Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sukhdarshan Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: RLW2003(3)RAJ1620, 2002(5)WLC487, 2002(2)WLN333
JUDGMENT Garg, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 23.8.1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 174/97, by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 304B and 498 IPC and sentenced them in the following manner;-
Name of accused appellants Convicted u/Sec.
Sentence awarded to each accused appellant
1. Sukhdarshan 304B IPC Seven years R! and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months Rt.
2. Kishorilal
3. Smt. Sita 498A IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI.
Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short, are as follows:-
On 8.3.1996 at about 7.45 PM, PW 1 Vijay Kumar lodged a written report Ex.P/1 before PW 17 Rajendra Singh, who was SHO, Police Station Kesrisinghpur at the relevant time stating inter- alia that his sister Mamta (hereinafter referred to as the deceased- wife) was married or 8th May, 1989 with the accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar and at the time of marriage, as per their status, in dowry, 9 tolas gold, Scooter, TV and Rs. 21,000/- in cash etc. were given, but inspite of that, the present accused appellants Smt. Sita (mother-in-law of the deceased-wife), Kishorilal (father-in-law of the deceased-wife) and Sukhdarshan Kumar (husband of the deceased-wife) and others including Purshottam, Jeth of the deceased-wife and Rekha, Nanad of the deceased-wife used to torture and harass deceased-wife for not bringing sufficient dowry in marriage. It was further stated in the report that five years back, out of this wedlock, a son Gaurav, DW 2 was born and on this occasion also, gold and cash amount were also given, but her in-laws were not satisfied. Thereafter, cash was also given to deceased-wife for purchasing a house. It was further stated in the report that whenever deceased-wife used to come to her parents house, she used to tell that she was being tortured and harassed by her in-laws' for not bringing sufficient dowry and her in-laws' includes present accused appellants and her Jeth Purshottam and his wife etc. It was further stated in the report that one and half years back, a daughter was born to deceased-wife and on that occasion also, Rs. 11,000.- were given in case, but they were not satisfied. It was further stated in the report that before 20 days of the alleged incident, deceased-wife came to her parents place Karanpur and at that time, she having tears in her eyes told that her in-laws were still demanding there tolas gold and upon this, on next day, PW 1 Vijay Kumar, PW 4 Manoharlal, Khemchand and PW 5 Jaganath, all resident of Karanpur went to Kesrisinghpur and they all advised present accused appellants and others not to harass and torture deceased-wife for dowry, as sufficient dowry had already been given to them. It was further stated in the report that one day before Holi, deceased-wife came to karanpur and at that time, she told her mother and brother Pawan Kumar, PW 8 that atleast three tolas gold be given so that her in-laws' could be satisfied and at that time, deceased-wife was assured that they would come within 5-6 days to her in-laws' house and fulfil their demand. It was further stated in the report that on 8.3.1996 at about 6.00 AM, a telephonic message was received from Kesrisinghpur (Place where her in-laws' used to reside) that deceased-wife was beaten by her in-laws' and thereafter, deceased wife and her daughter both were got burnt and upon this, they came to Kesrisinghpur, where they came to know that deceased-wife and her daughter had been burnt by the accused appellants and other relatives.
On this report, PW 17 Rajendra Singh chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/59 and started investigation and during investigation, site plan Ex.P/2 was prepared and post, mortem of dead body of the deceased-wife was got conducted by PW 15 Dr. K.N. Markande and the post mortem report of deceased-wife is Ex.P/57. The post mortem of dead body of her daughter Bharti was also got conducted and her post mortem report is Ex.P/58.
After usual investigation, police submitted challan in the Court of Magistrate against the present accused appellants only as police did not find case against Pur-shottam, Jeth of deceased- wife, Rekha, wife of Purshottam and Renu, nanad of the deceased- wife. Therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Session.
On 20.10.1996, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Sri Ganganagar framed charges for the offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC against the accused appellants. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial.
Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar.
During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, 8 witnesses were produced by the accused appellants.
After conclusion of trial, the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities). Sri Ganganagar through his judgment and order 23.8.1999 convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and sentenced them in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia:-
1. That marriage of the deceased wife with accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar took place within seven years from the date of her death.
2. That death of the deceased-wife occurred in suspicious circumstances i.e. otherwise than under normal circumstances i.e. by burning.
