Dharampal vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 22,1995, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, by which Dharam Pal, appellant, has been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month u/s 304-B, Indian Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month u/s 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Ashok Kumar, Kartaro and Ravi Dass, co-accused of the appellant, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that Chhindi Devi (since deceased), daughter of Gian Chand (P.W.2), was married with accused Dharam Pal on February 20,1992 and after the marriage, they lived at Amritsar. Out of this wedlock, one son was born to Chhindi Devi who was aged three/four months, when the occurrence took place on June 2,1993. As Dharam Pal accused was not satisfied with the dowry given to Chhindi Devi at the time of marriage, so he alongwith other co-accused (since acquitted) used to maltreat his wife Chhindi Devi for bringing less dowry. Chhindi Devi used to tell his father Gian Chand that the accused were demanding Rs. 20,000/- and a motor-cycle and, in fact, she had demanded that amount alongwith motor-cycle from her father Gian Chand on several occasions when she had visited her parental house. Four/five months after the marriage, Gian Chand had given Rs. 3,000/- to his daughter Chhindi Devi but she again informed him that her husband was dissatisfied with that amount. She was again sent to her parental house to bring more money but nothing was paid by Gian Chand. At that time, Chhindi had also told his father that if the amount was not paid, the accused would kill her. On June 2,1993 at about 7.00 a.m., Gian Chand received a telegraphic message that Chhindi Devi had died due to burn injuries in the house of Dharam Pal accused; whereupon he went to Amritsar and reported the matter to the police vide his statement, Ex. PC; on the basis whereof this case was registered against the accused and his brother Ashok Kumar, mother Kartaro and father Ravi Dass. The police prepared inquest report, Ex. PD, and took into possession plastic can and match-box vide recovery memo, Ex. PE, and some pieces of partly burnt clothes vide recovery memo, Ex. PF.

Dr. Gurmanjit Singh (P.W.I), conducted post-mortem examination on the deed body of Chhindi Devi on June 3,1993 and found the following injuries on her body:

"Superficial burns all over the body except scalp hair on the back of the head region. Singeing of hair present over front of the head, eye-brows, eye-lashes, axillary and public region. Skin pealed off at places. Underlying skin was reddish in colour and blisters were present at places. Membranes, brain, pleura, liver, spleen, kidneys, larynx and trachea were found congested and trachea contained black colour soot particles mixed with mucous. Both bronchi contained black colour soot particles with mucous."

The cause of death was opined to be due to shock as a result of about 99% burns which were sufficient to cause death in th>-. ordinary course of nature. Ex. PA is the carbon copy of the M.L.R.

The prospecution, to prove its case, examined Dr. Gurmanjit Singh (P.W.I), Gian Chand complainant (P.W.2), Shila Devi (P.W.3), S.I. Piara Lal (P.W.4), Rishi Ram, Draughtsman (P.W.5) and Dr. Balbir Singh (P.W.6).

When examined u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant denied all the prosecution allegations, pleaded alibi and stated that he was living separately from his parents; that there was only one flush latrine which was being used by the family members of Yash Pal; that there was some dispute over the use of the said flush latrine by the children and that after quarrelling, his wife Chhindi Devi went to her room where she struck against a burning stove and her clothes caught fire. He further stated that his mother Kartaro rushed to the spot to help Chhindi Devi and that her feet also received burn injuries.

The appellant was called upon to enter upon his defence. He produced documents. Exhibits D.I and D.I, which are the cash memos of the medicines which he had purchased for the treatment of his wife Chhindi Devi.

P.W.I Gurmanjit Singh conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chhindi Devi and in his cross-examination, he admitted that in case a lady wearing synthetic clothes catches fire, the possibility of such injuries could not be ruled out and that if some liquid is sprinkled prior to fire, the depth of the injuries would be more.

P.W. 2 Gian Chand supported the prosecution version in material particulars though he tried to improve upon his earlier statement, which he gave to the police at the time of registration of the case. Similarly, Shila Devi (P.W.3) too tried to improve her statement and she was confronted with her previous statement recorded u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code.

P.W. 4, S.I. Piara Lal recorded the statement of Gian Chand (P.W. 2), Ex. PC; on the basis whereof formal F.I.R. Ex. PC/2, was recorded, investigated the case, got post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chhindi Devi conducted and after completion of the investigation challenged the appellant.

P.W. 5 Rishi Ram, Draughtsman, prepared scaled site plan, Ex. P.W.4/1.

P.W. 6 Dr. Balbir Singh had, on the application, Ex. P.K., made by the Investigating Officer, declared Chhindi Devi unfit to make a statement on June 2, 1993.

Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that many improvements had been made by the prosecution witnesses during the trial of this case and that there was no evidence on the record to show that the death of Chhindi Devi was dowry death or that the appellant had demanded dowry articles or that he used to mal-treat his wife-Chhindi Devi for bringing insufficient dowry. He also contended that there was no evidence on the record to show that the appellant had harassed Chhindi Devi, deceased and, as such, the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased had committed suicide on account of harassment at the hands of her husband for not bringing more dowry.

On the other hand, Mr. Parminder Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State contended that it had come in the statement of PW2 Gian Chand, father of Chhindi Devi (deceased), that the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry brought by the deceased at the time of her marriage and that after he had paid Rs. 3,000/- to Chhindi Devi, she was again sent back to his parental house by the appellant to bring more money from him. He further pointed out that it had also come in the testimony of Gian Chand (P. W. 2) that his daughter Chhindi Devi used to tell him that the appellant as well as the other co-accused (since acquitted) were demanding Rs. 20.000/- and a motor cycle. He, therefore, contended that this clearly showed that there was demand of dowry, for which the deceased was harassed by the appellant and which ultimately compelled her to commit suicide within one year and three months of her marriage. He finally argued that the prosecution, as such, had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

I have gone through the evidence on the record and have also considered the respective arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

After introduction of Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the position of law has changed. According to Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court has to raise a presumption of dowry death if the same has taken place within seven years of the marriage and there is evidence of the woman having been subjected to cruelty or harassment. Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that when question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any other 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 relatives 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 any such relative of her husband. For the purpose of this section, ''cruelty'' shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, provides, inter alia, that 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. Under Explanation to this section, ''cruelty'' is defined to mean : (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. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of dowry death. According to that section, where death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, such death shall be called ''dowry death'' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. According to the wording of Section 304-B if death of a woman is caused by burns within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband in connection with demand of dowry, such death would be called dowry death and if that death is within seven years of her marriage, the burden of proof will be upon the accused that he was innocent.

In the present case, the accused-appellant and Chhindi Devi were living in one room separately. Chhindi Devi died in the house of Dharam Pal, appellant. There are the statements of Gian Chand and Shila Devi that the husband of the deceased was not satisfied with the dowry given to Chhindi Devi. After receiving Rs. 3,000/-, he had again sent Chhindi Devi to her father Gian Chand to bring more dowry. So, I am of the opinion that Dharam Pal, appellant-husband of Chhindi Devi (deceased), compelled her to commit suicide as she was being harassed by him for bringing less dowry. Accordingly, I concur with the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.