Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: I(1999)DMC368
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. This is Criminal Appeal directed against the judgment and order dated May 30, 1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar whereby he convicted Harjit Singh-appellant under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months on the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months on the second count. He acquitted co-accused Swaran Kaur. He directed the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is :
Smt. Surinder Kaur daughter of Harbans Singh was married to Harjit Singh on 8.11.1992. Harbans Singh was employed in the Railways in U.P. He hailed from Village Khad, Tehsil Una. After her marriage he came to Village Khad twice or thrice. He came to know that Surinder Kaur was being harassed by Harjit Singh and his mother Swaran Kaur as they were not satisfied with the dowry which she had brought in marriage. Surinder Kaur was putting up with her maternal uncle at Village Kariala since her childhood. She was married by her maternal uncle who gave her dowry befitting his financial capacity. Surinder Kaur went to her maternal uncle Joginder Singh three months after marriage and told him that her husband and his mother were harassing her and taunting her as they were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her and they were asking for more dowry. Thereupon, Joginder Singh and his wife Bhupinder Kaur went to Village Majara to Harjit Singh and his mother and advised them not to harass and taunt Surinder Kaur and also not to lay any demand for dowry. On 21.6.1993, Smt. Surinder Kaur again went to Village Kariala to her maternal uncle. She told her maternal uncle and aunt that she was being harassed and taunted to an unbearable extent and that it was not conducive for her to keep staying with her husband and his mother. Joginder Singh and his wife Bhupinder Kaur went to Harjit Singh to Village Majara along with Surinder Kaur. They advised Harjit Singh and Swaran Kaur not to ill-treat, harass or taunt Surinder Kaur and not to lay any demand for dowry. Behaviour of Swaran Kaur and Harjit Singh with them was quite cold. They did not show any regard or feeling for them. They returned to Village Kariala the same day after advising Harjit Singh, Surinder Kaur and his mother.
3. On 3.7.1993, they received message through a man of Village Majara that Surinder Kaur had died. On receipt of that information, Joginder Singh, his wife and Surinder Kaur's uncles Amar Singh and Kishan Singh sons of Ishwar Singh of Village Khad went to Village Majara and saw the dead body of Surinder Kaur lying in the verandah of the house. Blood was coming out of the mouth, nose and ear of Surinder Kaur. Joginder Singh reported the matter to the police vide his statement Ex. PE. On the basis of statement Ex. PE, case FIR No. 70 dated 3.7.1993 was registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Anandpur Sahib. After investigation, Swaran Kaur and Harjit Singh were challaned under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Case were committed to the Court of Sessions by Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anandpur Sahib vide order dated 7.10.1993.
5. Harjit Singh and Swaran Kaur were charged under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. Harjit Singh and Swaran Kaur pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
6. With a view to bring home to the accused the charges levelled against them, the prosecution examined Dr. Shashi Dutt, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Anandpur Sahib (PW1), Joginder Singh (PW 2), Harbans Singh (PW 3), Amar Singh (PW 5) and ASI Kewal Singh (PW 6). Constable Balwinder Singh (PW 4) was examined on affidavit. Affidavit of MHC Balwant Singh Ex. PG was tendered into evidence. Darshan Lal, Hari Singh, Inspector Surjit Singh, Sanjiv Dutt, Dhanno Devi, Bhupinder Kaur and Kishan Singh were given up as unnecessary.
7. Accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the imputations appearing in prosecution evidence against them and stated that it is a false case. In their defence, they examined Jeet Singh (DW1) and Bhajan Singh (DW 2).
8. At the conclusion of the trial, Sessions Judge, Rupnagar found the charge not proved against Swaran Kaur. He, accordingly, acquitted her. He found the charge proved against Harjit Singh. He accordingly, convicted him and sentenced him thereunder vide judgment and order dated May 30,1996.
9. Aggrieved from this judgment and order dated 30.5.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, Harjit Singh has knocked the door of this Court through this criminal appeal.
10. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code defines death as follows :
"Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation : (1) For the purpose of this Sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
11. A bare glance at the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code leaves one in no manner of doubt that before death of a married woman could be labelled as "dowry death", the prosecution has to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry and further the death of a married woman was within 7 years of her marriage and that it was unnatural death.
12. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code lays down that "husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation--For the purpose of this section "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
Section 304-B and the cognate provisions are meant for the eradication of the social evil of dowry which has been the bare of Indian society and continues unabated in spite of emancipation of woman and the women's liberation movement. This all pervading malady in our society has only a few lucky exceptions in spite of equal treatment and opportunity to boys and girls for education and career. Society continues to perpetuate the difference between them for the purpose of marriage and it is this distinction on which makes the dowry system thrive. Even though for the eradication of this social evil, effective steps can be taken by the society itself and the social sanctions of the community can be more deterrent, yet legal sanctions in the form of its prohibition and punishment are some steps in that direction. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted for this purpose" was observed by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 466. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru's observations were quoted in the report of joint committee of Parliament to indicate the role of Legislation in dealing with the social evil as under :
"Legislation cannot by itself normally solve deeprooted social problems. One has to approach them in other ways too, but legislation is necessary and essential, so that it may give that push and have that educative factor as well as the legal sanctions behind it which help public opinion to be given a certain shape."
13. Court has to appreciate the evidence in such cases keeping in view the legislative intent while enacting various provisions to curb the evil of dowry and to secure punishment for the offender.
14. Dr. Shashi Dutt, Medical Officer, Anandpur Sahib (PW1) who performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Surinder Kaur on 3.7.1993 at 3.30 p.m. despatched viscera to the Chemical Examiner, Punjab for chemical examination on 3.7.1993. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PD he opined vide report Ex. PD/1 that the cause of death was intake of organo phosphorus group of insecticide. From the statement of Dr. Shashi Dutt (PW 1), it is clear that the death of Smt. Surinder Kaur was unnatural. Surinder Kaur was married on 8.11.1996. Her death took place on 2.7.1993 i.e. within seven years of her marriage. Harbans Singh father of Smt. Surinder Kaur was employed in the Railways in U.P. He stated that he came to his village twice or thrice after the marriage of Smt. Surinder Kaur with Harjit Singh and came to know that she was being harassed by the accused. Joginder Singh (PW 2) had told him that Smt. Surinder Kaur was being harassed by the accused saying that the dowry brought, by her was inadequate. He received telegram on 6.7.1993 with regard to the death of Surinder Kaur. Harbans Singh's statement according to the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot throw much light on the issue "whether Surinder Kaur was harassed by the accused saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate". Joginder Singh (PW 2) is a person with whom Smt. Surinder Kaur was residing. He is her maternal uncle. He was in touch with her after marriage. He stated that they had spent sufficient amount on the marriage of Smt. Surinder Kaur. Her husband Harjit Singh and mother-in-law Swaran Kaur were not satisfied with the dowry given to her in marriage. Three months after marriage, she came to him and told him that her husband and her mother-in-law were harassing and taunting her saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate and they were demanding more dowry. Thereupon, he and his wife Bhupinder Kaur went to Village Maraja i.e. village of the accused. They requested them not to harass or ill-treat Surinder Kaur. On 21.6.1993, they again went to the accused and requested them not to raise any quarrel on the issue of dowry. They requested them not to take up the issue of dowry. Harjit Singh did not have any talk with them. On 2.7.1993, Harjit Singh's maternal uncle's son came to them and told them about Surinder Kaur's death because of dysentery and vomiting. On receipt of that information, he, Surinder Kaur's two uncles and his wife went to Village Majara to the house of the accused. Dead body was lying in the verandah. Blood was coming out of the mouth and ears of Surinder Kaur. They suspected some foul play in her death. They did not believe her to have died because of dysentery and vomiting as represented to them by the said messenger. Kishan Singh and his wife were left with the dead body while he and Amar Singh left for Police Station, Anandpur Sahib for reporting the matter. He made statement Ex. PE to the Police. Dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. It may be mentioned here that the cause of death was found to be the intake of organo phosphorus group of insecticide. Cause of death, thus, was not dysentery or vomiting.
15. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence that Smt. Surinder Kaur was really being harassed or taunted by the accused saying that she had brought inadequate dowry. It was submitted that there could be no question of any demand for dowry when no dowry was settled at the time of negotiations for marriage nor there was any demand for dowry raised at the time of marriage by the accused. In his cross-examination Joginder Singh (PW 2) stated that the accused did not make any demand for dowry at the time of marriage. In the same breath, he stated that the accused had started harassing/taunting Surinder Kaur saying that the dowry brought by her was inadequate after marriage. He stated that 2/3 months after marriage, the deceased came to him for the first time. Her husband was also with her at that time. They left the same day for Village Majara. About 1/1 1/2 months, thereafter she and her husband both came to them. She told them that she was being harassed by the accused saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate. Harjit Singh had once left watch at Village Khad at the house of her father-in-law saying that automatic watch had not been given to him. She told them that once she was beaten because of the non-supply of electric press by them to her. On 21.6.1993, he and his wife went to the accused after the deceased had complained to them about her harassment by the accused. They did not take any person with them on 21.6.1993. It was submitted that if there had been any foul play in the death of Surinder Kaur why should the accused have sent message to Joginder Singh about her death. They could have cremated the dead body surreptitiously. It appears that was a clever move on the part of the accused thinking that Joginder Singh would take their words at its face value and the dead body would be cremated without there being suspicion of any fould play. There is no evidence that the deceased was taken to any doctor for the treatment of alleged dysentery and vomiting. If she had really been suffering from dysentery or vomiting, she would have been taken to some doctor for treatment.
16. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if there had been any harassment to Smt. Surinder Kaur by the accused saying that the dowry brought by her was inadequate, she would have written some letter to her maternal uncle Joginder Singh or father Harbans Singh disclosing of harassment/taunts to her by the accused on account of the inadequacy of dowry. There is no specific demand attributed to the accused. Mere vague statement that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry and they were harassing Surinder Kaur saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate is not sufficient to say that she was being harassed or taunted by the accused saying that the dowry brought by her was inadequate. There is no mention in the FIR Ex. PE lodged by Joginder Singh that once Harjit Singh had left watch at Village Khad at the house of his father-in-law Harbans Singh saying that automatic watch had not been given. There is no mention in the FIR Ex. PE that Smt. Surinder Kaur had told them that she was once beaten because of non-supply of electric press. Suffice it to say, FIR is not an encyclopaedia that it should contain all the facts in detail. In the FIR, Joginder Singh had mentioned in the substratum of the prosecution case. He had stated that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry given to Surinder Kaur in her marriage with Harjit Singh and they were harassing her and asking her time and again to bring dowry. He had also stated that she was being given beating. As to whether version of the FIR has or has not been corroborated at the trial, Court has to see whether there has been corroboration to the FIR in broad spectrum. Pith of the case laid in the FIR was that the accused were harassing/taunting Surinder Kaur saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate and she told her maternal uncle and his wife of that harassment to her. She ended her life on 2.7.1993 i.e. within a year of her marriage. Why should a young woman have ended her life by taking some poisonous substance if she was being treated with love and affection in the matrimonial home? There is no evidence that she had suicidal tendencies in her. There is no evidence that she took organo phosphorus group of insecticide accidently. It was with a view to lessen the intensity of the burden of proof cast on the prosecution for bringing home to the accused the offence of dowry death or the commission of suicide on the abetment of her husband and his relative that the Legislature introduced Sections 113-A and 113-B in the Evidence Act.