3. That for the sake of argument if it is held that deceased-wife was of hot tempered lady, all the same, the cause, which has been assigned by the accused appellants that on the date of fateful incident, a quarrel took place between DWI .Rohit, who is son of Pawan Kumar, jeth of the deceased-wife and DW2 Gaurav, who is so of the deceased-wife and for that quarrel, deceased wife would commit suicide, cannot be regarded as a sufficient ground for committing suicide by deceased-wife alongwith her daughter.
4 That non-production of mother of deceased-wife is not fatal to the prosecution.
5. That seven days before the fateful incident and one day before Holi, demand of three tolas gold was made by the accused appellants and further, for dowry demand, the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has relied on the statements of PW 1 Vijay Kumar PW2 Hemraj, PW3 Satya Devi, PW 4 Manoharlal and PW 5 Jaganath and he has further held that though they are relatives, but it would not affect their testimony.
6. That though the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has not given clear cut finding whether it was a case of suicidal death or not, but from the discussion of evidence made in the impugned judgment, it appears that he was of the view that it was a case of suicide.
7. That prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 23.8.1999 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.
3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellants:-
1. That since at the time when deceased wife and her daughter were found burnt inside the room, which was closed from inside, therefore, it is a clear case of suicide and this suicide was committed by the deceased-wife due to her hot temperament and there was no dowry demand in any manner.
2. That learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has wrongly placed reliance on the statements of PW 1 Vijay Kumar, PW 2 Hemraj, PW 3 Satya Devi, PW 4 Manoharlal and PW 5 Jaganath as their evidence is contradictory with their police statements on material points and when the plot in question was purchased in the name of deceased wife, therefore, to say that there was a dowry demand, is wrong one and apart from this, PW 3 Satya Devi PW 4 manoharlal and PW 5 Jaganath are relatives and thus, their evidence is tainted one.
3. That learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has grossly erred in not placing reliance on the evidence, which is found in the statements of defence witnesses, namely, DW I Rohit, DW 2 Gaurav, bW 3 Kanchan Devi, PW 6 Khemchand, DW 7 Amritpalsingh and PW 8 Pawan Kumar, especially DW 2 Gaurav, PW 7 Amritpalsingh an DW 8 Pawan Kumar and the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has further erred in invoking Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act in the present case.
4. That accused appellants Kishorilal, father-in-law of deceased-wife and Smt. Sita, mother-in-law of deceased-wife were residing separately and they were not residing with the accused appellant Sukhdar-shan Kumar, husband of the deceased-wife and thus, they have been falsely implicated in the case.
Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the irnpugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellants arid the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.
6. In Shanti v. State of Haryana (1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the ingredients of Section 304B IPC. His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said "A careful analysis of Section 304B IPC shows that this section has the following essentials:-
1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
2. Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
3. She must have been subjected to cruelty of harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
4. Such cruelly or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry."
7. What Section 304B IPC requires is that death of the woman should be unnatural. In Shanti v. State of Haryana (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that for applicability of Section 304B IPC, question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant.
8. Section 304B raises a presumption of culpability against the husband or relative hitherto unknown to our jurisprudence.
9. The prosecution must prove with some positive evidence that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.
10. In the case of dowry death and suicide, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence, that could be direct or indirect. In this respect, conduct of the husband and other relatives also plays a very vital role in coming to the conclusion of the guilt. In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Bachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (2), may be seen.
11. Motive for a murder may or may not be. But in dowry deaths, it is inherent. And hence, what is required of the court to examine is as to who translated it into action as motive for it is not individual, but of family. (See Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (3).
On defence evidence
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Babu Ram (4), has held that there is no different yard stick prescribed for judicial scrutiny of witnesses on either side, meaning thereby the yard stick for the defence witnesses as well as for the prosecution witnesses is the same.
Point No. 113. So far as point No. 1 is concerned, the evidence of PW 15 Dr. K.N. Markande has to be seen.
14. PW 15 Dr. K.N. Markande has stated in his statement that on 9.3.1996, a Medical Board consisting of three doctors was constituted for the purpose of making autopsy of the dead body of the deceased-wife and he has further stated that the cause of death of deceased-wife was shock due to extensive burns over the body of the deceased-wife. He has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/57 and similarly, he has also proved the post mortem report Ex.P/58 of Bharti, who was daughter of the deceased-wife aged about one and half years and cause of death of this child was also the same i.e. due to extensive burns.
