Multan Singh vs State of Haryana

S.C. Malte, J.

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 201 IPC.

Initially, in the trial Court there were in all three accused. They were the husband and parentsinlaw of deceased Krishna. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, gave benefit of doubt to the parentsinlaw of the deceased, but convicted the present appellant, the husband of the deceased, of the charge under Sections 304B and 201 IPC.

Briefly stated the prosecution case is as follows :

Deceased Krishna married the appellant in June 1987. The cohabitation of the couple during initial few months was without any event. It is alleged that thereafter the husband and parentsinlaw of Krishna started illtreating and harassing Krishna with a view to compel her to bring Rs. 4,000/ from her parents. Such harassment came to be learnt by the father of Krishna when Gurdial Singh, the cousin brother of Krishna, had been to the house of Krishna and learnt from her regarding the illtreatment to her. Thereupon Gurdial Singh brought Krishna to the house of her parents. This took place about a year before the death of Krishna. After arrival at the parents'' house, Krishna stayed with her parents for a span of about 78 months. During that span she delivered a female child. The father of Krishna had been to the house of the appellant to inform him regarding the birth of a female child to Krishna and to counsel him that they should not press demand for Rs. 4,000/. He, however, claims to have assured that he would give the amount on getting it after harvesting the crop. On that persuation the appellant fetched Krishna to his house. Thereafter again the appellant had been to the father of Krishna. That was about 11/2 months prior to the death of Krishna. During that visit the appellant is said to have pressed his demand for Rs. 5,000/ and warned the father of Krishnan that if he did not arrange the money, Krishna would be sent back to his house. The father of Krishna then assured that he would arrange for the money within a month or so. Thereafter the father of Krishna on 19.3.1991 learnt that Krishna passed away on 18.3.1991. On getting that information he rushed to the village of the appellant. One Madho and Ram Kumar had also accompanied him. On arrival at the village of the appellant, he made enquiries as to how his daughter died. He claims that during that enquiry he learnt that Krishna was murdered by drowning her in a well or that she committed suicide on account of harassment to her. He also alleged that cremation of deadbody of Krishna had been performed without giving any information to the parents of Krishna, and that was done with intention to cause disappearance of the evidence. The father of Krishna then gave his report to Police Station Pundri on 21.3.1991 at about 12.20 p.m. It was duly registered as FIR and investigation started.

During the course of investigation, the police had visited the cremation ground and collected the ashes and the remains of the burnt human being. These remains thus collected from the cremation ground were duly sent to the Chemical Examiner who reported that the burnt bones were of the human being, however, the age and the sex of the deceased could not be ascertained.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, framed the charges against the accused under Section 302B read with Section 34 and 201 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. After the completion of evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In so far as it pertains to the appellant, he came with an explanation that the father of Krishna had picked up a quarrel with him soon after the cremation of Krishna and charged him (appellant) that Krishna died because the appellant had not provided proper medical aid to Krishna. On that issue there was exchange of hot words. Thereafter the father of Krishna threatened to involve the appellant and his parents in a false case. It is thus claimed that they were all falsely implicated.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, was of the view that Krishna met unnatural death which was preceded by demand for Rs. 4,000/ followed by further demand for Rs. 5,000/. On this main finding, he held the appellant guilty. He, however, extended the benefit of doubt to the parents of the appellant and acquitted them.

In this Court the learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence and pointed out that the appellant or his parents had never demanded any dowry either at the time of settling the marriage or any time thereafter, and the marriage had been performed despite the knowledge to the appellant that Krishna was an epileptic patient since prior to the marriage. It was contended that there is no material to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty. It is further contended that the story regarding the demand of amounts is also not free from doubt. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

