Darshan Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—Malkiat Kaur, aged about 24 years, who had just entered the threshold matrimonial era was allegedly forced to commit

suicide within seven months of her marriage by consuming ''organo phosphorus''a group of insecticides. Consequently, the accused - Appellants

(herein referred as ''the accused'') were tried, convicted and ultimately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years, each, u/s 304-

B of the Indian Penal Code 1860,

Saun Singh, a resident of village Moosa had three daughters and a son. He had married his second daughter Malkiat Kaur to the accused

Darshan Singh, seven months prior to the occurrence. Accused Karnail Singh is the father-in- law and accused Bhuro Kaur alias Amar Kaur is the

mother-in-law of Malkiat Kaur. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- in cash, besides other golden ornaments weighing about 10 Tolas, clothes and utensils

were given to the accused at the time of marriage by the complainant and he spent about Rs. 1,60,000/- on the marriage. However, the accused

were not satisfied with the articles of dowry. After about six months of the marriage when the deceased came to her parental house, she disclosed

that all the three accused were harassing and maltreating her, and compelling her to bring a TV and fridge from her parents, and she was being

treated in such a manner almost daily. However, 23/24 days after she stayed at her parental house, the accused Darshan Singh again took her

back. On 23.10.1992 when the complainant along with his brother Jarnail Singh had gone to village Sheikhpura to enquire about the well-being of

their daughter, on reaching there at 11.00 AM, they witnessed that Malkiat Kaur was lying in the courtyard and was crying. On being asked, she

told that she had been administered some poisonous substance on her failure to bring TV and fridge. On this, the complainant and his brother

rushed her to Civil Hospital, Talwahdi Sabo, but she expired while she was just at the gate of the Civil Hospital.

The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 23.10.1992 at 11.00 AM. The case was registered against the accused on the same day at

2.30 PM on the basis of the statement of Saun Singh recorded at 2.00 PM, vide First Information Report (Ex. PA/2). Sub-Inspector Amarjit

Singh reached the spot, conducted the inquest report and got an autopsy (Ex.PH) performed by Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW7) and Dr. S.K. Gupta

on the dead body of Malkiat Kaun On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PJ), the doctor opined vide report Ex.PK that cause of

death in this case was ''organo phosphorus poisoning. The Investigating Officer. also recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion

of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented.

All the accused were charged for the offence u/s 304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Saun Singh - complainant (PW1), his brother Jarnail Singh (PW4), both being

the members of the family knowing fully about the affairs going on within the four-walls of the house, have deposed about the fact that Malkiat

Kaur was married 6/7 months prior to the incident and sufficient articles of dowry and a cash of Rs. 60,000/- were given to the accused. Malkiat

Kaur had disclosed that all the accused were harassing her for bringing TV and fridge and on 23.10.1992, when they had visited the house of the

accused at about 11.00 AM, then Malkiat Singh had informed them that she had been administered poisonous substance on account of the fact

that she could not satisfy their demand of TV and fridge.

HC Gurjant Singh (PW2), ASI Mohinder Singh (PW3) and Sub-Inspector Amarjit Singh (PW5) have proved the investigation including the

recovery of the dowry articles (Ex. Pl to PI 3), golden ornaments and wrist watch, etc., vide recovery memo Ex.PC. Constable Karnail Singh

(PW6), a formal witness, had deposed on an affidavit (Ex.PG). Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW7) has proved on record the post mortem report Ex.PH

and on the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PJ), vide his opinion (Ex.PK), he had opined that the cause of death of Malkiat

Singh was ''organo phosphorus poisoning''. HC Gurdev Singh (PW8) had taken the viscera to the Chemical Examiner and he has deposed about

the same.

When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all the three accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing

against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. They further explained that marriage of Darshan Singh was performed with Malkiat

Kaur more than seven years prior to her death, but the ''muqlawa'' ceremony was performed only 6/7 months prior to her death and they never

demanded or compelled the deceased to bring any dowry articles, much less a TV or fridge. However, on the day of occurrence, she accidentally

consumed some poisonous substance and when they came to know about this, they rushed Malkiat Kaur to the hospital of Dr. Balkaran Singh

Mann at Talwandi Sabo for her treatment, but she could not be saved. They informed the complainant through Bhantu Singh and Sukhdev Singh.

At this, the complainant along with some persons arrived at Talwandi Sabo and started demanding a cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- for settling the matter.

Due to the inability to pay such a huge amount, the complainant under the pressure of the mob got a false case registered against them. In defence,

they examined Sukhdev Singh (DW1), who while confronting the prosecution Version stated that Bhantu had gone to village Moosa to inform

Saun Singh about the occurrence. At this, many persons had come to village Sheikhpura and they had taken Malkiat Kaur to the hospital of Dr.

