Jasbir vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

Smt. Rekha daughter of Dhanpat was married to Jasbir son of Zile Singh, resident of Mehlana about 11/2 years prior to October, 1994. At the time of her marriage, her father had given dowry according to his financial capacity. About 4 months prior to October, 1994, Dhanpat had died of cancer. After marriage, Jasbir wanted Rekha to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/ from her father. Rekha went to her father and narrated the matter to her brother and mother. She told them in case her husband''s demand for Rs. 50,000/ was not fulfilled, her life would become hell in the matrimonial home. At that time, her father''s uncle Sukh Lal was also present at the house of Dhanpat. At that time, Dhanpat asked his daughter Rekha to bring with her, her husband Jasbir. He asked her to go to her inlaws and bring her husband with her and he would advise her husband. After 23 days, Rekha came to her father''s house along with her husband Jasbir. Dhanpat refused to give him a sum of Rs. 50,000/. Dhanpat also told Jasbir that he was a cancer patient and lot of money had been spent on his treatment, and he was unable to spare a sum of Rs. 50,000/ for him. On 24.10.1994, Rekha''s maternal grand father Jaswant Singh and her brother Pardeep went to village Mehlana to see Rekha. Rekha told them that her husband Jasbir, motherinlaw Bedo and sisterinlaw Smt. Sheela were pressuring her daily to bring money from her father and they were giving her beatings with a view to coerce her to bring money from her father. Rekha wanted her to be taken to her parental home by them to see her father and mother. Rekha''s maternal grandfather and brother advised Jasbir, Smt. Bedo and Smt. Sheela that they were poor making their both ends meet with difficulty and were not in a position to give such a huge amount. They told them that Dhanpat had died and after Dhanpat''s death, there was no earning hand left in the family. After advising Jasbir, Smt. Bedo and Smt. Sheela, they returned to village Deenpur on 25.10.1994. On 27.10.1994, they got information that Smt. Rekha had committed suicide by taking some poisonous substance being unable to bear the beatings/harassment being given to her by her husband Jasbir, motherinlaw Bedo and sisterinlaw Sheela.

Sukh Lal reported the matter to the police vide his statement Ex. PC which was recorded by ASI Ram Kumar on 28.10.1994 at about 2 p.m. at Adda Sonepat Mehlana Road. On the basis of statement Ex. PC case FIR No. 299 was registered on 28.10.1994 at police station Sadar Sonepat under Section 498 A/304B IPC vide formal FIR Ex. PC/2. ASI Ram Kumar investigated the case. He reached the house of Jasbir and held inquest Ex. PB on the dead body of Rekha. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination to Civil Hospital, Sonepat per Constable Pal Singh together with request for post mortem Ex. PF. The team of doctors consisting of Dr. H.R. Singhal and Dr. R. Girdhar of Civil Hospital, Sonepat performed post mortem examination on the dead body on 29.10.1994 at 10 a.m. They noticed multiple abrasions in front of the neck at the level of thyroid cricoid region extending on both sides. They notice big impression (depression) with whitish colour on right side and a cluster of impressions on the left side of the neck. On further exploration, the underlying muscles were found torn with petechial haemorrhage. Cricoid cartilage was fractured on left side underlying muscosa congested. In the opinion of the doctors, cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Time that elapsed between injuries and death could be within few minutes and between death and postmortem, it could be within 24 hours. After investigation, Jasbir, Smt. Bedo and Smt. Sheela were challaned under Sections 498A/304B/302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 21.1.1995.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat charged the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. He charged them alternatively under Section 304B IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

With a view to bring home to the accused, the charge levelled against them, the prosecution examined Dr. H.R. Singhal PW 1, Sukh Lal PW 2, Pardeep PW 3, Zile Singh PW 4, ASI Rajinder Singh PW 5, SI Yad Ram PW 6, Constable Ishwar Singh PW 7, ASI Ram Kumar PW 8. Constable Rajesh Kumar, Mouji Ram, Raghbir, Dr. Girdhar and Constable Pal Singh were given up as unnecessary. Lekh Ram and Lal Chand were given up as won over by the accused. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the imputations appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and stated that it was a false case, woven against them due to their differences with the daughter of Sukh Lal PW 2, who is married in their village. No demand for dowry was raised by them either before marriage or after marriage. Smt. Sheela pleaded that she is a married woman putting up with her inlaws in their village. At the time of alleged incident, she was also not there in village Mehlana. In their defence, they examined Smt. Sarbati Devi DW 1, Kalawati DW 2, Harminder Singh Assistant Manager, FCI, Sonepat DW 3, Dharambir DW 4. Besides, certificate marked `A'' was tendered in defence.

