Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

This is a criminal appeal filed by Jaswinder Singh and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who convicted the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/; in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months under Section 304B IPC. The appellant was further convicted under Section 498A IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/; in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months. The trial Court further held that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

It may be mentioned here at the first instance that along with Jaswinder Singh appellant his aunt Smt. Angrez Kaur was also tried for the offences but she was acquitted.

The story of the prosecution in brief is that Smt. Simarjit daughter of Mohan Singh of village Aulakh was married to Jaswinder Singh appellant about 1 months prior to May, 1992. She was married on 29.3.1992. Mohan Singh gave sufficient dowry to Smt. Simarjit Kaur according to his financial capacity. A few days after the marriage Jaswinder Singh started making a demand for more dowry including fridge, scooter and colour T.V. In the wake of that demand Mohan Singh collected Panchayat at village Aulakh consisting of Gandhi Singh Panch of village Aulakh, his wife''s brother Gurdev Singh, Boota Singh, who was the mediator of the marriage and other respectables. He took that panchayat to village Wander Jatana consisting of Gandhi Singh, Gurdev Singh, Boota Singh and other respectables and made entreaties to Jaswinder Singh appellant and his Masi/Tai Smt. Angrez Kaur wife of Mithu Singh that he would fulfil their demand after harvesting of wheat crop was over.

The story of the prosecution goes that on 24.5.1992 Mohan Singh was busy in managing the harvested wheat crop when he came to know that some poisonous substance had been administered to his daughter on 23.5.1992 at about 9.00 p.m. by the appellant and that they were getting her treated at private nursing home at Kotkapura. On receipt of this information, Mohan Singh went to the nursing home of Dr. Garg from where he took her daughter to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, where she expired on 25.5.1992 at about 1.45 a.m. Jaswinder Singh and his Masi/Tai Angrez Kaur brought about the death of Simarjit Kaur by administering her some poisonous substance because she could not fulfil their demand for more dowry including scooter, fridge and colour television. Case F.I.R. No. 19 dated 25.5.1992 was registered under Section 304B read with Section 120B IPC at Police Station Kotkapura on the statement Ex.PL of Mohan Singh, father of the girl. Mohan Singh made the statement on 25.5.1992 at about 6.00 p.m at bus adda, Panj Grain Kalan before ASI Gurmail Singh. Inquest report on the dead body of the deceased was prepared by the Investigating Officer in the dead house of Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Dr. Daljit Singh Kochar, S.M.O., Civil Hospital, Ludhiana performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Simarjit Kaur on 26.5.1992 at 3.40 p.m. He kept the determination of the cause of death pending receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner on contents of stomach, large and small intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and blood. The Chemical Examiner found vide report Ex. PR organo phosphorus group of insecticide in the contents of stomach, large and small intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and blood. After investigation, accused Jaswinder Singh and Smt. Angrez Kaur were challaned under Section 304B read with Section 120B IPC in the court of Illaqa Magistrate who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide order dated 3.9.1992 committed the accused to the Court of Sessions.

Vide order dated 24.10.1992 the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot framed charges against the appellant and his companion under Sections 498A and 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 304B IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined in the trial Court PW1 Dr. Daljit Kochar, PW2 Dr. Vanita, PW3 Mohan Singh complainant, PW4 Gandhi Singh, PW5 Gurdev Singh and PW6 ASI Gurmail Singh, Investigating Officer. The prosecution also tendered into evidence the report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PR and closed the case of the prosecution.

Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. They denied those circumstances and the plea of Jaswinder Singh appellant was as follows :

"I am innocent. I had gone to my fields on the alleged day. She was not keeping well and in my absence took some insecticide metacid by mistake having believed it to be medicine which was lying in the room in which she was sleeping. On coming to know that she had taken poison, she was taken to Kotkapura for treatment and from there to Ludhiana where she died. We laid no demand for scooter etc. upon her. She was never maltreated or illtreated."

