Avtar Singh vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal by Avtar Singh, Smt. Hukma Devi and Karnail Singh, convicts, is directed against the judgment and order dated April 21, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, and to undergo one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ of in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that Smt. Paramjit Kaur (since deceased), at the time of her marriage with accused Avtar Singh about 2 years before the occurrence, was given adequate dowry by her parents as per their status. After the marriage, her husband Avtar Singh and his family members started harassing her in order to bring Rs. 50,000/ more and she was often given beating by them. Her brother Harmit Lal brought her to their house but later on with the intervention of Panchayat, she was again sent to the house of her inlaws on the assurance of the accused that they would not harass her. However, the accused did not mend their ways and started harassing again and her husbandaccused Avtar Singh also used to give her beatings. Ultimately Smt. Paramjit Kaur was forced to commit suicide on the night intervening 28th/29th July, 1989 by consuming some insecticide and as a result of which she died. Harmit Lal made statement, Ex.PD, before ASI Prem Dass on 29.7.1989 at 7.30 p.m. at Budhimari Chowk; English translation whereof reads as under :

"I am resident of village Ferozabad. About 2 years ago, I had married my sister Paramjit with Avtar Singh s/o Kala Singh Kamboj r/o Mirjapur. My sister gave birth to one boy aged about 9 months named Sharda. My sister had started suffering some colic problem during delivery which she did not explain to anybody out of shyness. Paramjit used to start suffering suddenly colic pain excessively, continuing for about 1015 minutes and she used to get recovered of its own. She got the Ayurvedic treatment but to no avail. My sister Paramjit Kaur when she was at her inlaws house at village Mirjapur started suffering stomachache, on the night of July 28, 1989 and lateron got recovered. Being fed up with this pain, my sister Paramjit Kaur consumed Thaimate Pesticide, which was lying in the courtyard of her house, without disclosing it to anybody else. When she started vomiting, she told that she had stomachache and laid down on the cot. Nobody disturbed her presuming her to be resting. When in the morning at about 5.00 o''Clock, my brotherinlaw Avtar Singh awakened her, she was found dead on the cot. On the same moment Avtar Singh came to our house and narrated me the whole story whereupon myself and my wife came to Mirjapur. We enquired about the incident and the story narrated by Avtar Singh was found to be correct. Today throughout the day all the relations kept on gathering and the respectable persons asked me not to cremate the dead body without intimation to the police. I was proceeding to the police station when you came across me at Budhimari crossing. I have got recorded my statement which is true."

After recording said statement, it was written by ASI Prem Dass in the police proceedings that primafacie, a case to commit suicide, after consumption of Thaimate Pesticide was made out and that after investigation of the case, proceedings would be initiated accordingly. He had further recorded therein that intimation regarding death was being sent to police station through Constable Amir Singh and that after entering report in daily diary, its number be intimated. The investigation of this case was initially conducted by ASI Prem Dass, who had prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body of Smt. Paramjit Kaur to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, through Constables Ved Pal and Amir Singh for postmortem examination. He had also recorded statements of some of the witnesses. The viscera of the deceased was sent to Chemical Examiner, Karnal, who on chemical analysis, reported that it gave positive test for organophosphorus compound group of insecticide. On the basis of the said report of the Chemical Examiner, the doctor opined that the death of Smt. Paramjit Kaur had occurred due to ingestion of organophosphorus compound group of insecticide. Thereafter, Inspector Rai Singh took up the investigation of this case and on 4.8.1989, he went to the village of Harmit Lal recorded his statement, Ex.PE, and after making his endorsement, Ex.PE/1 thereon, sent the same to the police station; on the basis of which First Information Report, Ex.PE/2 was recorded on 4.8.1989 at 8.20 a.m. Statement of Harmit Lal, Ex.PE, duly translated in English, reads as under :

