Brij Mohan etc. vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—Brij Mohan etc. have directed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.2.1997 passed by Shri Nirmal Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which accused/appellants have been convicted u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

The prosecution story when put in brief is like that on 20.5.1992, Brij Mohan accused made statement Ex.PG before ASI Harcharan Singh, who made endorsement Ex.PG/1 and got recorded an entry in the DDR. Thereafter, ASI Harcharan Singh went to the house of accused Brij Mohan, where the dead body of his wife Indira was hanging with the roof with a rope. ASI Harcharan Singh brought down the dead body on the ground after breaking open the door and he prepared inquest report Ex.PB and sent the dead body of Indira for post mortem examination vide his request Ex.PC through constable Jagga Singh and constable Balbir Singh. The clothes and the belongings of deceased Indira along with other articles were taken into possession by ASI Harcharan Singh. It has been further alleged that on 22.5.1992, Rajesh Kumar brother of deceased Indira moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur to the effect that his sister Indira (deceased) was married with accused Brij Mohan about one year and two months ago. Indira remained in the house of complainant Rajesh Kumar for 7-8 months as her in-laws used to maltreat her. However, with the intervention of respectable, she was sent to the house of the accused, but two months thereafter, the accused again started beating Indira and they used to demand more dowry including car, scooter etc. It was further mentioned in the application that on 20.5.1992, Prithvi Raj accused went to Ganganagar to the house of the complainant and informed that Indira had bolted the door of the room from inside and she was not opening the same. On receipt of this information, complainant Rajesh Kumar along with 5-6 other persons went to the house of the accused and found that the door was lying opened and the dead body of Indira was hanging with the roof with a rope and her one foot was lying on a small table whereas, her other foot was 6-7'''' above the ground and there were sign of injuries on her body. It was also pleaded in the application that the police did not take any action against the accused Hans Raj Arya. On the basis of the complaint, the present FIR was registered in the Police Station City Abohar. Investigation commenced. After completion of necessary formalities and investigation accused were challaned.

On appearance of accused documents were supplied to the accused. A prima facie case u/s 304B of the IPC was found against all the accused. Charge was accordingly framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and prosecution was asked to lead its evidence.

In order to prove its case prosecution examined Dr. Prithvi Raj Bhadu (PW-1), Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), Bhana Ram ( PW-3), Chandu Lal ( PW-4), Narinder Singh Sharma DSP (D) ( PW-5), Raj Paul Draftsman (PW-6) and ASI Harcharan Singh ( PW-7) and closed the evidence.

The statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were as recorded. They denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed that they are innocent. Accused Brij Mohan pleaded that he never demanded dowry from Indira and that she committed suicide. He further added that the parents of Indira demanded back all the gifts given in the marriage, to which he refused and then this case was concocted against him and his parents. He further stated that his parents were separately residing from him. The accused examined Nathu Ram as DW-1.

The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants vide judgment and order dated 13.2.1997, as aforesaid.

Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab and have also carefully perused the case file.

The present appeal has been filed by three appellants namely Brij Mohan, husband of deceased Indira, Prithvi Raj, father in law and Tara Devi mother-in-law of deceased Indira.

So far as Tara Devi-appellant is concerned, she is reported to have died and this fact has been admitted by both the parties coupled with the statement of ASI Baljinder Singh. So, the appeal qua Tara Devi stands abated.

As per conviction slip, placed on the file, Brij Mohan has undergone the sentence awarded by the trial court and has been released on completion of his sentence. Learned counsel for the appellants, in these circumstances has not pressed the appeal qua Brij Mohan. So, the appeal qua Brij Mohan stands dismissed as having been not pressed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has addressed arguments only in respect of Prithvi Raj appellant (hereinafter mentioned as counsel for the appellant) that Brij Mohan made statement Ex.PG to the police informing that Indira, his wife has committed suicide. Prithvi Raj sent information to the relations of Indira on 20.5.1992. The postmortem examination on the dead body of Indira was conducted. Rajesh Kumar son of Bhana Ram brother of the deceased Indira moved an application dated 22.5.1992 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. However, the FIR was recorded only on 26.5.1992 on the basis of application Ex.PD moved by Rajesh Kumar. Even in that application, there are general allegations against all the accused and not even a single allegation regarding demand of dowry articles against the appellant was made. It is alleged that Indira was married to Brij Mohan one year two months prior to the filing of the said application. Indira remained in the house of complainant for 7- 8 months as accused had been maltreating her. There was Panchayat in which accused undertook not to harass Indira in future. It has further been mentioned in that application that accused after two months again started beating Indira and had raised a demand of car, scooter etc. So, even according to the allegations made in the Ex.PD, the ingredient of offence u/s 304B, IPC are not made out. To prove the ingredient of offence, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients :-

(i) that death of the woman is caused by burns or bodily injuries or otherwise then under normal circumstances;

(ii) that death has taken place within seven years of her marriage; and

(iii) soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relation of her husband for or in connection with any demand of dowry.