The plea of Smt. Angrez Kaur need not incorporate in this judgment as she was found innocent by the learned trial Court.

In defence the accused did not examine any witness.

The learned trial Court acquitted Angrez Kaur broadly for the reasons as given in para No. 17 of the judgment, requoted as under :

"17. The use of the word any wilful conduct suggests that there should have been series of acts on the part of the husband or relative of the husband as are likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. So far as Angrej Kaur is concerned, scooter, refrigerator and T.V. could not have gone to her coffers if these had been given because she is merely Masi/Tai of Jaswinder Singh accused. Scooter, refrigerator and T.V. if given would have gone to the coffers of Jaswinder Singh and his own family. In my opinion, Angrej Kaur is not liable for offences with which she has been charged."

So far as the present appeal is concerned, the learned trial Court convicted this appellant both under Section 304B and Section 498A IPC for the reasons given in para Nos. 18 to 25 of the judgment, which I would like to reproduce as under :

"18. As far as Jaswinder Singh accused is concerned, he is liable under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, as the death of his wife took place within 13/4 months of his marriage with her in unnatural circumstances. Her''s was not a natural death. Organo phosphorus was found in her stomach, large and small intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and blood. When the death of a married woman takes place in the house of her husband within 7 years of her marriage and it is an unnatural death and the death takes place on account of demand of dowry having been made either by the husband or relative of such woman and the demand remained unfulfilled 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, the court would presume that said person had caused "dowry death". Section 113B of the Evidence Act throws onus on the husband of the woman to prove that he had not caused her death. In this case, Mohan Singh PW3 has stated that he gave dowry according to his financial capacity to his daughter Simarnjit Kaur. 10/12 days after marriage Jaswinder Singh accused started demanding scooter, refrigerator and colour T.V. He was laying this demand upon Simarjit Kaur when she was with them at village Wander Jatana. Smt. Simarjit Kaur told him about this demand when she came to village Aulakh. She returned to village Wander Jatana. Thereafter, he, Gandhi Singh, Member Panchayat, his wife''s brother Gurdev Singh and other respectables went to village Wander Jatan with a view to tell Jaswinder Singh and his Masi/Tai that they would fulfil this demand of theirs after rabi crop was harvested. They assured Jaswinder Singh and Angrej Kaur that they would fulfil this demand of theirs'' after Rabi crop was harvested and, thereafter, i.e. on 24.5.1992, he came to know that Simarjit Kaur had been given poison by Jaswinder Singh and his Masi/Tai Angrej Kaur and that she was lying admitted in hospital at Kotkapura.

Simarjit Kaur was a young woman aged 20 years. She was married only 1 months prior to her death. Hers was unnatural death. There is no evidence that she had suicidal tendencies. There is no evidence that she had ever attempted at suicide earlier. Why should a married woman who is only 20 years old and whose marriage is only 13/4 months old should commit suicide if she were being treated well by her husband and his family. In this case, the presumption enshrined in section 113B of the Evidence Act will apply with greater vigor when we look to the age of the woman and the age of her marriage. Reminding woman time and again that she had not brought T.V., scooter and refrigerator in marriage and that she should bring T.V., scooter and refrigerator from her parents would constitute mental cruelty to the woman. Marriage is not a commercial affair. It is a union of one man with one woman for procreation of children and performing religious and social duties. If a woman is reminded time and again that she had not brought this thing or that thing in dowry or that she should bring this thing or that thing from her parents, the woman starts viewing that her husband has scant regard for her or the institution of marriage and is treating marriage only as a commercial affair, she would view this attitude of her husband as `cruelty'' to her as defined in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Wilful conduct of a husband which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or harassment of the woman whether 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 is `cruelty''. Any woman placed in the position of Simarjit Kaur who was married only 13/4 months prior and who is only 20 years old would feel harassed if she is reminded time and again that she should bring scooter, refrigerator and colour T.V. from her parents which she had not brought in marriage.