Section 113-A reads as follows :
"Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman--When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband and subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code."
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under :
"Presumption as to dowry death--When the question is whether a person has committed dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code."
Section 113-A raises presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman on proof of the fact by the prosecution that she had committed suicide within a period of 7 years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or such relative of her husband. Section 113-B raises presumption as to dowry death on proof of the fact by the prosecution that soon before her death she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In E. Balakrishnama Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 328, it was held that if there is no evidence of any demand for dowry or that just before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on that account by her husband or by his relatives, no offence under Sections 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out, "Gravamen of the offence defined in Section 304-B of the Penal Code is that married woman's death should take place within 7 years of her marriage and it should be unnatural and the cause of her death should be that soon before death, she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative on account of demand for dowry raised by them having remained unfulfilled". In this case, death of Smt. Surinder Kaur took place within a year of her marriage in the house of her in-laws and the cause of death was unnatural namely the intake of organo phosphorus group of insecticide. It has been proved by the prosecution that she was being subjected to. cruelty by the accused saying that she had not brought adequate dowry. Presumptions enshrined in Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act throw burden of proof on the accused to show that the death of the married woman was not due to any cruel treatment being meted out to her in the matrimonial home and that hers was not an unnatural death, though that burden is not as onerous as the burden which lies on the prosecution for proving its case.
17. In Akula Rabinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 642= II (1991) DMC 537 (SC), marriage of the bride took place in the month of April, 1984. She died in the month of April, 1987. Dead body showed some external injuries, parents were informed. Report was lodged. Case was registered. Dead body was sent for post-mortem. Doctor who conducted the postmortem opined that death was homicidal in nature and was not suicidal. Viscera was not sent for examination since the doctor did not suspect that death was due to poisoning. Trial Court did not accept the prosecution case that death was due to axphyxia because it appeared from the prosecution that the deceased survived for about 15 minutes even after death as per PW 3 who is the first doctor who examined and gave first aid to the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was rather impossible to hold that the death was otherwise than under normal circumstances and consequently important aspect of Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code was not made out. In the case in hand, however, the doctor categorically found that the death was due to the intake of organo phosphorus group in insecticide.
18. Joginder Singh PW 2 stated in cross-examination that he had talk with the father of Surinder Kaur regarding maltreatment. They did not meet any respectable of the village of the accused regarding the maltreatment being meted out to Surinder Kaur. They never had a talk with any one of his village with regard to the maltreatment with Surinder Kaur. She had no talk regarding maltreatment with her father in their presence. Surinder Kaur did not complain of maltreatment to any body in their presence. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if any maltreatment was really being meted out to Surinder Kaur, she would have talked of that maltreatment to some respectable of the village of the accused. They would have talked of that maltreatment to some one of their village, since no maltreatment was being meted out to Surinder Kaur, the absence of any talk on the subject to them. They did not post any letter regarding the maltreatment to any of their relations or the relations of the accused. They did not hold any panchayat regarding the maltreatment being meted out to Surinder Kaur. It was submitted that this fact also fortifies his submission that there was no maltreatment being meted out to Surinder Kaur. Suffice it to say, marriage was not even one year old in the early years of marriage, effort is to develop understanding with the husband. With that end in view, the matter was not raked further. Joginder Singh PW 2 at his own end, advised the accused not to harass or taunt Surinder Kaur. On 21.6.1993 in the wake of Surinder Kaur having told them that she was being harassed or taunted because of their demand for dowry having remained unfulfilled, Joginder Singh and his wife went to Village Majara to question Harjit Singh and his mother so that they did not maltreat Surinder Kaur any further and not to brew up matrimonial discord. Stage had not yet reached where they could convene a panchayat or Joginder Singh could write letter to any relations regarding the ill-treatment. Ours is an orthodox society and when there is rupture or threatened rupture in the matrimonial relations, attempt is to assuage the feelings of the husband side so as to save marriage and not to wash their linen in public.
