Anang Pal vs State of Haryana

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.9.1986, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the three appellants have been convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each and in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four months.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

Bir Singhcomplainant lodged a report with the police on 4th July, 1985, in which he, inter alia, stated that he was serving in the Agriculture Department at Delhi; that Usha (since deceased) daughter of his younger brother Sukhbir Singh had been married with Anang Palappellant resident of village Kaila in the year 1983; that Usha went to village Kaila three or four times, but about a month or so before the incident, Anang Pal accused told him (complainant) and Sukhbir Singh that as he was going to separate from his parents, he required Rs. 22,000/ or Rs. 25,000/ and if the said amount was not paid to him, he would kill Usha, but they, however, told him that they did not have that much amount, on which Anang Pal returned to village Kaila alongwith Usha. On 3rd July, 1985 he received an information that Usha had died on account of burns suffered by her, on which he accompanied by Ranjit Singh, Meer Singh and Nepal Singh went to village Kaila, where his sister Smt. Krishna already stood married to one Jagdish. It was further alleged that Smt. Krishna told Bir Singh and others that one day prior to the incident, Usha had come to her and told her that all the three accused had been harassing her for not bringing the money from her parents. In the complaint, Bir Singh also stated that either Usha had been burnt or had committed suicide on account of harassment suffered by her at the hands of the accused. After completion of the investigation, Anang Pal and his brother Mainpal were challaned and committed to stand trial and a charge under section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. The prosecution then led some evidence and an application was, thereafter, moved by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for summoning Balbir Singh father of the two accused as an accused in this case as well. That application was allowed on 8th April, 1986 and ultimately, Balbir Singh too was charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution in support of its case examined a number of witnesses, more particularly PW1Dr. G.P. Saluja, PW2 Dr. P.K. Goel, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Usha, the witnesses who deposed with regard to the harassment suffered by Usha which led her to commit suicide that is Bir Singh complainantPW7 Sukhbir SinghPW8, Nepal SinghPW9, Meer SinghPW10, Smt. KrishnaPW11, and Ranjit SinghPW12 and ASI Sardara SinghPW13, the Investigating Officer.

The accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution version and took the plea that Usha had received burn injuries accidentally while preparing tea in the morning of 3rd July, 1985 and was taken to Bhiwani Hospital immediately and got admitted there and that a message had been sent to her parents at their residential house in U.T. Delhi and that a false story had been created after her relations reached the hospital on that very day. They further stated that Usha had never been maltreated by them and in fact the entire story had been set up at the instance of Jagdish, husband of Smt. Krishna as he had quarrelled with a relative of the accused sometime earlier. Letters Exs. DA to DM which had been exchanged between Usha deceased and Anang Pal accused were also tendered in evidence.

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the statement of PW7 Bir Singh duly corroborated by PW8 Sukhbir Singh, PW9 Nepal Singh, PW10 Meer Singh and PW11 Smt. Krishna corroborated the demand for Rs. 20,000/ or Rs. Rs. 25,000/ that had been made by Anang Pal accused on the plea that he needed this amount as he wanted to separate from his parents, but the prosecution story with regard to the complaint that Usha made to Smt. Krishna one day before the incident was not worthy of acceptance as Smt. Krishna had not deposed to that effect. The Court also held that a conclusive factor in favour of the prosecution was that after PW13 ASI Sardara Singh received ruqa Ex. PD from the doctor of Civil Hospital, Bhiwani with regard to the admission of Usha in the Hospital, he reached there and found that though Usha had suffered severe injuries, yet there was no body from her inlaws'' family in the hospital to attend to her and that even when he went to village Kaila to the house of the accused party, he found no body present there. The trial Court further held that as Usha had died within seven years of her marriage, a presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was liable to be raised against the accused and a presumption drawn that suicide had been occasioned and abetted by cruelty that had been administered to her. Having held as above, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as already mentioned above. Hence, this appeal at their instance.

I have heard Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, Ms. Aparna Mahajan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and have also gone through the documents on record.

The first and foremost argument of Mr. Bali is that the primary witness in this case was Smt. Krishna PW11 as she was a member of Usha''s parental family and the story that she had complained about her maltreatment a day earlier had not been believed by the Court and a serious dent was, therefore, suffered by the prosecution. He has urged that the evidence of the two witnesses, more particularly Bir Singh complainant PW7 and PW8 Sukhbir Singh father of Usha, was also discrepant in material particulars and that in the absence of any evidence with regard to the demand for dowry, no offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused. He also urged that the defence version that it was an accidental death was clearly borne out by documents Exs. DA to DM that had been put on record which clearly indicated that the relations between Usha and her husband were extremely cordial. He has finally urged that in any case, even the Investigating Agency had found that Balbir Singh accused was innocent and he had not been challaned, whereas Mainpal accused had been found by the Juvenile Court to be 16 years of age and it was, therefore difficult to accept that either of these two would have been a party to the harassment caused to Usha.

As against this, the learned State Counsel has urged that in a case of harassment arising out of the demand for dowry, the entire family would participate in the harassment so that the victim would be compelled to satisfy the demands made by them.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their help.

It is true that some presumptions are to be raised in favour of the prosecution under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, but nevertheless, the presumptions are to be raised when some evidence does come on the record. I am of the opinion that such evidence does exist, more particularly in the evidence of Bir Singh PW7, Sukhbir Singh PW8, and even Smt. Krishna PW11 who also stood married in Kaila and has been substantially believed on the question of harassment. It is, however, true that whereas Bir Singh and Sukhbir Singh PW7 and PW8 respectively had stated that they had been informed by Smt. Krishna when they came to village Kaila after they received information about the burn injuries suffered by Usha that she had come to her a day earlier to complain about her inlaws, but Krishna did not state so in her statement and, thus, the trial Court did not believe this part of the story. However, the trial Court did go into the entire evidence and did come to a finding that as a matter of fact, Smt. Krishna except for this minor lapse, was a good witness. It is to be borne in mind that the statements of these three witnesses who were family members of Usha have also been corroborated by the statements of PW9 Nepal Singh, PW10 Meer Singh and PW12 Ranjit Singh, who are substantially independent witnesses. I am, therefore, of the view that the story with regard to demand for dowry that had been made to Sukhbir Singh (PW8) stands proved from the record.

It is also to be borne in mind that in a case of abetment of suicide, the entire matter would be clothed in secrecy and it would be very difficult to get direct evidence with regard to it. Circumstances are, however, sometimes more significant than direct evidence and in the present case, I find this to be so. ASI Sardara SinghPW 13, the Investigating Officer has clearly stated that at the time when he visited Usha in the hospital at Bhiwani, she was alive and an effort was made by him to record her statement, but he could not record the same as the doctor attending on her opined that she was unfit for the purpose. He also stated that he was unable to record the statement of any other person for the simple reason that there was no attendant with her. He also stated that after visiting the hospital, he went to village Kaila the house of the accused and found that no body was available in the house as well. Admittedly, Usha had suffered 95% burn injuries on her person and as per the postmortem report, except for a small part of her chest, the entire body had been burnt and was charred and it is, indeed, surprising that despite the serious nature of injuries on her body, neither of the accused nor any member of their family chose to be with her to attend on her. This circumstance, to my mind, tells a tale by itself.

Some argument was also addressed on the fact that letters Exs DA to DM indicated that relations inter se Usha and her husband Anang Pal were cordial. A perusal of these letters indicate that five of them were written in the year 1983 when it was to be expected that relations between the parties were cordial, as the marriage had taken place a short while earlier. Ex. DK was written by Anang Pal accused on 17th April, 1985 whereas Ex. DM was written by Usha on 25th March, 1985. From the evidence, it is clear that up to April, 1985, relations between the two cordial and it was only in May, 1985 when Anang Pal accused made the first demand for money that their relations became strained.

I, However, find that as per Mr. Bali''s argument, the involvement of Balbir Singh and Mainpal accused is somewhat suspect. Even in the First Information Report, it was specifically stated that Anang Pal accused alone had made a demand for dowry and it was he who had threatened to kill Usha. It was in accordance with this evidence that the prosecuting agency did not even deem it fit to challan Balbir Singh accused and it was only at a later stage in the course of the trial that Balbir Singh was roped in. Mainpal accused was a child of 16 years of age and his involvement, to my mind, is also suspect. In a case such as this one, an effort is often made by relations of the victim to cast the net as wide as possible. This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and while acquitting Mainpal and Balbir Singh accused appellants, the conviction and sentence of Anang Palappellant is maintained. Criminal Revision No. 1401 of 1986 is also dismissed.