It has been submitted by the learned defence counsel that if Mohan Singh had promised to give scooter, refrigerator and colour T.V. after rabi crop was harvested, where was the occasion for reiteration of this demand on the part of Jaswinder Singh and where was the occasion for Jaswinder Singh to have created situation in which there was no other alternative for her but to commit suicide. It has been submitted that Mohan Singh P.W. has stated that after his return to the village, he did not receive any message from his daughter that she was being illtreated and that he should give scooter etc. without any loss of time.

It has been next submitted that there is no evidence that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and that she had not brought scooter etc. Suffice it to say, the word `soon'' before death used in Section 304B I.P.C. would embrace the series of incidents forming part of same transaction which culminated in the death of a woman. The word soon cannot be interpreted to mean that cruelty or harassment should be just before death. Authority on the point is Rameshwar Dass and another v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Recent Criminal Reports 697. If there is pinpricking time and again by the husband or his relative that she had not brought this thing or that thing and that she should bring this thing or that thing and that this demand remains unfulfilled, reminding her time and again and making her realizes that her father should have given this thing or that thing in dowry would amount to mental cruelty.

It has been submitted by learned defence counsel that there is delay in the lodging of the first information report. Incident took place on 23.5.1992. Mohan Singh made statement on 25.5.1992 at about 5.30/6 P.M. before ASI Gurmail Singh which forms the foundation of the first information report. Mohan Singh went to Garg Nursing Home, Kotkapura. He did not tell the doctor that his daughter had been given poison by her husband as he was laying demand for scooter, refrigerator and T.V and this demand remained unfulfilled and owing to the nonfulfilment of this demand he was treating his daughter with cruelty. Mohan Singh PW did not make this statement before the Doctor at Ludhiana that his daughter was being illtreated and subjected to cruelty by her husband and his demand for scooter, refrigerator and colour T.V. remained unfulfilled by them. He did not receive any message from his daughter when she was alive that she was being illtreated and that he should give scooter etc. without any loss of time. He made no statement before the doctor at Ludhiana of poison having been given to Simarjit Kaur. Simarjit Kaur died on 25.5.1992 at about 1.45 A.M. at Ludhiana. Mohan Singh PW was at Ludhiana. He did not go to P.S. Sarabha Nagar soon after her death to report the matter there. He did not send Gurdev Singh to give information to the police at Ludhiana. They started from Ludhiana at about 2.30 P.M. for Kotkapura via Moga, Baghapurana but still they did not lodge any report at Moga or Baghapurana while coming.

It has been submitted that ASI Gurmail Singh PW6 has stated that wireless message had been received at P.S. Sadar Kotkapura about the expiry of Simarjit Kaur on 25.5.1992. If wireless message had been received on 25.5.1992 at P.S. Sadar Kotkapura, there is no reason why it was marked to ASI Gurmail Singh on 26.5.1992. Wireless message was received by ASI Gurmail Singh on 25.5.92 in P.S. Sadar Kotkapura and that thereafter he left for P.S. Sarabha Nagar. It has been submitted that he called Gurdev Singh and Gandhi Singh PWs from their villages and recorded their statements. It has been submitted that there is delay in the lodging of the first information report. First information report could have been recorded on 25.5.92 particularly when wireless message had been received from P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. Suffice it to say, ASI Gurmail Singh has stated that this wireless message was handed over to him on 26.5.92 when he returned to P.S. Sadar Kotkapura as he had left P.S. Sadar Kotkapura at 3.25 P.M. on 25.5.92 and he retuned to P.S. Sadar Kotkapura on 26.5.1992. It would bear repetition that entire and whole family has not been insinuated. Only he and his Masi/Tai had been insinuated. Delayed reporting of the matter to the police could have been given weight if the entire family of Jaswinder Singh had been insinuated.

