Kuldip Singh vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—Kuldip Singh appellant and Ranjit Singh non-appellant (both brothers) faced trial u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code, for causing dowry death of Bala Rani @ Navdeep Kaur wife of Kuldeep Singh and ultimately vide judgment dated 10.10.1998, the Addl. Sesisons Judge, Muktsar, while acquitting the accused Ranjit Singh, convicted Kuldip Singh appellant-accused (herein referred as ''the accused'') u/s 304B I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

Ram Parkash-complainant (herein referred as ''the complainant'') had married his daughter Bala Rani (one of his four daughters) with Kuldip Singh accused about three years prior to the incident. After six months of her marriage, the accused started raising the demand of scooter but when the complainant expressed his inability to meet the demand, she was sent back to her in laws house. One month thereafter, she was turned out of the house by the accused at the instigation of Ranjit Singh-non appellant. However, two months thereafter, the accused accompanied by Ganga Ram and Om Parkash went to the house of complainant and persuaded to send Bala Rani (deceased) with them and she was sent. However, 5-6 months prior to the occurrence, Bala Rani (deceased) again went to her father and complained that the accused was demanding Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of cloth shop for accused Kuldip Singh. However, the complainant showed his inability as he had spent money over the marriage of his second daughter. However, the accused continued harassing her for not bringing more dowry.

On 03.03.1992, the complainant Ram Parkash alongwith his son Vinod Kumar had gone to Muktsar in connection with some private work. While passing the street, where the house of the accused was situated, they came to know that Bala Rani had committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself ablaze. The complainant then lodged the report Ex.PG. Consequently, the investigation commenced. Sewa Singh, Investigating Officer, recorded the statement of Ram Parkash complainant Ex.PG and sent the same to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PG/2 was recorded. He inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report and took into possession a tin of five litres capacity, which was smelling kerosene, one match box and half burnt chappal vide memo Ex.PD. He also prepared rough site plan Ex.PJ and sent the dead body of Bala Rani for post mortem examination. The accused were arrested on 07.03.1992 and on completion of investigation, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.

Charge u/s 304B IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. V.K. Sobat (PW1), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Bala Rani and made a report Ex.PA. ASI Gurdev Singh (PW2) proved the recovery of plastic canny Ex.P2, match box Ex.P3 and semi burnt chappal Ex.P4 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD, Gurbachan Singh, draftsman (PW3), proved the site plan Ex.PE, Ram Parkash-complainant (PW4) proved all the circumstances leading to the commission of suicide by his daughter and also FIR Ex.PG/2, Vinod Kumar, brother of the deceased (PW5), also corroborated the prosecution version, SI Sewa Singh, Investigating Officer (PW6) proved all the proceedings taken during investigation, Om Parkash (PW7) proved about the harassment which the deceased had met at the hands of the accused including the factum with regard to the demand of dowry regarding efforts of reconciliation between the parties.

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ranjit Singh accused explained that he had nothing to do with the family affairs of Kuldip Singh. However, he submitted that Kuldip Singh neither demanded any scooter nor money from the parents of the Bala Rani (deceased). Similarly, Kuldip Singh further explained that he was having sufficient amount in the joint bank account of the deceased. He further stated that since Bala Rani had not conceived, as such she used to remain frustrated and disappointed. She had also got her medically treated from Bansal Nursing Home and Dhaliwal Hospital, Muktsar and other places like Malout and Patiala and as such, she committed suicide due to this depression. In their defence, the accused had examined Shami Narang, Clerk of the Bank, (DW1) in order to prove that Bala Rani (deceased) and Kuldip Singh had joint account which was being operated in July, 1991. Sukhdev Singh, LDC of PSEB(DW2) while appearing in the witness box, stated that both the accused were having separate shops. Gurwant Singh, Labour Inspector, (DW4) also proved that both the accused had separate shops. Khushhal Singh (DW6) deposed that the accused had sent the information to the family of Bala Rani after her death. He tried to establish that the conduct of the accused was natural and they never wanted to conceal her death. Dr. Tarsem Chand Bansal (DW7) had also testified that the deceased was not conceiving and she was under treatment of his wife Dr. Usha Gupta.