On the conclusion of the trial, Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat found the alternative charge proved against Jasbir and Smt. Bedo and found the charge not proved against Smt. Sheela. He accordingly convicted Jasbir and Smt. Bedo under Section 304B IPC. He sentenced Jasbir to undergo imprisonment for life. He sentenced Smt. Bedo to undergo RI for 10 years. He acquitted Smt. Sheela. Not satisfied with the verdict of conviction dated 16.10.1995 recorded against them by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, Jasbir and Bedo have knocked the door of this Court through this Criminal Appeal namely Crl. Appeal No. 669DB of 1995.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Smt. Rekha was matriculate. She was married to Jasbir 11/2 years prior to her end. She is not shown to have written any letter to her father/brother/mother that demand for Rs. 50,000/ was being raised upon her and that she was being maltreated/beaten on account of her inability to fulfil this demand, and if any demand for Rs. 50,000/ had been raised upon her and if she was being illtreated/beaten on account of her inability to fulfil this demand, she would have written some letter to her father/brother/mother. In the same strain, he submitted that Sukh Lal''s brother''s daughter Dharmo is married in village Mehlana. Assuming that Rekha was being illtreated by her husband, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw, she must have talked of her tale of woe to the inlaws of Dharmo and they must have written some letter to Rekha''s father/brother/mother telling them of her tale of woe at the house of her in laws. While raising this submission, it appears that the learned counsel forgot that Rekha''s marriage was only 56 months old when demand for Rs. 50,000/ came to be raised upon her and in the beginning of marriage, the anxiety of every bride is to save her marriage and not to let such things go out of the matrimonial home and in the ears of others. It was a matter personal to Rekha and her inlaws. Why should she have disclosed this matter to the inlaws of Smt. Dharmo ? If she had disclosed this matter to the in laws of Smt. Dharmo, that would not have improved matters for her. Rekha went to her parents and told that her husband was demanding Rs. 50,000/. Her father sent her back saying that he was a cancer patient and could not afford this amount. He asked her to bring her husband with her so that he could tell him of his difficulty in fulfilling his demand. Rekha went to her parents along with her husband after one or two days and her father expressed his inability before Jasbir to fulfil his demand. Conduct of Rekha appears to be quite in consonance with the conduct of every such bride recently married who is confronted with such situation. Every bride similarly situated as Rekha tries to see that her husband remains satisfied with her and her parents on every score and if she is unable to satisfy her husband, she tries to satisfy him as to her helplessness into the matter. In the beginning of marriage, brides confronted with such situation do not indulge in writing letters to their parents telling them of their illtreatment at the hands of their in laws in the wake of their inability to fulfil their demand for money as if they start indulging in writing letters to them, that would worsen their relations with their inlaws. Not writing letters by Rekha to her father/brother/mother telling them of her illtreatment at the hands of in laws thus cannot be of any consequence.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Rekha''s husband, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw could not be so callous as to raise demand for Rs. 50,000/ when they had known that Rekha''s father Dhanpat was a cancer patient and lot of money had been spent on his treatment. Pardeep PW 3, who is Rekha''s brother, has stated that 67 months after marriage, Rekha came to them and told them of her husband''s demand for Rs. 50,000/ and she was sent back to her inlaws by her father saying that he was a cancer patient and could not afford this amount. Suffice it to say that was dependent upon the frame of mind of the inlaws of Rekha, whether they could raise this demand despite the fact that they had known that Dhanpat was a cancer patient and lot of money had been spent on his treatment. Dhanpat was in service. He died of cancer in June, 1994. On his death, his family got some money as retiral benefits. No wonder demand for Rs. 50,000/ persisted on that account. On 24.10.1994, Rekha''s maternal grandfather Jaswant Singh and her brother Pardeep went to village Mehlana to see Rekha. Rekha told them that she was being coerced daily into bringing money by her husband, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw. They were giving her beatings and she desired to be taken by them to the village of her parents. They advised Rekha''s husband, motherin law and sisterinlaw not to press their demand as Rekha''s parents were poor making both ends meet with difficulty. Fact that Jaswant Singh and Pardeep visited the inlaws of Rekha on 24.10.1994 has not been denied by Jasbir in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All that he has stated is that at the time when Jaswant Singh and Pardeep came to their house, he was on duty and he had not met them. They had, however, met the other members of his family. Rekha died on 27.10.1994. Something foul must have taken place on or about 24.10.1994 which necessitated the visit of Jaswant Singh and Pardeep to the inlaws of Rekha. Rekha''s marriage was 11/2 years old. Her''s was an unnatural death as found by the doctors who performed post mortem examination on the dead body. Section 304B IPC defines "dowry death" as follows :