Simarjit Kaur died 13/4 months after her marriage with Jaswinder Singh in abnormal circumstances. She died because of the intake of organo phosphorous insecticide. Why should her father have stated if it were not truth that Jaswinder Singh and his Masi/Tai were asking her to bring scooter, colour T.V. and refrigerator. His daughter told him on her visit to village Aulakh that they were asking for colour T.V., refrigerator and scooter. He convened a panchayat consisting of Gandhi Singh etc. and took that Panchayat to village Wander Jatana. He promised with his soninlaw and his Masi/Tai that he would give scooter, colour T.V. and refrigerator after the rabi crop was harvested. Jaswinder Singh became impatient and did not wait for the harvesting of wheat crop. Something precipitating must have happened which induced Simarjit Kaur to take organo phosphorus insecticide and finish her life. If there was all clam and quiet, why should she have taken this extreme step when she was a young woman of 20 years and was married only 13/4 months past.

For the reasons given above, charge under sections 498A, 304B or 302 I.P.C. is not proved against Angrej Kaur. Therefore, Angrej Kaur is acquitted of the charge framed against her. Charge under Section 498A I.P.C., 304B I.P.C. stands proved against Jaswinder Singh beyond all reasonable doubt. He is convicted thereunder. Let he be heard on the question of sentence."

I have heard Shri R.S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri Bipan Ghai, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri J.S. Brar, learned DAG, who appeared on behalf of the State and Shri B.S. Dhillon, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the complainant. I have also gone through the record of this case with the assistance entered by the counsel for the parties.

Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code lays down that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than 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.

The reading of the above provisions would show that these provisions create a substantive and due offence and the following ingredients are required to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code :

(i) Unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage.

(ii) She was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry.

Here also I would like to refer to the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 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 extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine. As per explanation added to Section 498A "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 and person related to her to meet such demand.

The reading of Section 498A I.P.C. would also suggest that harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would amount to cruelty. The legislature was well cognizant of the fact that such crimes are invariably committed in the house of the inlaws of a girl and the prosecution may not be able to get sufficient evidence to prove the charges by direct evidence, for the benefit of the society and in order to bring the culprits to the book, special provisions in the shape of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act were introduced and I think it proper to incorporate those provisions in this judgment before I go to the submissions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant when he assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court. According to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act 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.

The senior counsel Mr. Ghai submitted that the ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. in this case have not been complied with by the prosecution. He submitted that firstly there is no evidence that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment within the meaning of Section 304B I.P.C. repeatedly and that too in connection with the demand of dowry and in these circumstances the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. is not made out. Mr. Ghai also submitted that there is not an iota of evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant in connection with the demand of dowry. The ingredient of alleged harassment is also missing and in these circumstances no offence under Section 304B or 498A IPC is made out. The counsel submitted that according to the prosecution the incident took place on 23.5.1992. First of all, Simarjit Kaur was taken to Kotkapura in the Garg Nursing Home and from there she was brought to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 24.5.1992. According to the evidence of the doctor, who admitted Simarjit Kaur in the hospital on 24.5.1992, the patient was co operative and she was conscious, but at no point of time the deceased made a statement that she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry by her husband or by any relation. The counsel also wanted to highlight that it is the case of the prosecution that Mohan Singh, father of the deceased, was going to comply with the alleged demand of dowry in the season of Hari, 1992 and in that process he was going to collect the money after the sale of his harvested crop and if that was really so, what was the necessity on the part of the deceased to take her life by swallowing insecticide. The counsel wanted to say that it was a case of pure accident when the deceased might have taken the insecticide in a bona fide manner or at any rate it is a case of differences of minds between husband and wife on account of slight disparity of age as the deceased was 20 years old while the appellant was younger to her.

On the contrary, the learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. are fully met. The deceased was treated with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. She was subjected to harassment and there is cogent and reliable evidence that soon before the death, the deceased was compelled to bring more dowry in the shape of scooter, refrigerator and colour television. The father of the girl gave sufficient dowry according to his financial status but it did not satisfy the greed of the present appellant. The deceased, who was a young girl, could not tolerate the harassment and humiliation which her father was likely to suffer on account of the demand of dowry and she resorted to the extreme step by commiting suicide. Her death was unnatural within few months of her marriage and a young girl is not likely to commit suicide unless she was compelled to do so by circumstances which have been created by the appellant in this case. The learned Deputy Advocate General also submitted that there was not an iota of evidence that the deceased had any suicidal tendency.