While giving benefit of doubt to Ranjit Singh and holding that he had nothing to do with the demand of dowry and was living separately, the trial Court acquitted him of the charges framed against him whereas finding sufficient evidence against Kuldip Singh accused for causing dowry death, convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

Arguments heard. Record perused. Before laying my hands to determine whether the evidence led by the prosecution has been appreciated in the right perspective, it would be essential to reproduce the established facts. Undoubtedly, the marriage in this case took place in the year 1989 whereas Bala Rani breathed her last by way of suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire on 03.03.1992 at about 04.00 p.m. FIR Ex.PG/2 was recorded at the instance of Ram Parkash-complainant on the same day at 8:30 p.m. at Police Station city Muktsar. The inquest report was prepared on the same day at about 7:45 p.m. The accused Kuldip Singh was arrested on 07.03.1992. Even the defence witnesses have admitted that Bala Rani (deceased) died due to burns and they had seen a tin of kerosene and match box nearby the dead body. Case of the prosecution is that the accused was not found in the house which is also consistent with the statements of the defence witnesses that when they had gone to the house they had seen the deceased burning and the accused was not present. It all shows that on seeing Bala Rani in flames, the accused had fled away.

Though the case of the accused is that since the deceased had not conceived, therefore, she was depressed but this contention cannot be accepted as it was not so late that she could not conceive. There is also no denying a fact that she was hale and hearty at the time of marriage and there is no such plea that she was suffering from any psychiatric or the mental ailment before or after the marriage. She admittedly died other than in normal circumstances at the house of the accused within three years of the marriage. Had she been the patient of depression as stated by the accused, then he would have brought some doctor in evidence to prove that she was being treated for the said disease, therefore, the plea raised by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C., could be said to be an afterthought. In order to establish the dowry death, the prosecution has to prove (i) the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) death occurred within 7 years of marriage; (iii) Bride was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband soon before the death (iv) harassment and cruelty was in connection with demand of dowry.

Since the above factors are established, the presumption u/s 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (herein referred as ''the Act'') would come into play. However, this presumption is rebuttable and onus to rebut the same shifts on the accused. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in case State of Karnataka v. Manjunathegowda and Anr. 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 543.

