Madan Lal vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

Madan Lal son of Ajit Ram, aged 27 years (husband), Ajit Ram son of Hukmi, aged 60 years (fatherinlaw), and Bhajan Kaur wife of Ajit Ram, aged 55 years (motherinlaw) of Smt. Raj Kumari, deceased, have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1994, passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who convicted the appellants under section 304B, IPC read with section 34, IPC and sentence them to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years. The appellants were further convicted under section 498A read with section 34 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, each one of them was ordered to undergo R.T. for 6 months.

The prosecution story can be briefed as follows :

On 10.4.1996, the Station Master of Railway Station Khudda gave information to the Station Master, Mukerian, to the following effect :

"GRP Mukerian 10.4.1996 No. 23/90/SS/KZX/96 as reported by Driver of 4667 UP that one lady run over and killed between KZX/TDO KM No. 48/89 at bridge No. 97. Please attend and investigate SS/KZX."

On the basis of the above information, Rapat No. 12 was entered on 10.4.1996, by Shambu Datt, A.S.I., at Police Post Mukerian. He went to the spot and during investigation, it was found that one Raj Kumari wife of Madan Lal, Addharmi, resident of village Kumpur, Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, had died. The dead body was identified and the same was sent for postmortem examination at Civil Hospital, Dasuya. The doctor opined that death in this case was due to injury to brain matter. The injuries were antemortem and were sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. Thus, the suspicion arose regarding the death of Raj Kumari. Piara Ram, father of the deceased, gave a statement to the effect that he was the resident of village Darga Heri and he has got three sons and four daughters. His one daughter is still unmarried. He got married his daughter Raj Kumari with Madan Lal son of Ajit Ram, resident of village Kumpur in March 1992 and out of this wedlock, one son and one daughter was born to Raj Kumari out of the loins of her husband Madan Lal. He never heard any complaint from the inlaws of his daughter for the first two years of the marriage and after that, his daughter Raj Kumari used to make complaints that her inlaws were torturing her. He has given sufficient dowry to the inlaws of his daughter Raj Kumari at the time of her marriage as per his status. All the accused used to taunt his daughter Raj Kumari for bringing less dowry and used to demand more dowry beyond his capacity. Then he, along with Hari Singh, mediator, and Onkar Singh, took Raj Kumari to her inlaws'' house and left her there in the presence of Madan Lal, Bhajan Kaur, Bholi, Baldev Singh and Ajit Ram.

On 10.4.1996, Baldev Singh, who is the brotherinlaw of Raj Kumari along with one person came to his house and asked him if Raj Kumari had come to their house or not. At that time, Baldev Singh was in a drunken condition. Then he sent Hari Singh, mediator, Onkar Singh and Kulwant Singh to the house of the inlaws of Raj Kumari to enquire about her and they informed that Raj Kumari was not present there. He also enquired about Raj Kumari from the nearby relatives but no clue was found. On 11.4.1996 at about 8/9 A.M., he came to know that his daughter was found dead on the railway line. He also stated that his daughter committed suicide because she was being harassed and maltreated by her inlaws, i.e. Madan Lal, husband, Ajit Ram, fatherinlaw, Bhajan Kaur, motherinlaw, Bholi, sisterinlaw, and Baldev Singh, brotherinlaw of Raj Kumari.

During investigation, A.S.I. Shambu Datt prepared inquest report of the dead body of Raj Kumari. He also prepared rough site plan. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the present three appellants along with Bholi and Baldev Singh. After the completion of the investigation, the five accused were challaned in the court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 1.7.1996, commuted the five accused to the court of Sessions. Vide order dated 4.9.1996, the present three appellants along with Baldev Singh and Bholi were chargesheeted under section 304B, IPC and under section 498A, IPC, read with section 34, IPC, on the allegation that they had committed dowry death qua Raj Kumari and also treated the deceased with cruelty. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

As many as 15 prosecution witnesses were examined in the trial Court, including the Doctor Shri Jagdish Singh, who appeared as PW1. I will deal with the material part of the statements of the relevant witnesses in the subsequent portion of this judgment.