"304B. Dowry death

(1) Where the 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 for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation : xxx xxx xxx

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

For sustaining charge under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the marriage of the woman was less than 7 years old when her death took place and her death was unnatural and that it took place because soon before death, she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband because their demand for dowry had remained unfulfilled by her and her parents. In this case, this fact also stands proved that Rekha had been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death because of her inability to fulfil demand of her inlaws for Rs. 50,000/.

Section 304B IPC was introduced in the Indian Penal Code on 19.11.1986 by the Parliament when it was felt that every other day, young brides are sacrificed at the altar of dowry. Section 498A was also introduced in the Indian Penal Code in the year 1983 whereby cruelty simplicitor to the wife was made punishable, so that burden of proof on the prosecution to prove "dowry death" or abetment as to suicide by the married woman did not remain that heavy, the Parliament introduced Section 113A and 113B in the Indian Evidence Act. Section 113B raised presumption as to dowry death. It says that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Why should Rekha who was 1920 years old and whose marriage was 11/2 years old have ended her life if she was being treated with love and affection by her inlaws, is a question which admits of no answer except that she was being treated with cruelty on account of her inability to fulfil her inlaws'', demand for Rs. 50,000/. So far as Smt. Bedo is concerned, she does not seem to have been privy to demand for Rs. 50,000/ being raised by her son Jasbir. Sukh Lal has stated that 56 months after marriage, Rekha came to her parental house and told her brother and mother that Jasbir was demanding Rs. 50,000/ and that in case this demand was not met, her life would be in danger. Pardeep has also stated that 67 months after marriage, Rekha came to them and told them that her husband was demanding Rs. 50,000/. Smt. Bedo, thus, does not figure when demand for Rs. 50,000/ was raised for the first time. No wonder, she was introduced in the demand for Rs. 50,000/ in the First Information Report which is somewhat delayed. As per Sukh Lal, they got information about the death of Rekha on the night intervening 2728.10.1994. He reported the matter to the police on 28.10.1994 at about 2 p.m. Complicity of Smt. Bedo in the death of Rekha appears to be doubtful.

For the reasons given above, appeal of Smt. Bedo succeeds and is accepted and she is acquitted. As regards Jasbir, his complicity in the death of Rekha stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt and he was thus justifiably convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. There is no evidence that she was throttled to death by Jasbir. Jasbir should not have been sentenced to imprisonment for life as it is an extreme penalty provided for "dowry death" as defined in section 304B IPC. All that is ascribed to Jasbir is that he treated his wife with cruelty as she was unable to fulfil his demand for money and the cruel treatment of wife by him brought about her death. Keeping in view the age of Jasbir and the attribution to him, he should not be sentenced to RI of more than 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/. So, he is sentenced to undergo RI of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ or in default to undergo further RI for 2 years. Appeal of Jasbir thus fails so far as his conviction is concerned. It succeeds partially so far as sentence is concerned. Entire amount of fine, if recovered, shall go to Pardeep PW.