It is contended that so far as the fact of demand of dowry at the hands of appellant Prithvi Raj is concerned, that fact is not proved. From the testimony of Rajesh and other prosecution witnesses, it is revealed that the father and brother of Indira were earning their livelihood by working as labourer. Husband of Indira as well as appellants were also working as labourer. So, in these circumstances, the demand of car or scooter on the face of it is unrealistic. The parents of deceased Indira were not able to fulfill that demand. Moreover, the accused also cannot afford to maintain car or scooter. Otherwise also, the parents-in-law would not have benefitted by any demand of car and scooter. The allegations of demand of car and scooter are general in nature. It has not been mentioned on what occasion demand of car or scooter was made and by whom.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in authority Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab 2000 (2) R.C.R.(Cri) 695, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that for fault of the husband, all the family members of the husband cannot be punished.

In authority Salamat Ali and another vs. State of Bihar 1997 SCC (Cri) 842, the parents of the husband were acquitted where there were general allegation of demand of dowry against them.

The Division Bench of this Court in Naresh Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana 2007 (2) RCR (Cri) 660 acquitted the mother-in-law where there was no allegation of demand of dowry for the last three months prior to the death of woman. Similar view was taken in authority Baldev Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab 2007(2) RCR (Cri) 665 by a Division Bench of this Court.

This Court in authority Sohan Singh vs. State of Punjab 2006(2) RCR (Cri) 605 has held that parents of husband would not be benefitted by demand of scooter. So, they were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.

So, it is contended that appeal of the appellant be accepted and he be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

Learned State counsel has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

As per conviction slip placed on the file, the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of six months and six days. Husband of Indira-deceased has undergone incarceration for a period for which he had been convicted and after taking into account period of remissions, he has already been released.

This is the first appeal and as such the evidence produced before the trial Court has to be re-appreciated. The star witness of the prosecution is complainant Rajesh Kumar, who appeared as PW-2. He has stated that all the three accused used to torture his sister Indira. She remained at their house for 7-8 months due to ill-treatment of the accused. A panchayat was convened in which Prithvi Raj and Brij Mohan accused and his family members 4-5 other persons were present. Bhana Ram, Rajesh Kumar, his brother Mange Ram and Chandu Lal, President of Dhanak Sabha, Ganganagar were also present. The accused assured that they will not ill-treat Indira in future. She was taken to Abohar by the accused and their companion. After two months thereafter, the accused again started beating and ill-treating his sister and demanded a car, scooter etc. from them in dowry. They were not able to fulfill their demand. On 20.5.1992 Brij Mohan accused came to their house and told that Indira had bolted the door of her room from inside after her body was seen hanging from the roof.

Prosecution has examined PW-7 ASI Harcharan Singh, who has stated that on 20.5.1992 accused Brij Mohan got recorded statement Ex.PG and then he went to the house of Brij Mohan. He broke open the door and brought the dead body on the floor, which was hanging with a rope. So, according to the said witness, the room was bolted from inside and it is a case of suicide.

From the evidence on the file, the first two ingredient of the offence mentioned above are complete. The death is unnatural and that has taken place within seven years of her marriage. The only question left to be determined against the appellant is in respect of 3rd ingredient i.e. soon before her death Indira was subjected to cruelty at the hands of appellant in connection with demand of dowry articles. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that ingredient of offence u/s 304B IPC are made out against all the accused. Accused Brij Mohan has undergone his entire period of sentence awarded by the trial Court whereas appeal qua Tara Devi-appellant stood abated.

From the bare reading of the testimony of complainant Rajesh Kumar PW-2 and Bhana Ram (PW-3) father of the deceased, there are general allegations of demand of dowry articles and maltreatment on the part of all the three accused. No specific instance of demand of dowry article has been attributed to appellant-Prithvi Raj. The specific demand of dowry is that of car and scooter. This Court in authority Sohan Singh''s case (supra) has held that parents of husband would not be benefitted by demand of scooter. Any overt act attributed to the person other than the husband, were required to prove beyond doubt and by mere conjectures and implications such relation cannot be held guilty for offence relating to dowry death. In that case, parents of the husband were acquitted.

In authority Kans Raj''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Apex Court has upheld the acquittal of brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the husband when there is evidence of PW-06 Kans Raj that deceased was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother of husband of deceased.

The Hon''ble Apex Court further in authority Salamat Ali and another''s case (supra) has held that parents cannot be convicted on the basis of allegations of demand of dowry which are general in nature. It has been held that in the absence of clear and pointed evidence, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of parents on the vague allegations that the demand of dowry was made by husband''s family members. The case of appellant-Prithvi Raj is fully covered by the said authority.

The Division Bench of this Court in authority Naresh Kumar and another''s case (supra) acquitted the mother-in-law where there was no specific instance attributed to her. It was observed that parents have nothing to do with the demand of motor cycle.

The Division Bench of this Court in authority Baldev Kaur and another''s case (supra) held that conviction of mother-in-law cannot be maintained where there is a attribution of demand of maruti car at her end. It was observed by the Division Bench that mother-in-law cannot be expected that she would demand maruti car for her use. Her conviction was set aside.

So, keeping in view the law discussed above, I have no hesitation in holding that the appellant-Prithvi Raj is entitled to have benefit of doubt, as ingredient of offence u/s 304B, IPC cannot be held to be proved against him.

Consequently, his appeal stands accepted qua appellant-Prithvi Raj and the judgment qua him stands set aside and he stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.