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. Accused denied those circumstances. The learned trial court, however, believed the prosecution story in part and rejected the defence version. The learned trial court gave the benefit of doubt to Bholi and Baldev Singh but convicted the present three appellants under sections 304B and 498A, IPC, with the aid of section 34, IPC. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal was filed, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri G.S. Savra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri J.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

The case of the prosecution in the trial court was that the deceased, who was married in March, 1992, had died in the house of her inlaws within 7 years of her marriage and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing inadequate dowry and, thus, the appellants were guilty for the offences under sections 304B and 498A, IPC.

It is the common case of the parties that Smt. Raj Kumari had died under unnatural circumstances and within 7 years of her marriage and now it is to be seen whether she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by all the appellants in connection with the demand of dowry or who possibly could be the appellant who got benefited from the alleged demand of dowry. In such like cases, the relations/Vicholas/Mediators are the best witnesses. It is equally true that once daughter of a father dies, the relations between the two families will always become sour and, in these circumstances, the father of the victim will try to implicate as many persons as possible from the side of his soninlaw. The case of the prosecution is that there was a demand of money. In this regard, the prosecution has examined two witnesses; namely Piara Ram, PW8 and Hari Singh, PW9. No doubt, Piara Ram, in his statement has tried to implicate all the appellants including Bholi and Baldev Singh but a close scrutiny of the statement of Piara Ram would indicate that it was Madan Lal who could be the beneficiary of the demand of dowry. Piara Ram has himself stated that at different occasions he had given cash of Rs. 1,000/, Rs. 2,000/ and Rs. 5,000/ in the months of December, 1995, January, 1996 and February, 1996, respectively, to Madan Lal for rehabilitating his daughter and, in spite of the payment of the amounts, his daughter used to be maltreated. Further he has stated that two months prior to the death of Raj Kumari, Madan Lal, appellant, came to his village on a motor cycle and demanded cash from him. The complainant told to his soninlaw that as and when his financial position will improve, he would pay more amount to him. It has not come in the statement of Piara Ram that at any point of time he handed over money/cash to the other two appellants; i.e. Ajit Ram and Bhajan Kaur. It has also come in the statement of Piara Ram that the deceased was an educated lady and she had been writing letters to her father. Neither any such letter had been produced nor it was established that the other two appellants had ever abetted their coaccused Madan Lal for bringing money from the house of Piara Ram.

The statement of Piara Ram has been corroborated by Hari Singh, PW9, who deposed that he arranged the marriage of Raj Kumari with Madan Lal and that Raj Kumari, deceased, used to tell him that she was being maltreated in the house of her inlaws on the ground of inadequate dowry. It has further come in the statement of Hari Singh that the inlaws of Raj Kumari had been making accusations about the character of the deceased. With this background, it can be reasonably inferred that appellant Madan Lal must be the person who had demanded money from the deceased and he must have suspected the character of the deceased. Hari Singh had further deposed that about 1 months before the death of Raj Kumari, it was Madan Lal, who came to their village on a motor cycle and demanded cash from Piara Ram. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any cogent circumstance appearing on the record from which I can disbelieve the statements of Piara Ram and Hari Singh, so far as their consistently involving Madan Lal, appellant with regard to the demand of dowry is concerned. Demand of dowry is a harassment. It is a cruelty. It is a slur on the society. Creating circumstances through which a woman is compelled to die is not only an offence but a sin. In these circumstances, this court is convinced that the reasons adopted by the trial court in convicting Madan Lal, appellant are sound and I do not see any infirmity in them.

So far as the case of the other two appellants; namely Ajit Ram and Bhajan Kaur, is concerned, it is distinguishable from their coaccused. As I have already stated above, in all probability, the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry was Madan Lal. It was he who subjected the deceased to cruelty/harassment. Even the two star witnesses of the prosecution did not state that at any point of time the money was actually parted to Ajit Ram and Bhajan Kaur. Resultantly, the benefit of doubt can be granted to them and, thus, their appeal is hereby accepted.

In the light of the above, I partly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of Ajit Ram and Bhajan Kaur and they are acquitted of the chargs framed against them. So far as the appeal of Madan Lal is concerned, it is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Necessary intimation be sent to the requisite quarters about the decision of this court.