In such like cases of dowry death, the evidence always comes either from the deceased herself when the deceased leaves behind some documentary evidence in the form of dying declaration or otherwise, or the incriminating evidence comes through the mouth of the relations and the friends of the family of the deceased. In this regard I would like to refer to the statement of Mohan Singh, who was none else but the unfortunate father of the deceased. According to this witness, at the time of the marriage of his daughter, he gave dowry according to his financial capacity. It has also come in his statement that 1012 days after the marriage Jaswinder Singh appellant started demanding scooter, refrigerator and colour T.V. He was laying this demand upon Simarjit Kaur when she was with them at village Wander Jatana. The deceased told her father that Jaswinder Singh and his Masi/Tai Angrej Kaur were asking her to bring scooter, refrigerator and colour T.V. She returned to village Wander Jatana. Thereafter he along with Gandhi Singh member panchayat, his wife''s brother Gurdev Singh and other respectables of village went to village Wander Jatana with a view to tell Jaswinder Singh and his Masi/Tai that he would fulfil their demand after the Hari crop was harvested. At village Wander Jatan he had taken along Buta Singh, who the mediator of this marriage. It was assured to the appellant and Smt. Angrej Kaur that the demand of theirs'' would be fulfilled after the Hari crop was harvested. PW4 has also corroborated the statement of Mohan Singh PW3 with regard to the demand of dowry when he deposed that 1015 days after this marriage he was taken by Mohan Singh PW to village Wander Jatana as a Member Panchayat and Gurdev Singh had also been taken by Mohan Singh. The object of the Panchayat was to tell the appellant that Mohan Singh would fulfil the demand after the Hari crop. Buta singh mediator was also associated. Mohan Singh made a promise to give scooter, refrigerator and colour T.V. in his presence and in the presence of Jaswinder Singh and Smt. Angrej Kaur. It has been further stated by Gandhi Singh that after 20 days or a month he came to know that Smt. Simarjit Kaur has expired. Gurdev Singh''s testimony also inspires confidence and clinches the issue. This man is a relation of the deceased. Thus there is not only consistent, but full of probability evidence on the record coming from the natural witnesses that soon after the marriage the relation between the deceased and the appellant went sour when the appellant started harassing the deceased on the pretext of insufficient dowry. When a husband pressurises his wife to bring more dowry from the house of her parents, it is nothing but a sort of cruelty and mental harassment. Such act on the part of a husband frustrates the hopes of a young woman, who goes to the house of her inlaws with high expectations that she would get love, affection and security not only from the hands of her husband but also from other relations of her husband. On the contrary, Smt. Simarjit Kaur got frustration when she was conflicted with a demand of dowry such as scooter, fridge and colour T.V. In such situation the deceased must have told her father about the demand of dowry. Every father in the Indian society would ensure and see that the interest of his daughter should not suffer. She should live peacefully and comfortably in the house of her inlaws. When a father performs the marriage of his daughter he does so with high expectations. He gives the hand of his daughter not for the sake of fun, but with an object that she would also get all types of happiness in the house of her inlaws according to their financial and social atmosphere. Every father would like to sacrifice his comforts and he would also like to cut his resources in order to keep his children happy and that exactly happened with Mohan Singh when he assembled a panchayat of his relatives and friends including the mediator and the panchayat went to the house of the appellant and assured him that every demand of theirs'' would be met after the Hari season. In this part of the country Hari starts from first week of April. The crops are cut by the end of May and then a farmer collects money from the commission agents or from the government procurement agencies. In this case Simarjit Kaur was a young girl. Her hopes had been frustrated on account of additional demand of dowry. She was subjected to cruelty.