15. Thus, from the statement of PW 15 Dr. K.N. Markande, it is well proved that death of the deceased-wife has been caused by burns or in other words, otherwise than in normal circumstances.
16. It may be stated here that for proving the charge for the office under Section 304B IPC, as already stated above, it is immaterial whether the death in question was homicidal or suicidal, but all the same, it is the duty of the court that if the evidence is available, it should be specified. The learned Special Addl, Sessions Judge though has held that death of the deceased wife was not under normal circumstances, but he has mentioned at some places this death as suicidal death.
17. So far as the point whether death of the deceased wife in the present case was suicidal or not, there are some circumstances, which lead to the conclusion that it was a case of suicidal death. For that, the statement of PW 17 Rajendra Singh, who was SHO of Police Station Kesrisinghpur can be referred to where he has admitted that the room in which dead body of deceased-wife and her daughter were found, was opened by breaking the door. PW 18 Leeladhar, who was C.O. and who took the investigation of the case also on 16.3.1996, has admitted that it was found during investigation that the door of them room was closed from inside and DW 4 Gurmin-dersingh broke the door. Gurmindersingh has been produced in defence as DW 4 and he has stated that smoke was coming from that room and door was locked from inside and he tried his best to open that room and when the failed in that effort, then he broke the door.
18. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that door of room in which deceased-wife and her daughter were burnt, was closed from inside, meaning thereby she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her. Thus, for all purposes, it is a case of suicidal death and so far as the charge for the offence under Section 304B IPC is concerned, it is immaterial for that charge that death is homicial or suicidal one.
19. Hence, point No. 1 of ingredients of Section 304B IPC is well proved by the prosecution.
Point No. 220. So far as the point No. 2 is concerned, it is not in dispute that marriage of the deceased-wife with the accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar took place on 8th May, 1989 and death of the deceased-wife occurred in abnormal circumstances on 8.3.1996 and, therefore, death of the deceased-wife occurred within seven years of marriage.
21. Hence, ingredient of point No. 2 of Section 304B IPC is also well proved by the prosecution.
Points No. 3 and 4.
22. Since points No. 3 and 4 are inter-connected, they are being decided together and for that evidence in the present case has to be looked into and in this case, the evidence consists of many persons of different nature and variety.
First set of evidence
23. The first set of evidence is found in the statements of PW 1 Vijay Kumar, PW 2 Hemraj, PW 3 Satya Devi, PW 4 Manoharlal and PW 5 Jaganath.
24. PW 1 Vijay Kumar is the real brother of the deceased-wife and he lodged the report Ex.P/1 just after the occurrence. He supported the contents mentioned in the report Ex.P/1 through his statement in Court and he has also mentioned the names of other 2-3 persons against whom challan was not filed by the police. He has further stated that he aiongwith pW 5 Jaganath, PW 4 Manoharlal and Khemchand went to her in-laws' place (Kesrisinghpur) and the accused appellants and other persons were advised not to torture and harass the deceased-wife and he also mentioned the incident which took place seven days before alleged occurrence and one day before Holi. In cross examination, this witness admits the following facts:-
1. That arranger of the marriage was Dault Ram.
2. That father-in-law of the deceased-wife has three sons and accused appellant Sukhdarshan, husband of the deceased-wife, is the youngest and other two sons are Purshottam and Pawan Kumar, but he did not talk to them and their wives.
3. That he was never told by Jethani of the deceased-wife that accused appellants are greedy persons.
4. That his elder brother is Pawan Kumar (DW8).
5. That in police statement Ex.D/5, he has not mentioned that his mother has given Rs. 50,000/- to deceases wife.
6. That birth certificates of both DW 2 Gaurav and deceased Bharti are Ex.D/7 and Ex.D/6 respectively, but in them, place of birth at Kesrisinghpur has been wrongly mentioned.
7. That after marriage of deceased, he and his brother s Amritlal, DW7. Pawan Kumar, DW 8 and Hemraj, PW 2 were separated.
8. That he cannot say whether the accused appellant Sukhdarshan, husband of the deceased-wife, purchased a plot in the name of the deceased-wife in 1990, but later, he admitted this fact and further stated that Rs. 50,000/- were given by his mother to the deceased-wife.