19. Harbans Singh (PW 3) along with his wife and children visited the accused on 3.4.1993 at about 8 p.m. They left the house of the accused on 4.4.1993 at about 11 a.m. Harjit Singh accused accompanied them upto Anandpur Sahib. This was their first visit to the matrimonial home of their daughter after marriage. Harbans Singh (PW 3) stated that he had no time to have any talk with the deceased or the accused on 3.4.1993. On 3.4.1993, he had adequate time to have talk with his daughter. He stayed with them upto 11 a.m. It was submitted that if anything of the sort had happened, his daughter must have told him because it is usual for daughters to brief their parents of treatment being meted out to them by their in-laws in the matrimonial home, particularly in the early period of marriage. It was submitted that Harbans Singh (PW 3) stated that he had received one letter from Joginder Singh in U.P. that Surinder Kaur was being maltreated. No such letter was relied upon in his statement Ex. DW/A. No such letter was produced by him before the Trial Court. Suffice it to say, Surinder Kaur was married by her maternal uncle Joginder Singh. She was in his care. Harbans Singh was only her natural father. He had bestowed her care on Joginder Singh. On 3.4.1993, Joginder Singh had told him about the maltreatment being caused by the accused. Suffice it to say, it was his casual visit to his daughter. Purpose of that visit was not to reprimand Harjit Singh and his mother for the treatment being meted out to Surinder Kaur in the matrimonial home. He stayed at Village Khad for 4-5 days after 3.4.1993. He left his village on 8.4.1993 for U.P. He is entitled to three railway passes in a year. He had got railway pass. No evidence was produced to show that he had really visited Village Khad on 3.4.1993. If he had not visited Village Khad on 3.4.1993 there could be no question of his visit to Village Majara on 3.4.1993. If we take his statement in a broader perspective, we don't find any reason to say that Harbans Singh did not have any occasion to feel that his daughter was not being harassed or taunted by the accused saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate. Why should Harbans Singh (PW 3) be not believed when he has stated that he had received a letter from Joginder Singh about maltreatment to his daughter ? If Joginder Singh did not have any talk with his daughter on 3.4.1993 on the subject that was because the marriage was in infancy. If he had talked to Harjit Singh on the subject, there could have been further rupture in the matrimonial relations of his daughter with her husband.
20. Amar Singh (PW 5) is the real brother of Harbans Singh. He stated that 2-3 months after marriage accused started maltreating the deceased saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate. Joginder Singh went to Village Majara to request the accused not to maltreat the deceased. It was submitted how there could be any demand for dowry when there was no demand for dowry raised at the time of marriage and it was a simple marriage ? Suffice it to say even if there was no demand at the time of marriage, there is no surprise that greed for dowry shook the accused afterwards. Amar Singh (PW 5) who is real uncle of the deceased, has also exused the accused of maltreatment towards the deceased saying that the dowry brought by her was inadequate. His statement if taken in a broader perspective supports the prosecution case. It is not material if Surinder Kaur did not talk to Amar Singh (PW 5) about the maltreatment of the accused towards her because this is a sensitive subject on which one avoids talking to one's uncle lest there should be jerk to the honour of the family among her collateral relations in Village Khad.
21. Assuming that Smt. Surinder Kaur was not being maltreated or taunted by the accused, it is axiomatic why did she end her life within a year of her marriage. At the cost of repetition, in a case like this, accused cannot stand like a statue, they must come out with some explanation why this unnatural death in the matrimonial home within a year of her marriage.
22. The question whether charges are proved depends on the facts and circumstances and the quality of evidence.
23. There was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. First Information Report was lodged soon after Joginder Singh, Amar Singh and others had reached Village Majara on receipt of message of expiry of Surinder Kaur and found the dead body lying in the verandah of the house of the accused. In my opinion, Harjit Singh was justifiably convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar under Sections 304-B, 498-A of Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act.
24. For the reasons given above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence are maintained.