Without entering into controversy over the first and second ingredient as referred to above, being already established and admitted on the file, it becomes essential to deliberate over the most important and other significant aspect that as to "whether the deceased was harassed in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death?" The prosecution in order to establish this fact has examined two star witnesses namely Ram Parkash complainant (PW4) and his son Vinod Kumar (PW5). Both, being the family members, well acquainted with the circumstances and affairs going on within the four walls of the house between the couple, could unfold the pain and agony undergone by Bala Rani (deceased) at the hands of her in-laws. Similarly, Om Parkash (PW7) also corroborates about the dispute between the accused and the deceased and their rehabilitation. Ram Parkash-complainant (PW4) and Vinod Kukar (PW5) have reiterated the prosecution version in all minute details stating that the trouble had started within six months of marriage when the accused placed a demand of scooter. Unfortunately, the apathy was that the compulsion of poverty did not allow him to satisfy his demand, resultantly, she was turned out of the house by the accused Kuldip Singh. However, Bala Rani again went back to her husband''s house but one month thereafter, she again came to the complainant and unfolded about the behaviour of the accused that he had turned her out after giving beatings. She further told that Ranjit Singh was instigating him for beating her and turning her out of the house. Ram Parkash-complainant further disclosed that two months thereafter with the intervention of Ganga Singh,mediator of the marriage and Om Parkash, member Panchayat (PW7), a panchayat was convened where the accused had admitted his fault and after removing all the apprehensions of the deceased, he had taken her back but he did not mend his behaviour. About 5-6 months prior to the occurrence. Bala Rani again came to the house of complainant and disclosed that the accused were demanding Rs. 20,000/-for the purpose of cloth shop of Kuldip Singh. However, complainant showed his inability as he had already spent on the marriage of her another daughter. Thereafter, complainant alongwith Bala Rani (deceased) went to the house of accused and left her there. However, on 03.03.1992, he alongwith his son Vinod Kumar had gone to Muktsar and while reaching near the street where the house of Kuldip Singh was situated, they came to know about the commission of suicide by Bala Rani. He has also further explained about the harassment given by the accused to the deceased since the day of marriage till she ended her life. However, during cross-examination, he denied if the accused had a joint account with the deceased or that Rs. 1,00,000/- were lying deposited at the time of occurrence. He also stated that Kuldip Singh was running his shop prior to his marriage. Vinod Kumar (PW5) has lent full corroboration to the testimony of PW4 Ram Parkash. During the cross-examination, he stated that her sister Bala Rani was married in February, 1989. The accused had made demand of scooter after six months of marriage and demand of Rs. 20,000/- was raised 5-6 months prior to the occurrence and it continued persisting till she breathed her last. The purpose of visit to Muktsar on the day of occurrence has been duly explained by Vinod Kumar, stating that on that day they had gone to see the boy suggested by Bala Rani for his another sister and giving better Counsel to the accused for behaving with his sister better in future. This explanation coming from his mouth, during cross-examination, establishes two facts: first, the demand of dowry was still persisting and the accused was still harassing the deceased and their presence near the house of the accused is probable and natural as they being worried about the behaviour of the accused towards Bala Rani must have gone to enquire her well being after seeing the match for younger sister. Though this witness was again suggested that there was a joint saving account No. 3688 in State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Muktsar, in the name of deceased as well as accused Kuldip Singh and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was lying deposited in the said account. This plea of the accused that, since there was a joint account of the parties, therefore, question of demanding Rs. 20,000/- did not arise. This plea stands contradicted by his own witness Shami Narang (DW1), Clerk-cum-Cashier, SBI (ADB) Muktsar, who states that on the day of occurrence only a sum of Rs. 917/- were credited as interest and a sum of Rs. 4189/- were to their credit on the day of occurrence, thus the argument that he was affluent with money, therefore, he could not raise demand, dashes to the ground and fact stands confirmed that accused was compelling the deceased to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents on account of dowry. The unnatural death as set up by the prosecution and the factum with regard to the absence of the accused at the time when she was shifted to the hospital or at the time when her postmortem was conducted, also stand established from the medical evidence. Dr. V.K. Sobat, SMO Eye Mobile Team, Sangrur, who had conducted the post mortem examination, has not mentioned if the accused was present at the time of post mortem examination. However, the dead body was brought by the police. As per Investigating Officer, the accused was arrested on 07.03.1992 , which also goes a long way to prove that the accused after setting her on fire on deceased had fled away.

As regards the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant, with regard to non-examination of any independent witness, in cases of dowry death where the family affairs are involved, independent corroboration is not expected. Both Ram Parkash (PW4) and Vinod Kumar (PW5) who, being well acquainted with the family, have duly proved by depicting in their statements that accused was not satisfied with the dowry given to him at the time of marriage. He was insisting upon her to bring more dowry and he did not resist despite the persuasions made by them and even after Ganga Ram, mediator, intervened. The fact regarding the maltreatment and demand of dowry was revealed by the deceased to her parents from time to time and the witnesses have also given the specific instances as to at what time and for how many times she was harassed and turned out of the house. One of the independent witness namely Om Parkash has explained about their strained relations and his intervention and endeavour for their settlement. He disclosed that 8-9 months prior to the death of Bala Rani, he was associated in Panchayat and after assuring the well being of the deceased, the accused had taken her back.