"I am resident of village Ferozabad and do agriculture work. About 2 years ago, I had married my sister Paramjit with Avtar Singh s/o Kala Singh Kamboj r/o Mirjapur. I had given dowry at the time of marriage of my sister according to my capacity. After about 6 months of her marriage, her inlaws started torturing Paramjit for demand of more dowry and she was forced to bring Rs. 50,000/ which I could not arrange. Thereafter, my sister''s in laws had started torturing more. Whenever my sister used to come to our home, she used to narrate weepingly to me, my uncle Sahawa Ram and Simla Rani, wife of my cousin Harjit Lal that she was being beaten and harassed by her inlaws to bring more money from her parents. Last year in the month of October, when the matter came to our notice that my sister was being tortured by her inlaws and her life was in danger, then we took our sister to our home. About 2 months after this incident my brotherinlaw Avtar Singh took my sister back with the intervention of Panchayat and some of our corelatives by assuring that she would never be tortured. Sh. Kashmiri Lal s/o Meer Chand Kamboj and Sh. Jai Dayal s/o Lakha Ram Kamboj were also present in the Panchayat but her inlaws did not desist from torturing my sister and used to pressurise and beat her for not brining more money. Whenever I used to visit village Mirjapur to see my sister, she used to tell me that they would not let her live alive and she would plead to be taken back to our house. When occurrence took place, Karnail Singh brother of my sister''s fatherinlaw came to me in village Ferozabad at about 2.30 a.m. and informed that Paramjit was affected by spray and she was admitted in some hospital at Sirsa. Then I and my wife Kailash Rani accompanied by Karnail Singh proceeded to Sirsa where Karnail Singh took us to several hospitals but my sister was not found admitted in any of hospitals at Sirsa. In the morning, Karnail Singh told us that Paramjit might have been taken to village Mirjapur and he slipped away after saying so. When I and my wife reached Mirjapur, we found that my sister Paramjit had died during the night intervening 28/29.7.1989. My sister lost her life on account of her harassment and torture at the hands of my brotherinlaw Avtar Singh, his uncle Karnail Singh s/o Guranditta Singh and motherinlaw of my sister Hakam Devi wd/o Kala Singh. My sister has left behind a girl aged about 9 months old. The statement which I had recorded on 29.7.1989 before ASI at village Mirjapur was made by me under pressure and threats of the relations. The statement, which I have got recorded today is correct and made by me without any pressure and in full senses. The same has been read over to me and I have signed it after admitting it to be correct."

Accused Avtar Singh was arrested on August 7, 1989 while coaccused Smt. Hukam Devi and Karnail Singh were arrested on August 8, 1989, and August 13, 1989 respectively.

To prove its allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 Dr. (Mrs.) Beena Garg, Lady Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sirsa; PW.2 Harmit Lal, brother of the deceased; PW.3 Simla Rani; PW.4 Kashmiri Lal; PW.5 Inderjit Singh, Draughtsman; PW.6 Inspector Rai Singh and PW.7 Constable Amit Singh.

PW.1 Dr. (Mrs.) Beena Garg deposed that on July 30, 1989 Dr. Amar Singh had marked application, Ex.PA, for conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of Paramjit wife of Avtar Singh Kamboj, aged 20 years, r/o Mirjapur, Tehsil Sirsa and that both she and Dr. C.P. Dadhich had conducted postmortem examination. She further stated that postmortem stainings were present on the dependent parts and the visceras were sent to Chemical Examiner, Karnal, for analysis and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, she had opined that the death was due to ingestion of insecticide. The witness further stated that after postmortem examination, they had submitted report, Ex.PC, duly signed by her and Dr. C.P. Dadhich and handed over to the police well stitched dead body, carbon copy of postmortem report (PMR), sealed parcel bearing 12 seals containing visceras, sealed envelope bearing six seals containing forwarding letter, copy of PMR and police papers No. 1 to 32 alongwith attested sample seal and belongings of the deceased. In the opinion of lady Dr. Garg, probable time between injury and death was variable and between death and postmortem examination was between 12 to 36 hours. She also identified shirt, Ex.P.1, Salwar, Ex.P.2, dupatta Ex.P3, artificial hair Ex.P4, Jali of joora Ex.P5, golden ear rings Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, nose pin of gold Ex.P8, two karras one plastic and one transparent Ex.P9 and Ex.P.10 silver rings of second toes of both feet Ex.P11 and P.12, and hair pins Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.17. The witness further stated that on receipt of the Chemical Examiner''s report, she had opined that the visceras gave positive test for organophophorus compound group of insecticide and blood from the heart also gave the same result but sample of urine gave negative test for this insecticide. She further deposited that the death in this case was due to ingestion of organophosphorus compound group of insecticide. During crossexamination, the witness stated that she could not give the exact time that elapsed between taking of the compound and the death as it depended upon the insecticide and its contents.

PW2 Harmit Lal, brother of the deceased, deposed that his sister was married to accused Avtar Singh about three years ago and they had given dowry as per their capacity. Upto six months after her marriage, Avtar Singh had kept Paramjit nicely and then they started torturing her for demand of more dowry. When he was unable to arrange more money, accused Avtar Singh, Karnail Singh and Smt. Hakma Devi started beating Paramjit and whenever she used to come to them she would narrate all those things by weeping in the presence of Suhava Ram, his uncle and Shimla Rani wife of Harjit Lal. This witness further stated that they had tried to pacify the matter and in the month of April, 1989 Paramjit was taken to their village by him and she remained there for two months, whereafter accused Avtar Singh and some of his relatives came to them and on their assurance that they would not harass Paramjit, she was sent along with Avtar Singh. He further deposed that the accused did not mend their ways and continued beating her. On the intervening night of 28/29.7.1989 accused Karnail Singh came to their house and informed that Paramjit was affected by some spray and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Sirsa, upon which he (the witness) and his wife Kailash Rani accompanied accused Karnail Singh to Civil Hospital, Sirsa but Paramjit Kaur was not found admitted there. They searched for Paramjit Kaur in other hospitals but she was not found admitted in any of the hospitals at Sirsa. Then, accused Karnail Singh told them that she might have been taken to village Mirjapur and saying so, he slipped away. The witness further stated that when he and his wife reached village Mirjapur, they found that Paramjit Kaur had died during the night intervening 28/29.7.1989 and that she had left behind her daughter aged 9 months only. The witness deposed that he had made statement, Ex.PD, to the Thanedar at village Mirjapur under pressure of relations and it was not read over to him and the same was not correct. He further stated that the SHO came to their village on August 4, 1989 and recorded his statement, Ex.PE, which was signed by him.

PW3 Shimla Rani stated that Paramjit Kaur (deceased) was married with Avtar Singh resident of village Mirjapur about three years ago. After six months of her marriage, she heard that she was being harassed for demand of more dowry. Whenever Paramjit used to come to them, she used to tell them about the demand of dowry and her harassment and torture by the accused. Then Harmit Lal, brother of Paramjit Kaur, brought her to village Ferozabad where she lived for about 2 months. During that period also, she used to state that she was being harassed for demand of more dowry by her husband Avtar Singh, motherinlaw Hakma Devi and accused Karnail Singh. Thereafter, Avtar Singh accompanied by common relations came to them and a Panchayat was organised in which Jai Dayal and Kashmiri Lal were also present. On assurance given before the Panchayat that she would not be harassed or maltreated by accused, Paramjit Kaur was sent with accused Avtar Singh, though she continued saying that she would not be kept nicely. Her inlaws did not mend their ways and continued to harass her for more dowry. Thereafter, the witness came to know that after being fed up with the harassment at the hands of accused for demand of more dowry, she had ended her life. She further stated that the police had recorded her statement about this occurrence and that she had come to know about the death of Paramjit Kaur in the morning after sun rise, when Raj, maternal aunt of accused Avtar Singh came to her and informed about the death of Paramjit Kaur. At that time, Harjit Lal and Suhava Ram were away to fields. She sent a message to them in the fields and they returned to the house around 8 a.m. At that time, Harmit Lal was not in the fields as he had gone outside, while Suhava Ram went to Mirjapur at about 9 a.m. She further stated that after about 45 days of the death of Paramjit Kaur, police came in the village and she was summoned through a Constable to the house of Harmit Lal, where her statement was recorded and she had named Avtar Singh, Karnail Singh and Hakma Devi for causing harassment to Paramjit Kaur. She was confronted with, Ex.DA, where it was not so recorded and there was reference of only inlaws. She admitted that she was not present in the Panchayat as normally the women folk do not attend such Panchayats. She further stated that as regards harassment of Paramjit Kaur after she was taken back by the accused, she was told so by Harmit Lal. She denied the suggestion that Paramjit Kaur was never maltreated by Avtar Singh and that she was deposing falsely, being relative of Paramjit Kaur.

PW4 Kashmiri Lal deposed that Paramjit deceased was being harassed by the accused for demand of more dowry and that on July 29, 1989, he had heard about her death; upon which he, PW.4 Harmit Lal, Jai Dayal and many other persons had gone to village Ferozabad, where many other common relations of the parties were also present. He further deposed that the persons present there were exhorting (Jour de ker keh rahe the) that the matter be compromised but he did not like it and returned to his house. He further stated that on August 4, 1989 in the morning, the SHO came to their village and recorded his statement.

PW5 Inderjit Singh, Draughtsman, deposed that on August 15, 1989 he had prepared scaled site plan, Ex.PG, at the instance of Harmit Lal son of Daulat Ram with correct marginal notes and handed over the same to the police on September 16, 1989.

PW6 Inspector Rai Singh partly investigated the case and his version having already been reproduced while narrating the facts of the prosecution case in the earlier part of this judgment, needs no reiteration.

PW7 Constable Amir Singh tendered his affidavit, Ex.PM, in evidence. During his crossexamination, he stated that ASI Prem Dass had recorded the statements of respectables present on the spot and had obtained their signatures on the same. He further deposed that the dead body had been given to Harmit Lal, Avtar Singh, Suhava Ram and Mangat Ram and these four persons had accompanied him from Mirjapur to Civil Hospital, Sirsa and during night, he had stayed with them.

The prosecution also tendered in evidence report, Ex.PN, of the Chemical Examiner, and affidavit Ex.PO of Dilbag Singh and closed its evidence.

When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution in toto and pleaded innocence. Accused Avtar Singh and Hakma Devi pleaded that they were implicated in his case due to party faction, while accused Karnail Singh pleaded that he was a supporter of Congress Party and in the last election he had supported Mani Ram who had contested election against Bhagi Ram but had last it. Mani Ram had filed election petition challenging the election of Bhagi Ram, in which he had appeared as a witness of Mani Ram. He further stated that he had been residing separately from Avtar Singh and his mother and had nothing to do with the commission of the crime and that he had been implicated due to party faction as explained above.

In defence, the accused examined DW1 Mangat Ram son of Jassa Ram. The witness corroborated the defence version of accused Karnail Singh and stated that Paramjit Kaur (deceased) was earlier suffering from stomach trouble and being fed up with the same, she had consumed insecticide. He had further stated that the police had made enquiries on the spot and he had accompanied the dead body while it was being taken for postmortem examination and the receipt for taking the dead body bore his signatures as well as of brother of Paramjit Kaur and her uncle. He further stated that the dead body was crmeated at village Mirjapur and the relations of the deceased had attended the cremation. The witness further stated that enquiries conducted by the police were impartial and no pressure was put by anybody to hush up the matter.

Mr. H.L. Sibal, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to Ex.PD, which is first statement of Harmit Lal, PW, recorded by ASI Prem Dass and sent from Budhi Mari Chowk, to the Police Station, emphasized that factum of Ex.PD had not been denied or disputed as PW6 Inspector Rai Singh, who was the SHO of P.S. Ellenabad at the time of occurrence, had admitted it. It is also apparent from Ex.PD that there were no allegations of demand of dowry, maltreatment or torture by accused to deceased Paramjit Kaur. PW6 also admitted that there was no complaint made regarding demand of dowry or torture upto 4.8.1989 directly to him or to any senior officers. This fact also finds corroboration from the cross examination of PW2 Harmit Lal. It was vehemently submitted by learned counsel that PW2 Harmit Lal had admitted in his crossexamination that on the fateful day, there were 500 or more persons present in village Mirjapur and all those persons had hailed from Mirjapur, Neja Dela, Sangatpura and other adjoining villages. Harmit Lal PW had also admitted the presence of Suhava Ram, Harjit Lal, Jagir Chand, Hari Chand, Arjan Singh and others at the time of preparation of inquest report, Ex.PB. Learned counsel of the appellants stressed that in view of aforementioned circumstance, it was evident that when PW Harmit Lal gave first version about the cause of death of deceased Paramjit Kaur, no pressure of relations or other persons present in the village of accused was exerted. Moreover, there was no such evidence on the basis of which it could be assumed that statement, Ex.PD was obtained under some pressure. It was also pointed out that it was not possible to exert any pressure on complainant at the time of making statement, Ex.PD, when the presence of so many villagers including respectables and relations of both the parties stand admitted. He further argued that in view of above, statement, Ex.PD was true having been made voluntarily by Harmit Lal depicting the correct facts which result in death of Paramjit Kaur. It was further submitted that F.I.R. Ex.PE/2, which was based on the subsequent statement of PW2 Harmit Lal, cannot be a base to proceed against accused persons as there was no complaint from any quarter regarding harassment or dowry demand from deceased Paramjit Kaur till 4.8.1989 or until PW6 Inspector Rai Singh visited village Ferozabad and recorded statement, Ex.PE, of Harmit Lal (PW2). In the absence of any complaint after the statement of Harmit Lal was first recorded by ASI Prem Dass, there was no occasion for PW6 Inspector Rai Singh, SHO of P.S. Ellenabad, to visit the village of the complainant for verification of the inquest report. He further contended that articles given at the time of marriage of deceased Paramjit Kaur were also returned immediately after her death to the complainant, though time of their return suffers from discrepancy, and as such, the accused were entitled to acquittal.

Learned counsel for the appellants also stressed that subsequent recording of statement, Ex.PE of PW Harmit Lal was outcome of partyfaction as accused Karnail Singh was not only supporter of Congress Party, but was also President of Ellenabad Area and one of the witness in election petition filed by Mani Ram, defeated candidate, against Bhagi Ram in the year 1982. He further contended that this witness was also present when inquest report was prepared by ASI Prem Dass and, thus, Harmit Lal and other relations of the deceased were present on that day and were satisfied that Paramjit Kaur ended her own life as she was fed up with stomach problem.

Mr. S.S. Pattar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, asserted that in dowry death cases, the parents and other close relations of the deceased reside at a distant place, as in he instant case, and even the information regarding death is also received invariably much after the occurrence and after death takes place. In the circumstances of the present case, when Harmit Lal, brother of the deceased, reached the house of the accused persons, he came to know about the version of death from them and it was recorded in his statement, Ex.PD. Though P.W.2 Harmit Lal stated that the said statement was not read over to him by ASI Prem Dass, but the contents of Ex.PD are not in dispute. Rather, the case of death of Paramjit Kaur is due to consumption of insecticide because of stomach ache. The presence of many persons of adjoining villages is also not in dispute but PW2 also stated that Thanedar came to village Mirjapur and he had made statement, Ex.PD, under pressure and threats of the relations of the accused and only thereafter, he made subsequent statement, Ex.PE, in which true version was given by him. Even if for a moment, the contents of statement, Ex.PD, are assumed to be correct, a bare reading creates serious doubt about the acceptability or plausibility of the statement. According to the statement, accused Avtar Singh noticed deceased Paramjit Kaur vomiting and the deceased also informed him that she was having stomachache and thereafter she laid down on the cot and the factum of her death came to the notice when accused Avtar Singh tried to awake her up at 5 a.m. in the morning. Though learned counsel for the appellants forcefully asserted regarding veracity of statement, Ex.PD, but it is not convincing in any manner because when accused Avtar Singh had learnt about the ailment including vomiting etc. because of stomachache, he made no efforts to get the deceased treated nor she was attended to by the accused. Such misconduct of the accused is unacceptable even to a layman of ordinary prudence.

It was next urged by the learned counsel of the appellants that there was no dispute that Paramjit Kaur had died within three years of her marriage with accused Avtar Singh. PW2 Harmit Lal, brother of the deceased, had also stated that his sister was married with Avtar Singh about 3 years ago but presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable when there are any allegations or cogent evidence to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Similarly, applicability of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play only when it is proved that a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and in that situation it is shown that soon before the death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry. In the instant case, no evidence regarding harassment, torture etc. for demand of more dowry has been led. Even the prosecution has miserably failed to specify the articles demanded by the accused as none of the witnesses, including PW2 Harmit Lal, PW3 Shimla Rani and PW4 Kashmiri Lal, who are near relations of the accused had so stated. He further contended that the prosecution case, as such, has to be looked into while ignoring the applicability of Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act are not at all attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Rather, I deem it proper to record my findings while dealing with Sections 498A/304B I.P.C. in the later part of the judgment.

It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that even from, Ex.PE, which is a subsequent statement of Harmit Lal, recorded by Inspector Rai Singh, the then SHO of Police Station, no case under Sections 498A or 304B I.P.C. was made out; that in statement, Ex.PE, it was contended that six months after the marriage of Paramjit Kaur, her inlaws had started maltreating her for not bringing an amount of Rs. 50,000/ but the allegation of demand of Rs. 50,000/ has not been repeated by PW2 Harmit Lal, PW3 Shimla Rani and PW4 Kashmiri Lal. PW2 Harmit Lal had simply stated that they had given dowry to the accused as per their capacity and that upto a period of six months after her marriage, accused Avtar Singh had kept Paramjit Kaur nicely and it was only thereafter that the accused had started torturing her for demand of more dowry. PW3 Shimla Rani also deposed similarly whereas the statement of Kashmiri Lal, PW4 is based on the information given to him by Harmit Lal as the witness had stated that he came to know about harassment of deceased Paramjit Kaur from Harmit Lal. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the aforementioned witnesses were interested witnesses, being close relations of the deceased and none of them had given the details of harassment which Paramjit Kaur had been allegedly subjected to before her death nor anything had been stated by the witnesses regarding the demanded dowry articles. Thus, when there was no cogent and convicing evidence as regards dowry demand, harassment or torture, it could not even remotely be said that the deceased was subjected to any sort of cruelty by the accused persons. Therefore, even if deceased Paramjit Kaur had taken her own life because of the effect of some insecticide, the factum of death alone does not bring the present case either under Section 498A or 304B I.P.C. By referring to Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by N.J. Modi and C.A. Franklin, 21st Edn. Page 65 Section II Toxicology, learned counsel for he appellants urged that it was given under the head ''Organo phosphrus Compounds'' that these compounds were extensively used as pesticides for soft bodied insects in agriculture. They have been imported in India since 1951 but very few knew the nature of these compounds as virulent poison till the Kerala Food Poisoning Tragedy in 1958 took a toll of about hundred odd lives due to inadvertent stocking of food stuff (wheat, sugar, flour etc.) and folidol (Parathion) packages in the same fold, where the folidol containers leaked and contaminated the gunny bags containing food stuff. Their easy availability and quick action is the reason for their popularity for suicidal and homicidal purposes. In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that mixing of the Organophosphrous Compound or its consumption, as apparent from the report of Chemical Examiner, Ex.PN, with any food articles or through respiration cannot be ruled out. Moreover, Dr. (Mrs.) Beena Garg, Lady Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sirsa, who had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Paramjit Kaur, while appearing as PW1, had not ruled out the possibility of death if the insecticide was inhaled. However, this witness could not precisely tell as to what contents and in how much quantity, they were consumed by the deceased. Even she could not state whether any food or liquid was found in the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence showed that death of Paramjit Kaur was caused due to poisonous effect of the insecticide and the accused could not be held liable for causing death of Paramjit Kaur as they had never demanded any dowry nor subjected the deceased to cruelty including beatings, harassment or torture etc. He further argued that there was not an iota of evidence to show that death of Paramjit Kaur was caused under other than normal circumstances and there was no piece of evidence to hold that the deceased was subjected to cruelly or harassment by the accused soon before her death for demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the appellants further stressed that suspicion by itself, however strong it may be, it not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of accused, as in the instant case it is on the basis of suspicion only that the accused have been proceeded against and since there was no evidence on the point of demand of dowry or dowry death, accused were liable to be acquitted.

Mr. S.S. Pattar, AAG, Haryana, referred to Ex.PE and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment and torture for demand of more dowry. In his statement, Ex.PE, Harmit Lal (PW2) had stated that for six months after the marriage, his sister was kept nicely but thereafter the accused had started harassing her for not bringing an amount of Rs. 50,000/ and when he could not manage this amount, her in laws started more harassment and that whenever his sister used to visit them, she was asked by the accused to bring more dowry and was given beatings also.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no force in the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants that none of the witnesses had deposed regarding harassment or torture of the deceased for demand of more dowry. PW2 Harmit Lal had stated that upto a period of six months after marriage, accused Avtar Singh had kept his sister nicely but thereafter he had started torturing her for demand of more dowry and when he (Harmit Lal) was not able to arrange more money, accused Karnail Singh, Avtar Singh and Hakma Devi had started beating deceased Paramjit Kaur. The witness had also stated that whenever his sister used to visit them, she used to narrate all these things to them by weeping in the presence of his uncle Suhava Ram and Shimla Rani. PW2 had also deposed that he had brought his sister back in their village, where she was kept for two months and that it was only after assurance given by accused Avtar Singh in the presence of common relatives that Paramjit Kaur will never be tortured or taunted for dowry demand by the accused, Paramjit Kaur was sent alongwith accused Avtar Singh. PW2 had also stated that whenever he visited his sister at the house of her inlaws, she used to repeat all these things but he would pacify her to reconcile to the fact that she had to reside at her inlaws'' house, which was her real home. PW3 Shimla Rani also corroborated PW2 on the point of harassment of Paramjit Kaur for demand of more dowry. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no evidence regarding harassment, torture or demand of dowry, as no list of articles demanded by the accused persons had been given, runs contrary to the facts of the case on file as it is the prosecution case that only cash amount was demanded. Though PW2 Harmit Lal had not quantified the amount but he had stated about demand of money, which he could not manage. The statements of PW2 and PW3 have to be appreciated in the circumstances of the case and even if they could not give the day, time and month when the demand was made but their testimony cannot be discarded keeping in view the rural background of the witnesses and their illiteracy. The factum that the death of Paramjit Kaur had occurred within three years of her marriage is admitted. Therefore, in the light of the evidence regarding cruelty and harassment for demand of more dowry, the provisions of Sections 113A and 113B of Indian Evidence Act are very much attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and once the presumption of aforementioned Sections came into existence, the onus shifted on the accused to prove that deceased Paramjit Kaur was not subjected to harassment prior to her death and that the death had occurred in normal circumstances. Even, the names of the accused are also mentioned in statement, Ex.PE wherein Harmit Lal (PW2) had categorically stated that his sister had lost her life on account of harassment and torture given to her by his brotherinlaw Avtar Singh, uncle Karnail Singh s/o Gurditta Singh and motherinlaw Hukma Devi wd/o Kala Singh.

Dr. (Mrs.) Beena Garg who conducted the postmortem alongwith Dr. C.P. Dadhich, had stated that after receipt of report from Chemical Examiner, the visceras and blood from heart gave positive test for organophosphorus compound group of insecticide whereas sample of urine gave negative test for the same. This witness had opined, after seeing the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PN, that cause of death in the instant case was due to ingestion of organophosphorus compound group of insecticide. Though a suggestion had also been put to her that death could also be caused due to excessive inhalation of vapours during spray operation but the witness had, on the basis of the postmortem report and the report of Chemical Examiner, Ex.PN, ruled out the death by inhalation of vapours as tests conducted on stomach, intestine and blood from the heart proved that there was ingestion of insecticide.

Though learned counsel for the appellants had cited Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology but he could not refer to any evidence or circumstances on the basis of which there were chances of inhaling vapours of insecticides by the deceased as there was no evidence that the deceased was nearby a place where spray operation was going on nor is there reference to any such circumstances that the organophosphorus compound group of insecticide was mixed with any of the food articles that might have been consumed by the deceased alone as no other member of the family was affected from the insecticide. At the cost of repetition, the defence failed to bring on record any evidence that the deceased ever suffered from stomach ailment and moreover no question regarding stomach ailment was put to PW1 Dr. (Mrs.) Beena Garg who had conducted the postmortem and at least this witness could have been asked for giving positive observations in case there was any ailment. Further, neither any prescription slip of any Medical Officer has been placed on record nor any other person/vaid who may have ever treated the deceased for stomach ailment, has been examined in defence. As Paramjit Kaur admittedly died within three years of her marriage and admittedly, her death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, the accused are certainly liable to be convicted under the sections for which they have been charged and tried and no benefit can be given to them on any of the grounds referred to above.

Mr. S.S. Pattar, AAG, Haryana contended that in the changing social scenario, when greed for dowry and lust for money was showing an alarming upswing, respect for human life and more so of the female victims involved, had gone with the wind. He further contended that the closed doors behind which such crimes were committed, the opportunity to choose the time of the commission of crime by the accused, the nonavailability of direct as well as circumstantial evidence which would complete the chain of guilt, had led to a deplorable situation, putting to ridicule the rules of trial and the role of the Judge. In support of his argument, he referred to Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1989(1) R.C.R. 18 , wherein it has been held that it is well recognised in criminal law on breach of trust that where the property is entrusted to another, it is the duty of that other to give the true account of what he did with the property so entrusted to him and his failure to do so raises, under Section 105, a presumption that he had criminally misappropriated the property so entrusted to him. It was further held in the said authority that the position of a bride cannot be worse. Her welfare and physical protection is also entrusted with the people in whose custody she has been put in and if she has been deprived of her life, the person to whom she stood entrusted must necessarily account for as he or she alone is supposed to have a special knowledge about the crime especially when he or she was the last person to be seen together or expected to be together with the deceased. It was further held that in case of dowry deaths, there have arisen exceptional circumstances and in our view a procedure should be geared to apply to the exigencies of time by invoking in appropriate cases Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requiring the accused to prove and explain how did the bride with whom he was seen together last or expected to be together last, turn into a corpse as that fact would be presumed to be especially within his knowledge. By this alone, would the Court be able to come to a moral certainty and convince its mind as a reasonable being as to whether the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt or not.

Learned counsel for the appellants next urged that it was evident from the evidence of DW1, that Karnail Singh, appellant had been falsely implicated on the basis of political rivalry. It was also pointed out that it was clear from the evidence of Draughtsman and Inspector Rai Singh, PW6 that Karnail Singh resided in a separate house and, therefore, Karnail Singh accused had nothing to do with the demand of dowry or anything else. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that Karnail Singh was not fatherinlaw of the deceased. The name of the fatherinlaw of the deceased is Kala Singh. Karnail Singh is the uncle of accused Avtar Singh and he lived separately at a distance of about 20 Karmas from the house of the accused Avtar Singh. Harmit Lal (PW2) had also stated that he was not aware as to whether Ration Card of all the three accused was common or not. He had further stated that Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh and Avtar Singh had their separate agricultural land. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since Karnail Singh, accused was living separately from Avtar Singh accused, husband of the deceased, and their agricultural lands were also separate and he was not the real fatherinlaw of the deceased and was not going to be benefited or likely to share the dowry in case the same was given by the parents or brother of the deceased; as such he had no opportunity to torture or harass the deceased for not bringing more dowry.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. Since, Karnail Singh is not fatherinlaw of the deceased, therefore, the question of demand of dowry on his behalf does not arise. Even if more dowry is given to the husband or inlaws of the deceased, Karnail Singh will not get any share in the dowry. Since, Karnail Singh is living separately from accused Avtar Singh and his land is also separate from him, therefore, he has no opportunity to harass or torture the deceased for not bringing more dowry.

In view of the above discussion, Karnail Singh, appellant is given benefit of doubt, appeal filed by him is allowed and his conviction and sentence are setaside. There is no merit in the appeal filed on behalf of Avtar Singh and Hakma Devi, appellants and the same is hereby dismissed qua them.