Mann. The complainant was demanding Rs. 2 lacs for settlement, which the accused did not pay. On this, they were arrested. During cross-

examination, he stated that he did not disclose about this fact either to the SDM or DSP of Talwandi Sabo or any other officer at Bathinda. This

version was never put up before any authority or the court. The trial ended in conviction.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

There is no denying a fact that Malkiat Kaur was married to Darshan Singh just 6/7 months prior to the occurrence. The story with regard to her

marriage 6/7 years prior to the incident is not convincing as the deceased was 24 years of age at the time when she came to the house of the

accused. At that time, accused Darshan Singh was only 20 years old. Thus, it is not convincing that accused Karnail Singh and Bhuro Kaur alias

Amar Kaur would marry their son Darshan Singh at the age of 11/12 years to a girl, who was of marriageable age and rather elder to him. No

evidence of the marriage previously held has been produced in the shape of any oral or documentary evidence on the record. No witness, who had

attended the marriage has been examined. The accused have tried to put it in the mouth of Sukhdev Singh (DW1) that the marriage had taken

place earlier, but he was not a witness to it or attended the function and could not give the time month or year of the marriage. So, the fact remains

that the marriage took place just 6/7 months prior to the occurrence.

Undisputedly, Malkiat Kaur died at the house of the accused on 23.10.1992 other than in normal circumstances. Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW7),

who after conducting the autopsy on her body and after examining the report made by the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PJ) opined vide his report

(Ex.PK) that cause of death of Malkiat Kaur was due to consumption of organo phosphorus, an insecticide. The accused have also not denied if

she did not die due to consumption of the organo phosphorus. Their plea is only that she took this poisonous substance accidentally. However,

they did not explain in any manner as to how this organo phosphorus came into their house and for what purpose, they had kept it there. The

deceased was a young lady of 24 years and just entered the matrimonial house with a dream of becoming good wife, good mother or mother-in-

law. No such incident ever took place at her parental house, where she spent 24 years, but it surprisingly occurred at the house of the accused and

at the same time, the accused have failed to explain as to under what circumstances, the live body of a hale and hearty lady turned into corpus.

Now, the crucial question to be determined in the case is ""whether the deceased was being maltreated on account of demand of dowry and she

committed suicide on that account ?"". It may be observed that there is definite evidence of Saun Singh (PW1) and Jarnail Singh (PW4) that the

accused persons had been demanding TV and fridge from Malkiat Kaur, which she had disclosed when she visited her parental house about one

month prior to the occurrence and that she had been harassed'' and maltreated on that account. Both of them have also consistently stated that the

deceased was token by the accused Darshan Singh after 23/24 days, and 6/7 days, thereafter, they had gone to Watch the well-being of their

daughter when they came across the present occurrence.

Counsel for the accused has urged that there was no-incident during 3-4 months after the marriage and the problem arose only one month

prior to the death, which is quite improbable and does not appeal to the reason. In this regard, it may be observed that in the agricultural

community in particular and in the society as a whole, the newly married brides are hesitant to disclose such incidents for some time, so that the

peace of the family may not be disturbed and their matrimonial ties may not go to rough weather. Some brides still wait for some time with a hope

that the matrimonial family could be persuaded for amicable settlement without giving pains to her parents, but ultimately when they loose all the

hopes of their peaceful living at their matrimonial house, they tear out their abdomen in front of their near and dear ones as well as the parents. The

same appears to have happened in the instant case. Malkiat Kaur waited for 4/5 months with a hope that there may be some improvement in the

matrimonial family and ultimately when the relations could not improve, she vomited out about the troubles being suffered by her at the hands of the

accused. The plea that the mother, to whom this fact was allegedly disclosed, has not been examined, hardly affects the prosecution case. Saun

Singh; father and Jarnail Singh, the real uncle of the deceased, who knew about the happenings, had the courage to appear and depose against the

accused. At the same time, the accused had failed to explain as to what transpired between him, his family and the deceased, which resulted into

commission of suicide by her.

As regards the other argument that there was no continuous harassment, soon before the death, it was only solitary incident, which happened

one month prior to the occurrence and the same could not be said to be ''soon before the death'', as such, the accused could not be convicted u/s

304-B IPC. In this regard, it is noticed that both the witnesses (PW1 and PW4) have duly deposed about the complaints made by Malkiat Kaur

when she had come to their house, about the maltreatment and beatings at the hands of the accused on not meeting the demand of TV and fridge

and after stay of few days, she was taken to her matrimonial house by Darshan Singh, one month prior to the death. It is observed that she

committed suicide within seven months of the solemnization of her marriage which fact itself is an indicator that the accused did not mend their

behaviour and continued maltreating her. The period of seven months is too short for a bride to settle in her matrimonial house, when she disturbed

by the untoward behaviour given of her own husband and his family towards her.