9. That at the time of inauguration of his shop, both deceased-wife and her husband accused appellant Sukhdarshan came, but at that ' time, before PW 3 Satya Devi and PW 5 jaganath, deceased-wife told about the demand of dowry by her in-laws.
10. That (hey never made complaint about the dowry demand by her in-laws' before police etc.
11. That when he, PW 4 Manoharlal, PW 5 Jaganath and Khem Chand went to Kesrisinghpur to advise her in-laws, no local people of Kesrisinghpur was there.
12. That PW 4 Manoharlal is his business partner and Khemchand is his brother in relation and PW 5 Jaganath is brother in-law of his elder brother Pawan Kumar DW 8.
13. That it is wrong to say that deceased wife was hard hearing and hot tempered lady.
14. That at Kesrisinghpur, nobody told him that her in-laws used to harass and torture deceased wife for not bringing sufficient dowry.
25. PW 2 Hemraj is also brother of the deceased-wife and he has also stated the same facts as stated by PW 1 Vijay Kumar and in cross examination, this witness admits the following facts:-
1. That for the first time, the demand of dowry was made when DW 2 Gaurav was born i.e. in the year 1994.
2. That Rs. 50,000/- were given by his mother to deceased wife.
3. That before death of the deceased wife, he did not make any complaint before the police about dowry demand by her in- laws.
4. That in Kesrisinghpur, nobody told that her-laws' used to torture and harass deceased wife for not bringing sufficient dowry.
5. That on the sport, he was told by someone that deceased wife had been burnt by accused appellants for hot bringing sufficient dowry, but he cannot say the name of that person.
26. PW 3 Satya Devi is another witness produced by the prosecution and she is wife of Jaganath, PW 5. She has stated that before 22 days of alleged incident, deceased-wife met her and deceased-wife told her that accused appellants and other relatives used to harass and torture her for not bringing sufficient dowry. In cross examination, she has admitted that DW 8 Pawan Kumar is brother of PW 2 Hemraj to whom her Nanad was married.
27. PW 4 Manoharlal is another witness and he states that he alongwith PW 1 Vijay Kumar, PW 5 Jaganath and Khemchand went to Kesrisinghpur for advising her in-laws not to torture and harass deceased-wife and he has further stated that accused appellant Kishorilal, father-in-law of deceased-wife agreed that they would not harass and torture the deceased for dowry demand and after 20 days of this incident, deceased wife was burnt. In cross examination, he admits the following facts:-
1. That it is correct to say that he has business partnership with PW 1 Vijay Kumar.
2. That he had never talked with deceased wife.
3. That he has been President of Agrawal Sabha, Karanpur, but for one year and during that period, complaint of her in- laws' was never put.
4. That PW 5 Jaganath also attended the Panchayat meeting and PW 5 jaganath is brother-in-law of DW 8 Pawan Kumar.
28. PW 5 Jaganath also supports the contents of Panchayat meeting in kesrisinghpur and he admits in cross examination that her sister was married to DW8 Pawan Kumar.
Other set of evidence
29. PW 6 Mohanlal, who is resident of Kesrisinghpur (place of her in-laws'), has been declared hostile and he admits in cross examination that on the fateful day quarrel took place among children and thereafter, deceased wife become angry and committed suicide.
30. PW 7 Surjeet Singh is also resident of Kesrisinghpur and he has been declared hostile.
31. PW 8 Tarsem is also resident of Kesrisinghpur and he has been declared hostile. In cross examination, he admits that deceased-wife was not tempered lady and her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to live separately and she was living with her husband and she was hard hearing and she used to come to his house, but she never made complaint against her in-laws' about demand of dowry and on the fateful day, quarrel took place between DW 1 Rohit and DW 2 Gaurav and door of the room in which deceased wife committed suicide was opened by DW 4 Gurminder Singh.
32. PW 11 Madanlal is another witness, who is resident of Kesrisinghpur and he has been declared hostile.
33. PW 12 Girdhrilal is another witness, who is also resident of Kesrisinghpur and he admits in cross examination that there was no complaint of dowry demand by the accused appellants and deceases wife was hot tempered lady and on the fateful day quarrel took place among children and thereafter, deceased wife committed suicide.
