Nirmal Singh vs State of Haryana

S. S. Grewal, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dated 14/17.9.1991 whereby Nirmal Singh husband and Kartar Kaur motherinlaw of Paramjit Kaur deceased were convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and each one them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/. In default of payment of fine the defaulting convict was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Mehar Singh fatherinlaw of the deceased was, however, acquitted.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that according to Atma Singh PW.2 marriage of his daughter Paramjit Kaur with Nirmal Singh accused was solemnised about four years prior to the present occurrence. Atma Singh PW had given sufficient dowry according to his capacity. However, Nirmal Singh and Kartar Kaur accused were not happy with the dowry and mal treated Paramjit Kaur in order to compel her to bring more dowry from her parents. Paramjit Kaur often complained to her parents about demands of more dowry and misconduct on the part of her husband and parents inlaw. Atma Singh, however, sent back his daughter Paramjit Kaur to her matrimonial home. About two years of the marriage both Nirmal Singh and Kartar Kaur accused gave beating to Paramjit Kaur on several occasions in order to compel her to bring more dowry from her parents. She went back to her parents and again complained about the misconduct of the accused to her father Atma Singh who along with Labh Singh, Niranjan Singh, Jagir Singh and Lila Singh of his village went to the house of the accused. Gurtej Singh from the village of the accused also accompanied Atma Singh PW and asked the accused not to mal treat Paramjit Kaur. Both Nirmal Singh and Kartar Kaur complained about insufficient dowry. The aforesaid persons who had gone in the form of Panchayat told the said accused that Atma Singh was a poor man and not in a position to give more dowry and the accused agreed to bring Paramjit Kaur within 5 to 10 days. After few days Gurjant Singh, Baldev Singh ExSarpanch, Mehal Singh, Nirmal Singh accused and another Gurjant Singh came to the house of Atma Singh and Paramjit Kaur came back to her matrimonial home. After sometime Nirmal Singh and his mother Kartar Kaur again started beating and maltreating Paramjit Kaur in order to compel her to bring more dowry. About one month prior to the present occurrence Atma Singh went to the house of the accused in order to enquest about the welfare of his daughter Paramjit Kaur who wept bitterly and informed her father that even though she was in a family way her husband Nirmal Singh and her motherinlaw Kartar Kaur again gave her beating in order to compel her to bring more dowry. Atma Singh brought his daughter to his house. After about 10 to 15 days Nirmal Singh accused came to the house of his fatherinlaw Atma Singh and told him that he realised his mistake and gave an assurance that in future he and his mother would not mal treat or beat Paramjit Kaur. He wanted to take Paramjit Kaur with him but her father Atma Singh did not agree. Nirmal Singh stayed at the house of his in laws for three days. Thinking that the future of his daughter was involved, Atma Singh PW sent Paramjit Kaur with Nirmal Singh accused. On the evening of 5.8.1990, Atma Singh received information that his daughter Paramjit Kaur had committed suicide by jumping in the village well. Atma Singh accompanied by Labh Singh Niranjan Singh and other persons came to the house of the accused in order to verify the circumstances about the death of his daughter. He suspected foul play and lodged report with the police that Nirmal Singh and Kartar Kaur had killed Paramjit Kaur and thrown her dead body in the well or that his daughter might have committed suicide on account of harassment at the hands of the accused.

Postmortem examination conducted on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur on 6.8.1990 by Dr. Gurtej Singh revealed multiple abrasions on the back below the left and right scapula, an abrasion on the forehead an abrasion on the lateral aspect of the body on the left as well as contusions on the right forearm. The doctor also found 8 months foetus in the uterus. The death in the opinion of the said doctor was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. After completion of the investigation, Nirmal Singh and his parents were challaned, tried and Nirmal Singh husband and Kartar Kaur motherinlaw of the deceased were convicted and sentenced as stated, earlier, whereas, Mehar Singh fatherinlaw of the deceased was acquitted by the learned trial Court.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

The learned counsel for the appellants assailed the prosecution story mainly on the ground that testimony of Jagsir Singh PW supports the defence plea that Paramjit Kaur who committed suicide because she was suffering from mental ailment and not because of any cruelty or harassment on the part of her husband or motherinlaw in connection with the alleged demand of dowry.

Jagsir Singh PW.5 in his examinationinchief stated that he had seen Paramjit Kaur carrying Bathal loaded with rubbish. After throwing it she went towards the well and he heard a sound that something had fallen in the well. From this he judged that Paramjit Kaur had jumped into the well. Thereafter other persons from the village were called and Mohinder Singh was able to take out the dead body from the well. In crossexamination this witness admitted that there was no Mander around the well and that Roori where the rubbish was thrown was situated at a distance of 4 or 5 feet from the well. His cross examination was deferred and on the following day he deposed that he had noticed foot prints of Paramjit Kaur and also saw more frothy material and that 15 to 20 days before the occurrence Paramjit Kaur had gone to a pond to wash the clothes where she felt giddy and fell down and at that time had noticed froth from her mouth and she was unconscious. The witness had gone to the pond with his buffalo. He also stated that Paramjit Kaur used to wear black thread for treatment of psychological mental disorder and that a thread was from a Tantrik at Dalliawala. Dr. Gurtej Singh who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur on the next day of the occurrence had found a black thread around the neck of the deceased.