On behalf of the State, the learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish that till few days prior to the date of death of Krishna, a demand for money was pressed, and that, Krishna died in suspicious circumstances and her body was also disposed of hurriedly, which indicates the guilty mind of the appellant. It was, therefore, submitted that the trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, has not properly scanned the evidence. He has not properly scrutinised and assured the evidence in order to evaluate the same. We find that from Para 7 to Para 15 of his judgment, he has simply reproduced the depositions of the witnesses, by omitting some part which he found not relevant. From Para 17 to 19 of his judgment, he has reproduced the provisions of law and extract from a reported case. In Para 20 of his judgment, he then started recording his conclusions without assigning reasons how and why he arrived at a particular conclusion. He thereafter gave benefit of doubt to two accused out of the three and convicted the present appellant. In our opinion, this can hardly be said to be proper scrutiny of the evidence and its evaluation to consider its worth. We further find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be totally unaware of the provisions of Section 354(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which makes it mandatory that the Court should frame points for determination and record decision thereon and the reasons for the same. Needless to state that proper points for determination should have been framed keeping in view the charge against the appellant and the ingredients to prove such a charge. Since in this case in all three accused were initially involved, it was necessary to frame points for determination so as to indicate that all these three accused were being dealt with in respect of joint complicity to commit offence. Nothing of the sort has been done.

Under these circumstances, we are left with no other alternative but to scan the material on record to arrive at some factual conclusion.

The counsel for the appellant had brought our attention to the fact that the report by Raghbir Singh the father of deceased Krishna, had been lodged in the Police Station quite late. The said report had been lodged in Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal, at 12.10 p.m. on 21.3.1991. The death of Krishna had taken place on 18.3.1991. Complainant Raghbir Singh, father of deceased Krishna, had claimed that on 19.3.1991 he learnt about the death of Krishna. Even if that claim is considered, though there are good reasons to doubt that too, the further delay of two days till the filing of the report to the police cannot be totally ignored in this case. Delay in this case should also be considered in the background in which allegedly Krishna died. The allegations by Raghbir Singh were that Krishna was being subjected to harassment in order to extract money. Thus, according to him, Krishna died in suspicious circumstances. His further claim is that even the deadbody of Krishna was disposed without waiting for his arrival. If that was the position as claimed by him, the normal natural reaction of a person in this position would have been to report to the Police Station with a view to book the culprit. It was contended by the Deputy Advocate General that sudden death of Krishna resulted in the shock to her parents and they took some time till they could recover from the shock and mentally get ready to approach the police. In view of this state of affair, we would have expected the prosecution get in the deposition of complainant some explanation as to what happened during the 48 hours or more since they learnt about the death of Krishna. This aspect assumes significance if we consider it in the background of other pieces of evidence to which we would shortly make a reference.

Raghbir Singh claims that on 19.3.1991 he learnt that Krishna expired on 18.3.1991. In his evidence he did not tell as to how he got such an information and who conveyed it. He further claims that on getting the information about the death of Krishna, he accompanied by Madho Ram and Ram Kumar and two persons went to the house of the accused and made enquiries. He further claims that he then learnt that either Krishna was murdered or she committed suicide because of the harassment and her deadbody was disposed of with a view to cause disappearance of evidence. It may be noted that neither Madho Ram nor Ram Kumar, who had accompanied Raghbir Singh were examined by the prosecution. Nothing is deposed by Raghbir Singh regarding the circumstances which led him to conclude about the manner and reason for death of Krishna. Nothing is indicated as to when he concluded his inference regarding the alleged complicity of the accused. Lack of pieces of such evidence leaves an unexplained gap of delay in lodging the report since the death of Krishna. It is also not convincing that on 19.3.1991 Raghbir Singh learnt about the death of Krishna. In his concluding para of the cross examination, he has stated that Zile Singh, the brother of appellant Multan Singh, had visited his house in his absence. In the next breath he then hastens to correct that date of visit as 19.3.1991. The appellant, on the other hand, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. claims that Raghbir Singh was present at the time of cremation of Krishna and had picked up a quarrel on the issue of alleged improper medical treatment to Krishna. The admission made by Raghbir Singh that brother of appellant had visited his house on 18.3.1991 is enough to indicate that he in all probabilities had come to inform about the death of Krishna. Thus, beyond the bare words of Raghbir Singh regarding the date on which he received information regarding the death of Krishna, there is nothing to substantiate his claim. Considered from that angle, it would appear that the prosecution should have taken care to lead proper evicence to explain time gap between death of Krishna and report regarding it at the Police Station.

