Mohinder Singh and Others vs State

Sham Sunder, J.—This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 426-SB of 1993, filed by Mohinder Singh, Pala Ram and Phoola Ram, accused (now appellants) against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 22.11.1993, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellants), for the offences, punishable u/s 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each, for the offence punishable u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo RI for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each, for the offence punishable u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Revision No. 69 of 1994 filed by Giani Ram, complainant for the purpose of enhancement of sentence, awarded to the accused. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Nirmala accused was, however, acquitted.

The facts, in brief, are that Saroj daughter of Giani Ram was married to Mohinder Singh on 1.3.1992 at Chandigarh. Mohinder Singh, his brother Pala Ram and their father Phoola Ram, accused came to Giani Ram in the month of May, 1992 and demanded Rs. 10,000/- to enable them to purchase some property. In pursuance of the demand, the accused were paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 17.7.1992, at their house, in the area of Ram Darbar. Even thereafter, Mohinder Singh and Pala Ram came to him once again on 21.10.1992 and asked him to give them Rs. 5,000/- more. He told them that he would arrange the same only by next Diwali. On 24.10.1992, Pala Ram came to Giani Ram again and told him to send the money to them by the following day and then left saying that since Saroj was also in the house, he had to go back. While leaving, he once again reiterated the demand, and held out a threat that, in the event of his non-compliance therewith, something new would come out, on Diwali day. It was stated that on Diwali Day i.e. on 25.10.1992, at about 11 a.m., when Giani Ram went to the house of the accused, with some gifts, his daughter started weeping, on seeing him, and told him that Pala Ram had insulted and even manhandled her physically on the preceding day and he his wife Nirmala and Mohinder Singh continued harassing and pressurizing her to bring more money. Giani Ram, on hearing the tale of woes of his daughter, kept calm. He tried to prevail upon the accused not to harass Saroj, in connection with the demand of dowry. Mohinder Singh and Pala Ram at the juncture also asked Giani Ram, as to whether he had arranged the money for them. Even on that occasion, he hold them that he had not been able to do so, and that he would send the same to them, as and when he would be able to procure the same. He further stated that at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day, he was informed that his daughter had been admitted to P.G.I., with burn injuries. Before he could reach there, she had already expired. He further stated that on enquiries having been made by him, it transpired, that either her daughter had been burnt, by the accused, or that they by their conduct had compelled her to commit suicide, by setting herself ablaze. On the basis of the statement made by Giani Ram. FIR was registered. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested and after the completion of investigation, they were challaned.

On their appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by way of commitment, charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case examined Jaswant Singh, Draftsman, PW-1, who prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence, Ex. PA, Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW2 who conducted postmortem examination on the dead-body of deceased Saroj, and found that she had sustained 4th degree deep burns spreading all over her body to the extent of 98% and her death was due to shock on account of burn injuries which were sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature, Dr. E.V.S. Prabhakar, P. W.4 who admitted Saroj in the emergency ward of the hospital, and informed the Police with regard to her admission, Ujagar Singh, PW5, Panna Lal, PW6, and Shish Pal, PW7, who had sold a watch, a cycle, a wall clock and a TV set to the complainant, on different occasions, for the purpose of giving the same to his deceased daughter, at the time of her marriage. They also produced the receipts Exs. PE, PF, PH and PM against which these articles had been purchased by Giani Ram, HC Sat Guru, PW8, Constables Rishi Pal, PW9, and Raghbir Singh, PW10, remained associated with the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation. ASI Karnail Singh, PW11, photographer, took four snaps Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, the negatives whereof are Ex.P5 to Ex.P8, Harbans Lal, PW12, depot-holder proved that the accused were ration card holders, and living in the area of Ram Darbar. P.K. Sharma, Executive Magistrate, PW15, stated that he went to the hospital. He further stated that he moved an application (Ex. PC), in writing, to know, as to whether, the deceased was fit to make a statement. He further stated that the doctor opined in the negative, through endorsement Ex. PC/1. He further stated that he was also told by the doctor that although she could nod her head, she was not in a position to understand any question, Mehak Singh, PW17, deposed with regard to the marriage of Saroj with Mohinder Singh. He is the colleague of the father of Saroj deceased. He further stated that he got arranged the marriage of Mohinder Singh with Saroj. He further stated that Giani Ram told him that the accused was asking Saroj to bring money from him. He further stated that they were harassing her in connection with the demand of dowry, Sham Lal, PW19 also stated that Giani Ram told him that Mohinder Singh, Pala Ram his brother, and parents of Mohinder Singh were harassing his daughter in connection with the demand of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of property. Sat Pal, PW18, stated that he and Giani Ram were the members of a committee, with an individual contribution of Rs. 21,000/- and that on 11.5.1992, the latter had told that the accused-persons were harassing his daughter and were asking her to bring some money from him (Giani Ram), He also told him that on account of this reason he had to draw some amount, from the pool, for that purpose, Shri Bhim, PW20, went to the house of the accused with the police after the occurrence. He further stated that he found some pieces of broken bangles, burnt clothes, some match sticks, a bottle of kerosene partly filled and a stove. He further stated that these were taken into possession, by the police, vide separate recovery memo. Giani Ram, complainant, PW21, deposed in terms of the complaint made by him, before the police, on the basis whereof, the FIR was recorded. SI Jai Singh, PW22, conducted investigation, in this case, and proved various memos, prepared by him. Thereafter, the Public. Prosecutor, closed the evidence of the prosecution.

The statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, and they were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. It was stated by them, that the clothes of the deceased (Saroj) had caught fire accidentally while she was preparing food in the kitchen. It was further stated by them that, in fact, they (Mohinder Singh and his mother), removed her to the hospital immediately thereafter, and also sent information in regard thereto, to her father Giani Ram. It was further stated by them that Saroj did not level any allegations, against them, in her statement made before the Magistrate. It was further stated by them, that they were falsely implicated, in this case. It was further stated by them, that on the day of alleged occurrence, Pholla Ram and both his sons, were away to village Gittalpur in District Karnal to bring their (Pala Ram and Raja Ram) wives, after the muklawa ceremonies. It was further stated by them, that they left that place on 24.10.1992 at about 4 pm only. In their defence evidence, the accused examined Puran Chand, father-in-law of Pala Ram, accused as DW1. Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence.

After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated herein before.

Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused (now appellants), whereas, Revision petition was filed by the complainant/revision petitioner.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

For constituting the offence, punishable u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution was required to prove that the death of a married woman took place, within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances, and that soon before her death, she was maltreated in connection with the demand of dowry, by her husband or his relatives. Once these ingredients are proved, then statutory presumption u/s 113-B arises, that the accused committed the offence u/s 304-B IPC. In the instant case, it is proved, from the evidence on record, and even not denied by the accused that the marriage of Mohinder Singh, one of the accused, was performed with Saroj daughter of Giani Ram, complainant on 1.3.1992. The death of Saroj took place on account of burn injuries i.e. otherwise than under the normal circumstances on 25.10.1992 i.e. within about eight months of her marriage. Two ingredients required for constituting the offence, therefore, stood proved from the evidence on record.

Coming to the third ingredient, as to whether, Saroj was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death, it may be stated here, that sufficient evidence was produced by the prosecution, to prove this factum. Giani Ram, PW21, father of the deceased, in no uncertain terms, stated that 2/3 months after the marriage, the accused asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, as they wanted to purchase a house. His statement is further to the effect that he withdrew Rs. 10,000/- from a committee, and gave the same to the accused on 11,7.1992. He further stated that on 21.10.1992, Mohinder and Pala Ram, accused, was also with Mohinder Singh and Pala Ram at that time. They wanted the money to be paid to them, by coming Diwali. Giani Ram, however, expressed his helplessness. On 24.10.1992, Pala Ram again came to him, and told him, that they wanted Rs. 5,000/- on the next day, positively, and that in case, he failed to do so, he will have to face dire consequences. On the next day i.e. 25.10.1992, when Giani Ram went to the house of the accused, his daughter told him, that the accused, were quarreling with her, in connection with the demand of dowry. Even, at that time, the accused asked Giani Ram, to arrange money. He told them that he could not arrange money, and came back to his house. At about 9 pm on the same day, he received information, that Saroj had got burnt. He then went to the accused, in the first instance, and there from to PGI where Saroj had been taken. When he reached there Saroj had already died. The statement of Giani Ram, PW1, was duly supported by Sat Pal, PW18, a member of the committee of which Giani Ram was also a member and took money from the pool. His statement was also corroborated by Mehak Singh, PW17. Further corroboration to the statement of Giani Ram was furnished by Balwinder Singh, PW16, who sold one Texla TV to Giani Ram in the sum of Rs. 3,350/-, which was given at the time of marriage of Saroj with Mohinder Singh. Sham Lai, PW19, also furnished corroboration to the statement of Giani Ram. He stated that Giani Ram had told him that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, from him, for the purchase of property. From the evidence of these witnesses, it was proved beyond doubt, that about two months, after the marriage of Saroj, until her death, she was continuously tortured and harassed, in connection with the demand of dowry, by the accused. Had she been not tortured, by the accused, in connection with the demand of dowry continuously, until her death, there would have been no reason for her, being a young married lady, for the last about 8 months, to end her life. She must be entertaining high hopes, that she would enjoy married life. She did never know that she would be tortured to such an extent, in connection with the demand of dowry, that she would be compelled to end her valuable life. The third ingredient, required for constituting the offence that Saroj was harassed and tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her earth, also stood proved.

The Counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the ingredients required for constituting the offence, punishable u/s 304-B IPC, were not proved. He further submitted that no allegation was made by Giani Ram, in his complaint, submitted before the Police, on the basis whereof, the FIR was recorded, or in his statement in the Court, that Saroj was harassed in connection with the demand of dowry. He further submitted that Giani Ram only deposed that on one occasion a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded by the accused for the purchase of property and he paid the same and, on the second occasion, they demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- but he could not pay the same. It may be stated here, mat the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded by the accused, from the father of the deceased, for the purpose of property, not as a loan, but in the shape of dowry. This amount was demanded, in connection with the relationship of marriage. Had Saroj been not married to Mohinder Singh, the accused would not have demanded this amount, from Giani Ram. The evidence of the prosecution, is required to be read, in its entirety, to find out, as to whether, the ingredients required for constituting a particular offence, were made out, or not. It cannot be torn into pieces, and read out of context. When the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read, in its entirety, keeping in view the relationship of the parties, only one and one conclusion, that can be arrived at, is that the amount as demanded by the accused, in the shape of dowry, may be for the purpose of purchasing a plot or property. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

The Counsel for the appellants, also placed reliance on Apasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2007(1) R.C.R. (Cri) 747, in support of his contention, that the alleged demand of Rs. 10,000/- made by the accused, from the father of the deceased, for the purpose of purchase of property, did not fall within the definition of dowry. The facts of the aforesaid authority, are distinguishable, from the facts of the present case. The facts of the aforesaid authority, clearly show that the accused demanded Rs. 1000/1200 for domestic expenses, from the father of the deceased. It was, under these circumstances, that it was held by the Apex Court that the demand of the husband asking his wife to bring Rs. 1000/1200 from her parents, for domestic expenses, as he had no money, did not fall within the purview of dowry. Since the facts of the aforesaid authority, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of this case, no help can be drawn, by the appellants, from the said authority. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the evidence of Giani Ram, PW21, was not corroborated by any witness that Saroj used to be tortured and harassed in connection with the demand of dowry, as a result whereof, she set her ablaze and died. He further submitted that according to Giani Ram, it was in the presence of Bhim, PW20 that the demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made and he paid that amount of the accused but he (Bhim) when appeared as, PW20, did not state even a single word, in this regard. It is true that Bhim, PW20, did not state even a single word, in his statement, that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by Giani Ram, in his presence. The mere fact that Bhim, PW20, did not mention this fact, in his statement, was not sufficient to disbelieve the statement of Giani Ram. As stated above, the statement of Giani Ram was duly corroborated by Sham Lal, PW19, Sat Pal, PW18, and Mehak Singh, PW17. It is settled principle of law, that the evidence of a single witness, if carries a ring of truth, can be relied upon, to bring home the guilt to the accused. It is the quality of evidence, and not the quantity thereof, which is required to be taken into consideration, for proving a particular case. Giani Ram, being the aggrieved father of Saroj, deceased, could not be expected to tell lies. Had Saroj been not tortured and harassed, in connection with the demand of dowry, in the shape of Rs. 10,000/- on one occasion and Rs. 5,000/-, on the other occasion, he would have been the last person to make his deposition, in that regard. Why a father, whose own daughter, died within about 8 months of her marriage, would come to the Court, to make a false statement. On account of the death of his daughter, he lost a very precious member of his family. Under these circumstances, non-corroboration of the statement of Giani Ram by Bhim PW20, on the aforesaid point, when his statement was corroborated by other witnesses, did not at all affect the case of the prosecution, in any manner. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that according to Giani Ram, the amount was demanded by the accused on 21.10.1992, in the presence of Randhir Fauji, his brother-in-law. He further submitted that he was not examined and, as such, no reliance on the statement of Giani Ram could be placed. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It was for the Public Prosecutor for the State, to decide, as to which witness he wanted to examine, and as to which witness, he did not want to examine. If the Public Prosecutor for the State, did not examine Randhir Singh (Fauji), brother-in-law of Giani Ram, that did not affect the merits of the case. As stated above, it is the quality of evidence and not quantity, which is required to be taken into consideration, for coming to the conclusion, as to whether, the case of the prosecution stands proved or not. Since the evidence of Giani Ram was corroborated by the witnesses, referred to above, non-examination of Randhir Singh (Fauji), did not cast any doubt on the case of the prosecution.

