam Kumari, was suffering from depression and that was why she committed suicide, alongwith her minor daughter Nadia. The accused also examined Dr. Jaswant Singh, DW1, who proved prescription slip exhibit DX, written by him, while he used to go to Muktsar, to attend the patients. On this slip, the name of the husband or the name of the father of Neelam Kumari, is not written. It was not the case of Surinder Paul, accused, that he ever got checked Neelam Kumari, from any doctor, at Muktsar. Dr. Jaswant Singh, DW1, during the course of cross-examination, stated that the name of the patient, her age, and date of birth, on the prescription slip exhibit DX, were in different hand, whereas, the prescription slip was in his own hand. This slip did not bear the OPD number. He also stated that he did not maintain any record, pertaining to the said slip exhibit DX. He also did not mention the disease with which Neelam Kumari, whose name was written on exhibit DX, was suffering. He also did not record the symptoms, which said Neelam Kumari, was having, at the time he allegedly checked her. He also could not tell, as to for how many times, he examined said Neelam Kumari, and how many times, she came to him from 1988 to 1991. The statement of Dr. Jaswant Singh, DW1, when read as a whole, only one and one conclusion, that can be arrived at, is that the prescription slip exhibit DX, was a fabricated document, and his statement was Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 18 unreliable. The defence version and the defence evidence, to the effect, that it was on account of depression that Neelam Kumari, committed suicide, alongwith her minor daughter, therefore, being not believable, was rightly rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court, was, thus, right in holding that Neelam Kumari, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, aforesaid, soon before her death. It may be stated here, that it was only Surinder Paul, accused, husband of Neelam Kumari, who could be benefitted, on account of the demand of Maruti car or in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs. 1 lac. The findings of the trial Court, to the extent that it was Surinder Paul, who subjected Neelam Kumari, to cruelty, in connection with the demand of Maruti car, or in lieu thereof, cash amount of Rs. 1 lac, continuously until her death, as a result whereof, she committed suicide by setting her ablaze alongwith her minor daughter Nadia, are correct. This Court, also after reappraisal and reappreciation of the entire evidence, agrees with the conclusion of the trial Court, to the extent, referred to above. Surinder Paul, accused, thus, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to this extent, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
25. Coming to the criminal liability of Sant Ram, father-in-law of Neelam Kumari, and Tara Rani, mother-in-law of Neelam Kumari, it may be stated here, that they were apparently falsely implicated, in the instant case. As stated above, it was only Surinder Paul, accused, who could be said to be the beneficiary, on account of the demand of Maruti Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 19 car or in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs. 1 lac. No doubt, the omnibus allegations, against all the accused, were made by Raj Rani, and Kashmir Singh, prosecution witnesses. It is a matter of common knowledge, that when a bride dies, in the house of her in-laws, under circumstances, other than normal, then no love is lost between the parents of the deceased and the members of her in-laws family. In such a situation, the parents of the deceased are out and out, to rope in, as many members of the in-laws family of the bridegroom, as they can possibly do. As stated above, Sant Ram, and Tara Rani, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of Neelam Kumari, deceased, could be least benefitted, on account of the demand of Maruti car, or in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs. 1 lac, by way of dowry, by Surinder Paul, from his in-laws. The statements of Raj Rani, PW3, and Kashmir Singh, PW2, to the effect that Sant Ram, and Tara Rani, were also active participants, in the demand of Maruti car, or in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs. 1 lac, from Neelam Kumari, by way of dowry, are not believable. The trial Court, was wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence to both these accused. The appeal, qua them, is liable to be accepted. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to this extent, carries substance, and is accepted.
26. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
27. In view of the above, it is held that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, qua Surinder Paul, accused (now appellant), being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, are liable to be upheld.
28. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 20 rendered by the trial Court, qua Sant Ram, and Tara Rani, accused (now appellants), being not based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, are liable to be set-aside.
29. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by Surinder Paul, appellant, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, qua Surinder Paul, are upheld. If Surinder Paul, appellant, is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
30. The appeal filed by Sant Ram, and Tara Rani, appellants, is accepted. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, qua them, are set-aside. They shall stand acquitted of the charge, framed against them. If Sant Ram, and Tara Rani, appellants, are on bail, they shall stand discharged of their bail bonds. If they are in custody, they shall be released, at once, if not required, in any other case.
31. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgement, in accordance with the provisions of law, and submit the compliance report, within a period of two months.
32. The District & Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, is directed to ensure that the directions aforesaid, are complied with, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and compliance report, is submitted within the time frame.
33. The Registry, is directed to keep track, and put up the compliance report, as and when received, before this Court. It is, however, made clear that even if the compliance report is not received, within the time frame, the papers shall be put up, within 10 days of the expiry thereof, for further legal action, in the matter. Criminal Appeal No. 465-SB of 1996 21
34. The Registry, is further directed to send copies of the judgement to the quarters concerned, for due compliance, promptly.
01.04.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE