Bimla Devi vs State of Punjab

A.L. Bahri, J.

Bimla Devi and her son Satish Kumar were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, on August 30, 1985, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Its. 1,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further R.I. for six months.

The occurrence took place on August 17, 1984 at Bhatinda. Subhash Kumari wife of Satish Kumar accused committed suicide by burning herself with kerosene oil. Information of the incident was sent to her parents at village Goniana. Ramesh Kumar brother of the deceased and others reached Bhatinda and on the statement of Ramesh Kumar Exhibit PA, made to the police, case was registered vide first information report Exhibit PA/2, under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against Bimla Devi and her two sons Satish Kumar and Narinder Kumar. Subhash Kumari was married to Satish Kumar accused about 10 months before the occurrence, After few days of the marriage Subhash Kumari complained that her motherinlaw Bimla Devi, husband Satish Kumar and husband''s brother Narinder Kumar (all three accused) quarreled with her for bringing lesser dowry and they were demanding Rs. 25000/ to be brought by her for starting a cloth shop. About 20 days before the occurrence, when Ramesh Kumar came to take away Subhash Kumari from Bhatinda for Teej festival, Satish Kumar and Bimla Devi accused taunted him that they were Malangs (without any resources) and they had given nothing in dowry whereas people used to fill the houses of their daughters with articles. Ramesh Kumar had replied that they had done whatever they could do and would further give. Satish Kumar accused had retorted that they would pay nothing and they would themselves finish her. Bimla Devi also stated at that moment that Subhash Kumari should relieve them by herself falling in some well or ditch at Goniana and that they would not allow her to live in their house. Ramesh Kumar took away his sister to village Goniana and informed about above to his parents. On Monday, preceding the day of occurrence, Ved Parkash another brother of Subhash Kumari brought her to her inlaws house at Bhatinda. He informed them that they would sell their shop and would give them more money. In spite of that, in laws of Subhash Kumari called them Malangs.

Inspector Lajpal Singh investigated the case. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and despatched the dead body for conducting postmortem. He also took into possession certain articles from the house of the accused. After completion of investigation, the three accused were put up for trial.

The prosecution produced Ramesh Kumar (PW 1) brother of the deceased, Kapur Chand (PW 2) father of the deceased, and Ved Parkash (PW 3) another brother of the deceased, who supported the prosecution case as stated above. Other formal witnesses were also produced. Kapur Chand (PW 8) was produced to prove that agreement to sell had been entered into by Kapur Chand father of the deceased for selling his shop for a sum of Rs. 55, 000/. A copy of the agreement was also produced which is Exhibit PD dated January 7, 1984. At that time a sum of Rs. 12, 000/ was received as earnest money by Kapur Chand (PW 2) father of the deceased. He further deposed that Kapur Chand (PW 2) father of the deceased had informed him that the shop was being sold to meet the demands of inlaws of Subhash Kumari. All the three accused denied the prosecution allegations in their statements under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. Satish Kumar accused took up a plea that Subhash Kumari was not feeling happy as he himself was an impotent person. He further stated that after the occurrence he removed Subhash Kumari to the hospital and incurred all the expenses on her medical treatment. He denied the allegations of demand of dowry articles or a sum of Rs. 25,000/. In defence Dr. Sat Pal (DW. 1) and Dr. S.K. Gupta (DW 2) were produced to show that Satish Kumar accused was impotent. Satish Kumar accused himself appeared as D.W.3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, from the evidence produced, acquitted Narinder Kumar accused and convicted and sentenced the present appellants.

Exhibit PC, copy of the postmortem report of Subhash Kumari deceased was tendered into evidence. As per this report the cause of death of Subhash Kumari was due to shock because of burns antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was within few hours. The postmortem was conducted at 4.30 p.m. on August 17, 1984. The fact that Subhash Kumari had committed suicide by causing fire to herself is not being disputed between the parties. The three witnesses produced by the prosecution, namely, father and two brothers of the deceased were not present when the occurrence took place. Even according to the accused, they were not present in the house when the occurrence took place. Smt. Krishna sister of Satish Kumar accused was only present in the house. She was examined by the investigating officer. However, she had not been produced as a witness. As to whether it was merely an accident that Subhash Kumari caught fire and died has not been argued. The case is based on the fact that Subhash Kumari had committed suicide. That being the position, the question to be determined in this case is as to whether Bimla Devi and Satish Kumar, motherinlaw and husband respectively, of the deceased had abetted the offence of suicide committed by Subhash Kumari or not.

7.`Abetment'' is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under :

"Abetment of a thing : A person abets the doing of a thing, whoFirstInsrigates any person to do that thing; or SecondlyEngages with one or more. other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or ThirdlyIntentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1 A person, who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2 Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything "in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby. facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as under

"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 had 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 498A of the Indian Penal Code."

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, reads as under :

"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 purposes 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."

The prosecution relies upon Section113A of the Indian Evidence Act to prove abetment on the part of the appellants of the offence of suicide committed by Subhash Kumari. Otherwise, there is no direct evidence of the ingredients of abetment as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Cede. Merely by proving that suicide was committed by the woman within 7 years of the marriage or that the woman was subjected to cruelty by her inlaws, it is not sufficient to apply the provisions of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Regard must be had to all the other circumstances of the case and only then a presumption can be drawn as provided under this section. Furthermore, cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, should be such which would drive a woman to commit suicide. Likewise harassment of the woman should also be such and with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security etc. It is on proof of such facts coupled with the other circumstances of the case that a Court can draw a presumption of abetment against the husband or his relatives for a suicide committed by woman.

The prosecution case primarily hinges on the evidence of P.W. I Ramesh Kumar. P.W. 2 Kapur Chand and P.W. 3 Ved Parkash. Out of them, Kapur Chand is father of the deceased whereas Ramesh Kumar and Ved Parkash are brothers of the deceased. Their evidence is to the effect that inlaws including the present two accused have been consistently not only taunting the deceased but taunting them also as and when they visited their house calling them as "Malangs" (persons without resources) and had not given sufficient dowry and that nothing was expected from them and that is why the deceased was led to commit suicide. A woman certainly could not tolerate disrespect shown to her father or brothers. when they visited her inlaws house. This happened not only once but on 2/3 occasions; once when Ramesh Kumar visited and secondly when Ved Parkash visited. Both these brothers escorted Subhash Kumari from their house to leave her or to bring her thereafter. The particular evidence is against the present appellants. Narinder Kumar accused was given benefit of doubt in this respect. This evidence of these prosecution witnesses gets corroboration from the fact that Kapur Chand P.W. 2 had to bargain to sell the solitary shop which had fallen to his share. He agreed to sell the same in order to meet the illegal demands of the inlaws of his daughter. An independent witness P.W. 8 Kapur Chand, who is attesting witness of the agreement tosell was produced. He deposed about agreement to sell, Exhibit P.D., which was attested by him and was entered into by Kapur Chand P.W. 2 to sell his shop to Vinod Kumar and a sum of Rs. 12,000/ was received as earnest money. Significantly, this witness further stated that Kapur Chand P.W. 2 informed him that the shop was being sold to satisfy the demand of the inlaws of his daughter Subhash Kumari who was married in Bathinda and was being pressed for more money. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the photocopy of the agreement, Exhibit P.D., is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration, This contention cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution is neither relying upon the contents of this agreement nor such an agreement is being enforced in the present proceedings. Only factum sought to be proved is that. Kapur Chand P.W. 2 had in fact agreed to sell his shop. At this stage, it may further be stated that in fact the shop was not sold to Vinod Kumar but ultimately it was sold to somebody else for a sum of Ks. 43,000/. That sale took place after the present occurrence. However, for purposes of the present case, suffice it to say that Kapur Chand P.W. 2 had agreed to sell his shop to raise money to meet the illegal demands of inlaws of his daughter. This agreement was entered into on January 7, 1984. The marriage of Subhash Kumari was solemnised in November, 1983 and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses referred to above that immediately after the marriage this demand of Rs. 25,000/ was raised as the money was required to start cloth business.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that this is an imaginary story put forth by the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of Rs. 25,000/. In fact, there was no such demand as the appellants know that the parents of Subhash Kumari were not rich. Furthermore, it has been argued that the deceased was a Matriculate having done Prabhakar and had worked as a teacher. She would have been a source of income to the inlaws and there was no reason for the appellants to torture her or her relations by making demands. There is no force in these contentions. The span of the married life was very short i.e. about 9 to 10 months. The appellant did not allow Subhash Kumari to settle down in her inlaws house or to start any teaching profession. Even the appellants family is not rich. Satish Kumar and his brothers arc merely working as shop boys getting Rs. 550/ per mensem. It is the greed for dowry that made the appellants to treat Subhash Kumari in such a fashion.

Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to several letters. Some of them are written by Subhash Kumari during this period. The contention is that these letters do not show that any demands were made by the appellants. Datewise the letters are Exhibit D.B, dated, December 4, 1983, Exhibit D.A. dated December 22, 1983, Exhibit D.K. dated January 25, 1984, Exhibit D. J, dated April 19, 1984, Exhibit D. G. dated June 22,1984 and Exhibit D.F. dated August 1, 1984 The letters have also been read over to indicate that there was no indication of love and affection between Subhash Kumari and Satish Kumar. However, this aspect will be dealt with at a later stage. At this stage, suffice it to say that normally a newly wedded woman does not make complaints in her correspondence against illtreatment meted out to her by her inlaws. Between the parties, love letters are exchanged and to the relations simple letters are written generally indicating happy married life and exchanging greetings.

It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that there is no evidence that either of the appellants did any act instigating the deceased to commit suicide or omitted to do any act which would force the deceased to commit suicide. It has further been argued that even if on one of the occasions a demand was made for Rs. 25000/, that per se would not show that the appellants abetted suicide. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellants on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Harishchandra and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1987 Criminal Law Journal 1724, and Shrimati Manna v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 219 , of this Court. In the case of Harishchandra (supra), the prosecution evidence regarding cruelty by inlaws was not considered cogent to be relied upon and it was observed that evidence was lacking that the accused were intentionally aiding or actively conceiving for the deceased to commit suicide. In the case of Smt. Manna (supra) it was held that mere threat was not sufficient to constitute all offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code, and there should be action or omission to act on the part of the accused which forced the deceased to commit suicide. In that case there was no evidence of instigation of conspiracy. These two cases are distinguishable on facts. In the present case as already observed above, there is direct evidence of three witnesses, PW. I Ramesh Kumar, P.W. 2 Kapur Chand and P.W.3 Ved Parkash. Their evidence is consistent that as and when Subhash Kumari visited their house, she complained about the illtreatment meted out to her by the appellants. She used to be humiliated and teased for bringing lesser dowry. It was 10/15 days after the marriage that she disclosed about demand of Rs. 25,000/. P.W. I Ramesh Kumar particularly stated about the incident when he brought Subhash Kumari from her inlaws house on Teej festival that the appellants called them "Malangs" unable to meet their demands etc. Likewise, P.W. 2 Kapur Chand stated so and on that account he entered into an agreement, Exhibit P.D., to sell his shop to meet the illegal demands of inlaws of Subhash Kumari. P.W. 3. Ved Parkash further stated That he escorted Subhash Kumari from Bathinda to her inlaws house after the Teej festival with gifts. However, even at that time she was threatened to be killed and they would not allow Subhash Kumari to live in their house. Such conduct on the part of the appellants does not remain at (he stage of merely threatening or raising demands. The deceased, as already observed above, became fed up of the treatment meted out to her and her close relations in her inlaws house at the hands of the appellants, that she ultimately committed suicide.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the prosecution story should be doubted as there was delay in reporting the matter to the police. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1976 Criminal Law Journal 1883. The aforesaid judgment is not helpful in deciding the case in hand. In a normal crime, no doubt it is expected of the prosecution witnesses to report the matter to the police promptly but in the case of a married woman committing suicide, her close relations obviously are not expected to be present at the time of the occurrence and the real facts can only be known when they appear on the place of occurrence. Thus, merely on account of delay, such cases cannot be thrown out.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. The sentence awarded by the trial Court is not at all excessive taking into consideration the circumstances of the case. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is, therefore, affirmed.