This brings us to consider the claim that Krishna was being harassed for extracting money. The evidence of Raghbir Singh shows that he, for the first time, learnt about such demand when his nephew (Gurdial Singh) visited the house of Krishna about 11/2 years prior to her death. In other words, since the marriage of Krishna on 10.6.1987, a period of about 21/2 years, passed without any grievance regarding such demand. In crossexamination Raghbir Singh admitted that he had not stated before the police that he learnt about such information from his nephew Gurdial Singh. In examinationinchief Raghbir Singh claims that harassment to Krishna started about 11/2 to 2 years since the marriage. In the crossexamination, however, he admitted that he had not made such a statement before the police. It would, therefore, appear that regarding the harassment and the cause for harassment, he had made discrepant statement. The allegation regarding the harassment to Krishna should also be considerecd in the background of the fact admitted by Raghbir Singh in his deposition to the effect that the appellant married Krishna despite the knowledge that Krishna was an epilleptic patient. The reason for accepting Krishna was that the appellant had then told that he was also a poor man and would not mind to marry Krishna though she gets epilleptic fits. Further Raghbir Singh has admitted that at the time of settling the marriage, there was neither any talk for dowry nor dowry was even demanded before or at the time of marriage. In the background of these events, it is very difficult to accept the allegation by Raghbir Singh that about 21/2 years since after the marriage, harassment to Krishna started in order to extract money. It may further be mentioned that though Raghbir Singh claims that good office of his relatives had been used to persuade and counsel the accused that they should give up their demand and fetch Krishna from her parents'' house, none of such relative has been examined. The prosecution has led evidence of Gurdial Singh, the nephew of Raghbir Singh to support a case that in April 1991 during his visit to Krishna''s house, he learnt from Krishna that she was being harassed for getting Rs. 4,000/ from her parents'' house. In the cross examination, he was confronted with police statement to indicate that he has not mentioned the month and year when he thus visited Krishna''s house. He was also confronted to bring his attention to an important omission in his police statement wherein he has omitted to state that Krishna on that occasion had asked that she should be taken to her parents'' house. He further admitted that he neither enquired nor learnt as to the purpose for which the amount was required by the appellant. It, however, appears that Krishna at that time had gone to her parents'' house and then delivered a female child. But later on, as admitted by Raghbir Singh in his deposition, Krishna was fetched by her husband. The claim made by him that that was on the intervention of the relatives, did not find support as none of such relatives is examined.

The prosecution has also led the evidence of one Sadhu Ram to prove extrajudicial confession. He claims that the appellant and his father came to him on 28.3.1991 at 11.00 a.m. and in the presence of one Singh Ram confessed that they killed Krishna because she did not bring enough dowry, and later on threw her body in the well. It is claimed that they further confessed that later on deadbody was taken out of the well and it was burnt. He further claims that after the confessional statement, tea was served to the accused, and he took the accused to the Police Station. It is very difficult to accept this extrajudicial confession. Obviously the case was then already registered and investigation was going on. This witness does not seem to be a person in whom the accused would venture to confide confession of such a serious offence. It is very difficult to accept that accused would then surrender to this witness in order that he should take them to the police. The extrajudicial confession, therefore, deserves to be discarded outright.

The Additional Sessions Judge, however, simply made reference to the deposition of PW1 Raghbir Singh and PW6 Gurdial Singh to arrive at the conclusion regarding demand of dowry, without properly scanning their deposition in order to evaluate its worth in the light of attending circumstances. His judgment is devoid of any reasons as to his conclusion that Krishna''s death was unnatural. All that can be said is that the death of Krishna was an unexpected event and it required inquiry. But without material on record as to the cause of death, it is not possible to conclude as to whether the death was unnatural, homicidal, suicidal or accidental.

Thus, on considering the material on record, we find it difficult to maintain the judgment of the trial Court. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. The appellant be forthwith set at liberty, if not required in connection with any other case. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.