Nirmal Kumar vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal filed by Nirmal Kumar and his mother Surinder Kaur, and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.1996, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who convicted the appellants u/s 304B IPC, and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years each.

The brief facts of the case can be described in the following manner :

Usha Rani, deceased, was married to Nirmal Kumar, appellant, by her father Raj Kumar, complainant, PW6, and as per the story of the prosecution at the time of the marriage, Raj Kumar gave sufficient dowry according to his financial capacity and status. The prosecution further alleges that Usha Rani was allegedly maltreated and harassed by the appellants on account of bringing insufficient dowry and that the appellants demanded a Fridge from her parents. On 16.4.1995, the deceased had told her father Raj Kumar about the demand upon which he along with the deceased and Manohar Lal, PW7, (maternal uncle of Usha Rani) went to the house of the accused and requested them not to harass the deceased and not to make the demand of the Fridge. Usha Rani again complained to her father that her inlaws were still demanding Fridge and that she is being harassed. The deceased was sent back with an assurance that the demand of the Fridge would be met shortly and positively before the Rakhri festival of the year 1995. It may be mentioned that the festival of Rekhri of that year was to fall on 10.8.1995. The present occurrence took place on 9.8.1995. According to Raj Kumar, he received an information that his daughter was lying admitted in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, with burn injuries and on hearing this news, he went to Hoshiarpur on 9.8.1995 itself and saw that his daughter was having 100% burns and she was lying admitted in the hospital. Later on, Usha succumbed to the burn injuries and the father lodged the report with the police on 10.8.1995 with the above allegations that his daughter was done to death on account of dowry demand.

On the above broad lines, the investigation was taken up and both the appellants were challaned u/s 304B IPC, in the court of the C.J.M., Hoshiarpur, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 8.11.1995. Vide order dated 27.11.1997, charge u/s 304B IPC, was framed against the appellants. It was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Bakshish Singh, PW1, who prepared the site plan, Ex. PA, with correct marginal notes. Constable Ranjit Singh, PW2, gave his statement by way of an affidavit like that of Constable Sardari Lal, PW3. Dr. Avinash Sood, PW4, conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Usha and found almost 100% burns on the body, sparing soles of feet slightly. This doctor observed that the skin was burn and peeled off at many places. The colour of the body became black. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was excessive burns leading to the dehydration and toxemia, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem. The probable time that elapsed between the injuries and death was within six hours and between death and postmortem was within 15 hours. He issued, Ex. PD, the correct carbon copy of the postmortem examination of Usha. Ex. PD/1 was the pictorial diagram showing the seat of burns. The postmortem was conducted on the request, Ex. PE, made by the police, which prepared the inquest report, Ex. PF, on the dead body. Unfortunately, Usha could not give any statement as she remained unfit to make any statement till her death. Constable Raj Kumar, PW5, took the photographs, Ex. P1 to P4, of the place of occurrence. Raj Kumar, father, Manohar Lal, maternal uncle and Darshan Lal, brother, who appeared as PWs 6 to 8, are the material witnesses of this case whose statements I shall deal in the later portion of this judgment. ASI Naresh Kumar, PW7, conducted part investigation of this case when he received intimation, Ex. PH, about the admission of Usha with burn injuries in the Civil Hospital. He submitted the application, Ex. PG, to the doctor to the effect whether Usha was fit to make the statement and vide endorsement, Ex. PG/1, the doctor declared Usha to be unfit to make the statement. S.I. Ravinderpal Singh, PW10, was the other I.O. who prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and he visited the place of occurrence and took into possession stove with kerosene oil, fry pan, sieve, iron box, burnt chunni, bangles, match box, etc.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. Accused denied those circumstances. The plea of Nirmal Kumar was that he got the information at his shop that his wife had suffered burn injuries. He reached the house and along with others, took her to the civil hospital, Hoshiarpur.

Surinder Kaur, motherinlaw, of the deceased also denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that she was sitting in the house of her neighbour on the relevant day when she heard shrieks coming from her house. She rushed to her house and found Usha in flames near the kitchen. Nirmal Kumar and his father were called from the shop and Usha was removed to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur.

No defence withness was examined.