It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the conduct of the accused clearly showed that they were not involved in the alleged commission of crime. He further submitted that Saroj, after she set her ablaze was taken to the PGI, by Mohinder Singh, her husband and her mother in law. He further submitted that had Saroj set her ablaze on account of harassment and torture meted out to her, at the hands of the accused, they would have been the last persons, to take her to the PGI. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The mere fact that Mohinder Singh, accused, and mother-in-law of Saroj took her to the PGI did not absolve him (Mohinder Singh) of his criminal liability. They might have done so, just with a view to win the sympathy of the people, and the relatives, that they did not commit any crime. Their conduct, in this regard, did not advance their case, that they were innocent. The submission of the counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that there was delay in lodging the FIR, which remained explained. He further submitted that it was utilized for concoction of story, false implication of the accused, and introduction of false witnesses. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It was at about 9 pm on 25.10.1992, that Giani Ram, came to know that Saroj had received burn injuries, and was taken to the PGI, When he reached the PGI, she had already died. On seeing the dead body of Saroj, Giani Ram her father must have got puzzled and perplexed. It could not be expected of him to compose himself, so as to enable him, to make his statement, in a mechanical manner, immediately after the occurrence. The matter was reported to the police on 26.10.1992 at 1.05 am, whereas, the news that Saroj after setting her ablaze was admitted in the hospital was received at 9 pm. Within shortest possible time, Giani Ram, made written application, before the police, on the basis whereof the FIR was registered. If there was some delay in lodging FIR, that stood explained, on account of the aforesaid reasons. The delay, in this case, was not utilized for concoction of story, false implication of the accused, and introduction of false witnesses. Even otherwise, mere delay in lodging the FIR, in itself, is not sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution overboard. In the face of unexplained delay, the Court is put on guard, to scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully and cautiously. After careful and cautious scrutiny, if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the same is reliable, then no reason can be coined, to hold that the prosecution case was doubtful. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is reliable. In the first instance, there was no delay. Even if, it is assumed, that there was some delay, the same stood explained. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

The defence version set up by the accused, in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence produced by them, in support of such version, was duly noticed, and discussed in para 11 of the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court came to the conclusion, that the defence version was unreliable and discarded the same. The trial Court gave adequate reasons, for disbelieving and discarding the defence version. This Court after reappraisal of the defence evidence, also comes to the same conclusion, as was arrived at, by the trial Court. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court, to the effect, that the defence version was unbelievable. This Court also endorses the reasons recorded by the trial Court, for discarding the defence version, and the defence evidence. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the accused, from the defence evidence.

The revision petition filed by the complainant/revision-petitioner for enhancement of sentence is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion, that the ends of justice, shall be met, if the minimum prescribed sentence was awarded. The sentence awarded to the accused, by the trial Court, is commensurate with the gravity of crime committed by them. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, could not point out any circumstances, which may persuade this Court, to come to the conclusion, that the sentence awarded by the trial Court, is shockingly, on the lower side. The sentence awarded, being adequate, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petition, does not merit acceptance.

Phoola Ram, appellant, however, died, during the pendency of appeal on 28.11.2000, as is evident from the copy of the death certificate produced on record. The appeal against him shall abate.

No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld except that the appeal of Phoola Ram, appellant shall abate on account of his death.

For the reasons recorded, herein before, the appeal filed by Mohinder Singh and Pala Ram is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 22.11.1993 qua them, are upheld. If the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The appeal filed by Pholla Ram stands abated, on account of his death during the pendency of appeal.

The revision petition is also dismissed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.