34. PW 17 Rajendra Singh was IO in this case and he has admitted in cross examination that it is correct that Kishorilal, who is father-in-law of deceased, used to live separately and against Purshottam, Jeth of deceased wife, Rekha, who was wife of Purshottam, and Renu, who was Nanad of deceased wife, challan was filed. He has further stated that during investigation he came to know that deceased wife was hot tempered lady.
Evidence of defence
35. DW1 Rohit is the son of brother of the accused appellant Sukhdarshan, who is husband of the deceased-wife and he is a child of 12 years and he has stated that deceased-wife was his chachi and her son is DW 2 Gaurav and on the fateful day, quarrel occurred between him and DW 2 Gaurav and over the dispute between them, deceased-wife quarrelled with his mother Indu, DW 3. He has further stated that his chachi deceased-wife was hard hearing and hot tempered lady and in the evening, he heard that his chachi deceased-wife has herself burnt.
36. DW 2 Gaurav is the son of the deceased-wife as well 'as accused appellant Sukhdarshan and he is a child of 8 years and after recording preliminary questions and answers, his statement was recorded by the learned Special Addf. Sessions Judge and in his statement, he has stated that on the fateful day, a dispute arose with DW 1 Rohit and he made complaint to his mother deceased-wife and, thereafter, his mother quar-relied with his Tai DW 3 Indu and, thereafter, his mother burnt herself after sometime. He has further stated that his mother deceased-wife was hard hearing lady and by nature she was quarrelsome. He has further stated that his father accused appellant Sukhdarshan, grand-father accused appellant Kishorilal and grand-mother accused appellant Smt. Sita never tortured deceased-wife nor ever demanded anything.
37. DW 3 Indurani is the mother of DW 1 Rohit and Jethani of deceased-wife and she has also supported the statements of DW 1 Rohit and DW 3 Gaurav.
38. DW 4 Gurmindersingh's statement has already been mentioned above on the point that door of the room, in which deceased-wife burnt herself, was locked from inside and it was he, who opened the door,
39. DW 5 Kanchan Devi is the bhabhi of deceased-wife and wife of DW 7 Amritpal, who is brother of the complainant PW 1 Vijay Kumar. She states that whenever deceased-wife used to come to her parents house, she used to stay with her and she never made complaint against the accused appellants for demand of dowry and no panchayat went to Kesrisinghpur. She has further stated that deceased-wife was hard hearing and quarrelsome lady.
40. DW 6 Khemchand states that he knows that deceased-wife and he is neighbour of father of the deceased-wife and whenever deceased-wife used to come to her parents' house, deceases wife used to come to his house also, but she never made complaint against the accused appellants for demand of dowry. He has further stated that no Panchayat meeting took place at Kesrisinghpur.
41. DW 7 Amritpal is the brother of the deceased and brother of PW 1 Vijay Kumar, who lodged the report and he has supported the case of the accused appellants, rather the complainant Vijay Kumar, who is his brother. He states that deceased-wife was his sister and her mother Kaushiliya used to live with him and deceased-wife never made complaint against the accused appellants for demand of dowry. In cross examination, he has stated that it is wrong to say that because of compromise, he is telling otherwise.
42. DW 8 Pawan is another brother of the deceased-wife and brother of PW 1 Vijay Kumar, complainant. He states that he is living separately since 1985 and deceased-wife never made any complaint against the accused appellants for demand of dowry.
43. From the above evidence, it is to be seen whether case for the offence under Section 498A and 304B 1PC is made out against the accused appellants or not.
Incident of quarrel between DW 1 Rohit and DW 2 Gaurav.
44. The learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has held that it cannot be inferred or presumed that deceased committed suicide because of the quarrel, which occurred between DW 1 Rohit and DW 2 Gaurav. From the evidence, which has been just discussed above, it appears that on the fateful day, a quarrel occurred between DW1 Rohit and DW2 Gaurav and quarrel also occurred between deceased-wife and her Jethani Indurani, DW 3, but to say that deceased-wile would commit suicide only because of this quarrel is beyond imagination, because this alone circumstance cannot lead to commit suicide. It cannot be ruled out that this cause might have accelerated the matter.
45. Normally one would not commit suicide unless there are strong and compelling reasons for it. Thus, ordinarily there has to be a very pressing motive behind every case of suicide. That is why emphasis should be made as to why a person commits suicide and in this case, it has also to be probed why deceased-wife has committed suicide.