The learned trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellants u/s 304B/34 IPC stated above and aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Mr. J.B.S Gill, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. J.S. Brar on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance I have been able to go through the record of this case.

Section 304B IPC lays down as follows :

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under 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.

Explanation. For the purpose of this subsection, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

A perusal of the above section would show that in order to succeed, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients :

"(1) That the death of the woman took place due to burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) That such death had occurred within 7 years of her marriage;

(3) That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

(4) That such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry."

So far as these ingredients are concerned, it is established on the record that the marriage of Usha with Nirmal Kumar, appellant, took place within six months prior to her death. It is further established from the medical evidence of the doctor that the cause of death in this case was 100% burns and that the deceased had died under unnatural circumstances in the house of her husband. There is also evidence of alleged demand of dowry and it has to be seen to what extent this demand is probable.

The case set up by the prosecution in the trial court was that there was a demand of a Fridge from the side of the appellants. Husband of Surinder Kaur, motherinlaw of Usha, is alive. In these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Surinder Kaur will ask her daughterinlaw to bring a Fridge from the house of her parents. In case, Surinder Kaur wanted a Fridge in her house, she would make the demand, at the first instance to her husband only. Otherwise also, it has been seen that after the death of a girl, her parents try to invariably implicate the inlaws and unmarried daughters of the house of her inlaws. In this regard, I would like to refer to the statement of Raj Kumar, Manohar Lal and Darshan Lal. Two witnesses; namely, Raj Kumar and Darshan Lal, being father and brother of Usha, respectively, hail from the family of the deceased whereas Manohar Lal is the maternal uncle. Relations in such like cases can well depose with regard to the alleged demand of dowry. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to believe in part the statements of Raj Kumar, Darshan Lal and Manohar Lal, PWs 6, 8 and 7, respectively. It has come in the crossexamination of Raj Kumar that Usha had studied upto 11th class. According to the case of the prosecution there was a pressing demand from the side of Surinder Kaur, appellant, with regard to the Fridge but at no point of time, the deceased ever wrote a letter to her parents that her motherinlaw was party to the alleged demand of Fridge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Nirmal Kumar, appellant, may also be given the benefit of doubt like that of his mother as there is no evidence with regard to the alleged demand of dowry at his behest but I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant because it is not established on the record that Usha was suffering from any disease. She had died under unnatural circumstances in the house of her husband within six months of her marriage. Nirmal Kumar, appellant, hails from a poor family and it cannot be held to be improbable if he had made the demand of Fridge to his wife who in turn complained to her parents about this demand. Some exaggeration do take place after the death of the girl. Keeping in view the fact that Surinder Kaur, appellant, would be the last beneficiary of the alleged demand of Fridge and other articles of dowry, I would like to extend the benefit of doubt to Surinder Kaur and her appeal stands accepted and she stands acquitted of the charge u/s 304B IPC. So far as the appeal of Nirmal Kumar is concerned, the evidence of Raj Kumar, Manohar Lal and Darshan Lal is consistent. It has also come in their statements that the deceased used to complain to her parents about the demand of Fridge. The case of the prosecution was that these three witnesses had been going to the house of the inlaws of the deceased and in all probability, they must have told to the husband of the deceased not to harass the deceased over the alleged demand of Fridge.

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, lays down that 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 evidence of these three relevant witnesses is that there was a persistent pressure upon the deceased to bring more dowry in the shape of a Fridge. So much so, an assurance was given by the father of the deceased that the Fridge would be arranged before the festival of Rakhri, i.e. 10.8.1995. The present occurrence has taken place on 9.8.1995, just one day prior to Rakhri. The deceased might have realised that her parents might be compelled to part with Fridge which was beyond their financial capacity. Otherwise, no sane lady would resort to the extreme step of burning herself. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that it was a case of suicide. Why a woman, married within less than six months resort to the extreme step of taking her life has not been satisfactorily explained by the counsel for the appellants.

In view of the above, I allow the appeal of Surinder Kaur by extending the benefit of doubt to her and acquit her of the charge framed against her. So far as the appeal of Nirmal Singh is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed. Intimation be sent to the jail authorities with regard to the acceptance of appeal of Surinder Kaur so that she may be released forthwith, if not wanted or convicted in any other case.