There is nothing to disbelieve the oral dying declaration made by Malkiat Kaur at the time of death where she explained that she had been

given some poisonous thing for not meeting the demand of TV and refrigerator. All the accused were not found at the house. It was the

complainant and Jarnail Singh, who had taken her to PHC Talwandi Sabo. Consequently, Jarnail Singh, without wast. ing any time knowing fully

well of the activities on the part of the accused, got registered the case against them mentioning all the facts regarding her maltreatment for the

demand of dowry as well as administration of poisonous substance to Malkiat Kaur by the accused. Though, the accused could not be convicted

for the offence u/s 302 IPC for want of sufficient evidence with regard to the specific part played by the accused individually, but certainly, they

could be held guilty for the offence u/s 304-B IPC, particularly when the deceased died an unnatural death at their house other than in normal

circumstances. The accused failed to explain her death.

As regards the contention that the allegations with regard to demand of TV and fridge as levelled by the complainant, being contradictory

cannot be placed reliance. In this regard, it needs mention that Saun Singh (PW1) in unequivocal words has stated that the accused were

demanding TV and refrigerator from his daughter and no meaningful cross-examination has been effected upon him to shatter this part of his

statement, except a bald suggestion that no such demand was made. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve this witness. In order to show a

contradiction, the counsel has taken me through the statement of Jarnail Singh (PW4), who at one point of time stated that Rs. 1,60,000/- were

spent on marriage articles including cash, golden ornaments, TV, fridge, etc, but again in the examination-in-chief, he stated that Malkiat Kaur had

made a dying declaration before them that she had been administered some poisonous substance by accused Darshan Singh and his parents as she

could not satisfy their demand of TV and fridge. With regard to this contradiction in the statement of Jarnail Singh, it may be observed that so far

as the FIR and the statement of Saun Singh are concerned, both are consistent to the demands made by the accused, however, it appears that

Jarnail Singh has stated the words qua the giving of TV and fridge, etc. at the time of marriage casually and inadvertently, however, since he has

categorically stated in the later part of the examination-in-chief itself that Malkiat Kaur had deposed that the cause of death was the demand of TV

and refrigerator and no cross-examination regarding this fact has been affected upon this witness, therefore, much importance cannot be given to

this minor contradiction. On going through the entire statement of this witness, it would not be unsafe to hold that the witness is quite reliable and it

established beyond doubt that Malkiat Kaur was harassed for bringing more dowry for them (her-in-laws) and the minor contradictions about

giving of TV and fridge at the time of marriage was inadvertent. In any case, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Saun Singh qua this

fact.

The argument on behalf of the accused that the deceased died accidentally by consuming some poisonous substance and she was taken to the

hospital of Dr. Balkaran Singh Mann at Talwandi Sabo by them and that they made best of it to save her, as such, they cannot be said to have

been harassing or maltreating her. In this regard, while peeping into the circumstances of the case, where both the witnesses consistently stated that

when they visited the house of Malkiat Kaur, they found her body in the courtyard and the accused had fled away. Notwithstanding the fact that

Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-7) has stated that a vein puncture was seen on the dorsal aspect of her right hand, which shows that some intravenous

fluid had been given to the patient before death. Without commenting anything over the inhaling of anything to Malkiat Kaur by way of injunction, in

the absence of the examination of the person, who had treated her before taking her to the Hospital. It cannot be said that the accused had made

any efforts for treating her for the consumption of insecticides, but it is a fact that the accused had not taken her to the hospital, whereas, the

complainant with the help of his brother had taken her to the hospital and she had died near the gate of the hospital.

As regards the sole defence witness Sukhdev Singh (DW1), it is observed that he is a neighbourer of Darshan Singh and he could depose

anything against the complainant to any extent. As regards the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the complainant for remaining quiet, the same appears

to be unconvincing, rather a strange defence appears to have been set up by him. While delineating the scenario, the daughter of the complainant

was on the death bed and he had not just cremated her, in sucn a situation the condition of Jamail Singh would certainly be difficult to describe. It is

not possible that the complainant after leaving the dead body in the hospital would come to the village of the accused to demand Rs. 2 lacs from

them for two reasons; neither they could be so hasty to do so, nor the accused could be expected to be present in their village when the body of

Malkiat Kaur was lying in the hospital. It may further be observed that Malkiat Kaur while stepping into the house of the accused as bride could

never dream of even to end her life, but these were the compelling circumstances, which led her to take this drastic step. At the same time, the

accused have also failed to explain the turning of a live body into corpus within a short period by any plausible, prudent and reasonable reasoning.

Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, gravity of the offence and all other attending circumstances of the case, it would have to be held

that the sentence awarded to the accused commensurate the offence. No ground for reduction therein is made out.

Appeal dismissed.

Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda for compliance.