As regards the other contention that the demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- in connection with the cloth shop could not be treated as demand of dowry. I would be constrained to hold that the accused having some privilege over the deceased could not impose conditions upon her for her living with them. Section 304B IPC has been introduced to penalise the dowry death. Explanation added to Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as amended upto date, defines dowry as under:

In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before (or any time after the marriage (in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Dowry in the sense of expression as contemplated by dowry Prohibition Act is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage i.e. it is a consideration from the side of the bride''s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be.

While interpreting the word dowry as defined in the Act, the Apex Court in case The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa and Another, observed that definition of dowry is not restricted to agreement or demand for payment of dowry before and at the marriage but also includes demands made subsequent to marriage.

Thus, on overall analyses of the aforesaid provisions, it comes out that when the deceased is harassed, maltreated, tortured or otherwise met with cruelty at the hands of the husband or his relatives and conditions are put to meet with their demands for the well being of the deceased, such demands may be in cash or kind could be termed as ''dowry''. Be that it may, any demand made out of the compulsion for survival or livelihood due to extreme poverty may not fall within the definition of dowry yet the person, having the intention to get undue advantage of his dominance over the weaker sex and to exploit her marriage and her well being, places any demand of dowry then that too also covers the dowry which may be subject of penalty under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 or the Indian Penal Code whatever the case may be. Such demands certainly could be said to have inextricable nexus with the marriage.

Bala Rani died within three years of the marriage while living in the house of her in laws. She was not suffering from any ailment prior to the marriage and did not attract such disease even after the marriage. Her hale and hearty body was turned into corpse within twinkling of an eye. The said circumstances indicating that she being compelled by the circumstances for not getting the cordial atmosphere in the family, having been misbehaved, maltreated and harassed, she could not bear with the same and while loosing all her hopes of living as a good house-wife took this drastic step. To delineate, while putting yourself in the position of a prudent normal temperamental simple girl who herself wants to fulfill her dreams of a good housewife and does not like to see her poor parents economically tortured and harassed on the basis of undue demands would find no other way except to punish herself by condemning herself that all this is happening due to her birth and marriage.

In this case, Ram Parkash-complainant had a family consisting of four sons and four daughters. He had married two daughters and was preparing for the third for which he had gone to see the boy. However, the agonies given at the hands of the accused to Bala Rani were still persisting and he was demanding money on the pretext that he needs the same for his shop. Prior to that he had placed the demand for scooter but Ram Parkash was unable to satisfy. The argument that money demanded for running the shop could not be treated as dowry cannot be accepted in the given circumstances of the case. Here, it was not only the demand of Rs. 20,000/-but earlier there was a demand of the scooter also. Thus, if there is demand after demand in such situation even the demand of money could not be excluded from the definition of dowry. Had the complainant been in a position to pay money to the accused and the accused was not in a position to pull on with his life due to poverty, it was with the understanding of the two families that the accused wanted assistance at the time of dire need, then certainly such demand could not be treated as a demand of dowry. While examining the case from another angle, this plea is not available to the accused as he has claimed himself to be affluent with money which was ultimately found to be false. Therefore, in such circumstances, the demand of money certainly falls within the definition of dowry as defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The other argument that this demand of Rs. 20,000/- was raised by the accused 5-6 months prior to the incident, therefore, the same cannot be said to be soon before the death. I do not agree to this contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellant. The words "soon before the death" cannot be taken with mathematical precision i.e. within a year, one or two months or a week. The demand, if any, made sometimes earlier and persists till death then the same could be treated as "soon before her death".

No other argument has been raised.

In the wake of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal sans any merit and is hereby dismissed.

As regards the quantum of sentence, while peeping into the facts and circumstances of the case and also enormity in such crimes in the present day, no leniency could be extended. However, in view of the minimum sentence as provided for in the Code, and accordingly awarded to him, I do not find it appropriate to reduce the same. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

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