46. The constant fact of wailing and weaping is one of the important symptoms of an intention to commit suicide. Suicide is intentionally taking of one's life. In other words, suicide is the initiation of an act leading to one's own death. Conventional wisdom decrees that suicide is the escape route for the abnormal. There are many causes which led a person to commit suicide, such as, depressed mood, feeling of hopelessness about the future, fear, anxiety, worry, psychosomatic accompaniments, phobias thinking, frustration, psychotic or severely disturbed, distortation, disappointment, emotional disorder, revolution, exasperation, family trouble, illness, unjust treatment, mal- treatment, cruelty etc. etc.
47. Looking to all aspects, the findings of the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge that quarrel between DW 1 Rohit and DW 2 Gaurav was not the alone cause to commit suicide by deceased-wife are liable to be confirmed and, therefore, defence evidence to this extent that deceased committed suicide alongwith her female child because of that quarrel and quarrel between deceased-wife and DW 3 Indurani, is not to be accepted.
The case of accused appellants Kishorilal, father-in-law of deceased-wife and Smt. Sita, mother-in-law of deceased-wife.
48. Before discussing the case of these two accused appellants, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. (5) may be quoted here:-
"For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In case where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating the dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws' of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry death, which, if not discouraged, it likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused."
49. Keeping in mind the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of these two accused appellants are being examined.
50. From the defence evidence as well as evidence produced by the prosecution, it appears that deceased-wife and her husband accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar used to live in upper story and these two accused appellants Kishorilal, father-in-law of deceased-wife and Smt. Sita, mother-in-law of the deceased-wife used to live separately.
51. The unique feature of this case is that two brothers of the deceased wife have been produced on behalf of the defence and they are favoring the accused appellants and while two brothers of deceased-wife, namely, PW. 1 Vijay Kumar and PW 2 Hemraj are supporting the case of the prosecution on the point of dowry demand. As already stated above, since the quarrel which occurred on the fateful day between DW I Rohit and DW 2 Gaurav was not the cause for committing suicide by deceased-wife meaning thereby apart from that, there must have been some strong compelling reasons for the deceased-wife to commit suicide.
52. From the evidence of PW 1 Vijay Kumar, PW 2 Hemraj PW 4 Manoharlal and PW 5 Jaganath, one thing has come picture that some dispute was there and for that the went to the house of her in-laws' and made complaint there about the ill-treatment given to the deceased-wife from the side of her in-laws' over the matter of dowry demand. Since these two accused appellants, namely, Kishorilal and Smt. Sita, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased-wife respectively were living separately and there is no specific allegation against them, therefore, the case of these two accused appellants should be put on different fooling from the case of accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar, husband of the deceased-wife, as the main liability would be of him being the husband of the deceased-wife. The case of these two accused appellants is to be differed from this point of view also that witnesses of defence also support to some extent on the point that there was no dowry demand and furthermore, some of the witnesses of prosecution such as PW 6 Mohanlal, PW 7 Surjit Singh, PW 8 Tarsem and PW 11 Madanlal etc. are also supporting the accused.
53. It is made clear that so far as these two accused appellants are concerned, they are not being given clean chit, as from the evidence of PW.1 Vijay Kumar, PW.2 Hemraj, PW.4 Manohar Lal and PW.5 Jaganath, the case of dowry demand come, but as stated above and looking to the facts that they were living separately from deceased-wife and no specific overt act has been alleged against them and that other relatives, namely, Purshottam, Jeth of the deceased-wife, Rekha, wife of Purshottam and Renu, Nanad of the deceased wife against whom allegations of dowry demand were made, have not been challaned by the police, the accused appellants Kishorilal and Smt. Sita, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased respectively are entitled to benefit of doubt.
54. The position of law is that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable doubt and this must be given to the accused and in the present case, because of this reason, benefit of doubt is being given to these two accused appellants and for that, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (6), may be referred to.
55. For the reasons stated above, the findings of the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar convicting the accused appellants Kishorilal and Smt. Sita for the offence under Section 498A and 304B IPC are liable to be set aside and they are entitled to acquittal, after giving benefit of doubt.
The case of accused appellant Sukhdarshan, husband of the deceased-wife.