The words "soon before the death" occurring in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, in the view of this Court, is a relative term. The law has not used the words "immediately before the death". "Soon before the death" in the view point of this Court should mean and should be interpreted in such a manner that there should be close proximity with the act of unnatural death and demand. If there is a repeated demand going upto the date of death, there is no difficulty to hold that soon before the death the girl was subjected to cruelty. Even if there is one or two acts on the part of the husband or his relative demanding dowry and sensitivity of those acts leaves behind an impression upon the mind of a girl to the extent that she feels humiliation, torture and tension not only upon herself but also upon her parents and under the stress of those cruelties she commits suicide, it will also amount to a cruelty soon before her death within the meaning of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the demand of dowry. The provisions under Section 304B and 498A should be interpreted keeping in view the object for which these provisions were introduced in the Code. A particular girl by temperament may be so sensitive that she may not be able to tolerate a single act of insult. The cases can be there where a girl takes the things very boldly and tries to take courage with her inlaws. Thus, I do not see any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant when he argued that repeated demands ought to be there on the part of the inlaws so as to constitute harassment or cruelty for the purpose of Section 304B or Section 498A IPC. In the view of this Court, so long the conduct of the husband or his relative is cruel and that of harassment and it was in connection with the demand of dowry and it is also shown on the record that before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment, the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are complied with. Of course, if there is a long gap between the alleged demand of dowry, harassment and the death, then in a particular case and having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case the law courts may hold that there was no demand soon before her death. So in other words every case will depend upon facts to facts as I have already stated that the words "soon before the death" have not been defined under the Indian Penal Code or Indian Evidence Act.

Reverting to the facts in hand, it is established that the deceased was subject to cruelty immediately after her marriage which only survived for two months. There is not an iota of evidence to indicate that on the relevant day the deceased was having problem with her or for that alleged reason she took insecticide by mistake. I also do not see any merit in the argument of Shri Ghai when he submitted that something has been withheld by the prosecution. The counsel wanted to say that at the first instance Simarjit Kaur was taken to Kotkapura and she was treated in a nursing home. From Kotkapura she was brought to Ludhiana at 4.00 p.m. on 24.5.1992 with a case of insecticide poisoning. There is no statement of the deceased to the doctor in spite of the fact that she was conscious and cooperative that earlier she was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry. Her statement was not recorded by any authority. Therefore, the counsel wanted to conclude that there was no demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution. I do not see any merit in this contention. The question is whether at any point of time any doctor or authority made enquiries from the lady and whether they wanted to record her statement as to the circumstances under which she took insecticide. If nobody has tried to take her history, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the prosecution. Otherwise also, it will be the natural tendency of the victim and her father not to implicate the husband of the girl at that stage because the ultimate object of the father is to rehabilitate his daughter. If from the very beginning the girl or her father starts admonishing the inlaws of the girl, then in case of survival of the girl he would be inviting more problems in the family. Rationality is a good criteria to appreciate the probabilities. Why Simarjit Kaur should commit suicide if she had no obvious reason before her ? If the defence story is found to be false then implicit reliance has to be placed to the statement of Mohan Singh and his other relative, because the deceased brought to the notice of her father about the maltreatment and harassment which were given to her by the appellant.

Dr. Daljit Singh Kochar PW1 conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 26.5.1992. The girl died on 25.5.1992 in Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital and after the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner regarding the viscera, the cause of death was declared due to organo phosphorus group of insecticides which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This proves that the death of the deceased took place under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and there was cruelty and mental harassment to her in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC and this act on the part of the appellant also constitutes cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A IPC.

Summarising the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution in this case has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of Section 304B and Section 498A IPC. Wherever there was a scope of benefit of doubt, it has already been given by the learned trial Court to Smt. Angrej Kaur. But so far as the present appellant is concerned, the evidence against him is not only reliable and satisfactory but of impeachable character coming from the mouth of probable and truthful witnesses. Even the sentence awarded to the appellant cannot be said to be harsh or excessive. Resultantly, I do no see any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.