Atma Singh father of the deceased deposed that Paramjit Kaur was married when she was aged about 18 years and that his wife Harpal Kaur with whom Atma Singh entered into Kareva marriage after the death of his elder brother, died about four years prior to the marriage of Paramjit Kaur. According to Labh Singh PW.3 who is covillager of Atma Singh, Paramjit Kaur was gravely disturbed at the time of death of her mother. However, from this fact alone it cannot be said that reaction of Paramjit Kaur who was about 14 years of age at the time of her mother''s death was in any manner unusual or that bereavement of her mother had affected her mental faculty. However, except the bare testimony of Jagsir Singh who is covillager and lives in the neighbourhood of the accused, there is no reliable evidence on the file from which it can be reasonably inferred that Paramjit Kaur was suffering from any mental ailment. Testimony of Jagsir Singh PW for the first time in the Court about the mental ailment of Paramjit Kaur deceased does not sound credible or trustworthy. In case the deceased was suffering from any mental ailment or had committed suicide because of such alleged ailment, Jagsir Singh or for that matter other persons in the village of the accused were not expected to remain silent spectators on this issue, and, were expected to mention this fact at the earliest to the Investigating agency. Omission on the part of Jagsir Singh in not mentioning these facts to the Investigating Officer is not consistent with the natural human conduct and the learned trial Court which had the added advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses had rightly disbelieved the testimony of Jagsir Singh PW. Mere presence of black thread around the neck of the deceased in the absence of any other reliable evidence concerning mental ailment of the deceased would not be sufficient to uphold the defence plea set up in this case and I have thus not the least hesitation in rejecting the defence plea set up by the appellants.

Testimony of Atma Singh PW father of the deceased clearly shows that from the very beginning both the appellants maltreated and gave beatings to the deceased quite often in order to pressurise her to bring more dowry from him. The deceased made complaints to her father concerning such maltreatment and the cruelty meted out to her at the hands of the appellants. Her father advised her to stay in the house of her husband in the fond hope that the conduct of the appellants towards his daughter might improve. After two years of her marriage the deceased was given beatings by the appellants and turned out of her matrimonial home because the appellants wanted her to bring more dowry from her father. She again complained about this maltreatment to her father who informed Labh Singh, Lila Singh and others. Atma Singh along with aforesaid persons and Gurtej Singh went to the house of the appellants and requested them to keep Paramjit Kaur amicably and not to harass or maltreat her. The appellants demanded more dowry and also wanted Atma Singh to give a buffalo but he expressed his inability to do so. The Panchayat taken by Atma Singh was able to persuade the appellants to bring Paramjit Kaur from the house of her father. After 5 or 7 days Nirmal Singh appellant accompanied by Gurjant Singh and others took Paramjit Kaur with him after giving assurance that they would not maltreat or harass her. Behaviour of the appellants towards the deceased did not improve and about 20 or 25 days prior to the present occurrence when Atma Singh went to see his daughter Paramjit Kaur at the house of the accused, she told her father that the appellants had again given her beatings. He took his daughter to his village. Nirmal Singh appellant again came after 10/15 days and stayed at the house of his inlaws for about three days and on his repeated requests Atma Singh sent his daughter with Nirmal Singh appellant.

All these telltale circumstances leaves no manner of doubt that the appellants acted with cruelty and continuously maltreated and harassed the deceased Paramjit Kaur in order to coerce to fulfil their unlawful demands of dowry. Paramjit Kaur, who was in a family way and was carrying eight months foetus in her womb was driven to commit suicide by jumping in the well. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution version that the death of Paramjit Kaur was due to asphyxia by drowning. The abrasions and contusions found on her body could very well be caused after she had jumped in the well.

The prosecution has thus been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that unnatural death of Paramjit Kaur took place within seven years of her marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and motherinlaw in connection with persistent demands of dowry on the part of the appellants. The prosecution has thus been able to bring home charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt and they have been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court.

However, taking into consideration the fact that the appellants underwent agony of trial for over a year in the trial Court and their appeal remained pending before this Court for more than two years, in my view, the ends of justice would be fully met in case sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced from rigorous imprisonment from ten years to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, and I order accordingly. The sentence of fine or in default thereof awarded by the learned trial Court is, however, maintained and it is further directed that out of the fine, if realised, the entire amount shall be paid as compensation to Atma Singh father of the deceased.

Except with this modification, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.