56. In dowry death, the main person is husband and in such:case, after death of deceased, there is a general tendency among the relatives of victim to implicate as many as persons in the case. In the present case, this aspect has been considered and that is why, other two accused appellants Kishorial and Smt. Sita are going to be acquitted, after giving benefit of doubt. But, so far as this accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar, husband of deceased-wife is concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against him beyond all reasonable doubts.
57. In the present case, as already stated above, the deceased committed suicide and normally one would not commit suicide unless there are strong and compelling reasons for it. Thus, ordinarily there has to be very pressing motive behind every case of suicide. That is why, emphasis should be made as to why a person commits suicide.
58. From the evidence of PW 1 Vijay Kumar, PW 2 Hemraj, PW 4 Manoharlal and PW 5 Jaganath, a case of dowry demand comes in picture and, therefore, committing of suicide by deceased-wife should be linked with that dowry demand and thus, the findings of the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge that deceased-wife was tortured and harassed for and in connection with demand of dowry by this accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar, husband of deceased- wife appear to be correct and should be accepted. These findings against this accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar should be given credence in all respects as the present case shows that deceased-wife committed suicide in the house of her husband and for that, husband should be held responsible for making such an atmosphere resulting in committing suicide by deceased-wife. The fact that deceased-wife has two children, one male DW 2 Gaurav and other female and the fact that she committed suicide alongwith her daughter further go to show that there must be some strong other facts in her mind which lead her to commit suicide since Indian women love their children so much and unless there are strong compelling circumstances, they would not commit suicide leaving their children in lurch.
59. No doubt there is evidence that deceased-wife was hot tempered lady, but this fact would not exonerate the accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar, husband of he deceased-wife from the liability, but rather it cannot be ruled out that because of the attitude, behaviour and conduct of this accused appellant Sukhdarshan, husband of deceased-wife that she became hot tempered. Thus, this accused appellant Sukhdarshan was responsible for making her hot tempered and also creating such a situation resulting in committing suicide by deceased-wife alongwith her female child.
60. For the reasons stated above, it is held that the prosecution has proved it case beyond all reasonable doubts against this accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar, husband of the deceased-wife for the, offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC and thus, the findings of me learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge convicting him for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC are liable to be confirmed.
61. A question may arise that since benefit of doubt has been given to other two accused appellants on the same set of evidence, therefore, this accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar should also be given the benefit of doubt.
62. To meet out this argument, it Is again stated at the cost of repetition that in dowry death, main accused is the husband and if wife commits suicide for which there are so many causes and in the present case cause which are personally linked with deceased wife are not in picture, but one of the causes i.e. dowry demand is there and if quarrel with her Jethani DW 3 Indurani occurred on the fateful day or it must have occurred earlier also, for this, the responsibility lies on the husband accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar to have settled the matter or he should have allowed himself or his wife deceased to live in another house at some distance form the house of DW 3 Indurani etc. and, therefore, from this point of view also, it does not appeal to the conscience of the Court that he is innocent being the husband of the deceased wife.
Benefit of doubt and conscience of Court
63. About conscience of the Court and benefit of doubt the Hoh'ble Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (7) observed as under:-
"The conscience of the court can never be bound by any rule but that is coming itself dictates the consciousness and prudent exercise pf the judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated.
Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape then punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law"
64. The above is further approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Benbah v. Orilal Jayaswal (8).
65. Thus, it does not appeal to the conscience of the Court that the accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar, husband of the deceased-wife, in the present case, is innocent, but the conscience of the court is satisfied that he is guilty for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly convicted him for the said offences and this court does not want to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded against this accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar an his appeal is liable to be dismissed.
66. Before parting with the judgment, it may be stated that if unmerited acquittals become general they tend, to lead a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn lead to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated, 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus too, frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons, it is true to say with Viscount Simon that "a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent..". In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocent must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. These observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (9), has been kept in mind while confirming the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge against the accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar, husband of deceased-wife.
The result of the above discussion is:
1. That the appeal of the accused appellants Kishorilal and Smt. Sita is allowed and the judgment and order dated 23.8/1999 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar so far as they relate to them are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Since accused appellant Smt. Sita is on bail, she need no surrender and her bail bonds are hereby cancelled.
Since accused appellant Kishorilal is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
2. That the appeal of the accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 23.8.1999 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar so far as they relate to him.