Pahlad Rai vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

By this judgment I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 367SB of 1987 titled as Pahlad Rai and others v. State of Haryana and Criminal Revision No. 681 of 1987 titled as Hukam Chand v. Pahlad Rai and others, as both, the appeal and revision have arisen from the judgment dated 20.5.1987 and order dated 21.5.1987 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak who convicted the appellants under sections 498A and 306 IPC. Appellants were awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ each u/s 498A, IPC. In default of payment of fine, each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellants were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ each u/s 306 IPC. In default of payment of fine, each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The trial court further held that all the substantive sentences awarded to the three appellants Pahlad Rai, Shanti Devi and Rajesh Kumar shall run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Sushila Devi daughter of Hukam Chand was a young girl of 2022 years and she was married to Rajesh Kumar appellant on 4.12.1984. She was taken by her husband Rajesh Kumar from Rohtak, her parental house, to Bahadurgarh i.e. the house of her inlaws, in the evening of 20.8.1985. On that day Sushila was hale and hearty. The present occurrence took place on 21.8.1985 at 2.00 p.m. when condition of Sushila Devi deteriorated due to vomiting and loose motions. She was taken to St. Stephen Hospital, Delhi, by her husband Rajesh Kumar and was got admitted there at 5.00 p.m. but later on she was declared deed at 5.40 p.m. on the same day. The death of the bride unfortunately in this case had taken place within 81/2 months of her marriage.

It is further the case of the prosecution that the present three appellants and Manju sister of Rajesh Kumar had been harassing the deceased on account of dowry. Shri Hukam Chand father of Smt. Sushila gave his statement Ex. PA before ASI Sukhbir Singh (PW7) of Police Post, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on 22.8.1985 at about 10.00 a.m. in the St. Stephen Hospital, New Delhi and it was alleged by the complainant that he was resident of Rohtak and run a shop of cloth. He had three sons namely Rajinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Ram Niwas residing with him while two sons Prem Chand and Jagdish Rai are residing separately from him. He had two daughters namely Bimla Devi and Sushila. His younger daughter Sushila was married to Rajesh Kumar appellant in the month of December, 1984. At the time of marriage, he gave sufficient dowry according to his financial capacity. After marriage his daughter came to Rohtak and complained to him that her motherinlaw Shanti Devi, fatherinlaw Pahlad Rai and her husband Rajesh Kumar had been harassing and taunting to her on account of the fact that she had brought insufficient dowry. It is further alleged by the complainant that when his sons used to visit the house of their sister Sushila, on those occasions also Sushila used to make a complaint that her inlaws had been harassing her on account of inadequate dowry. Further it is case of the prosecution that the complainant and his sons tried to pacify the inlaws and husband of Sushila and they requested them not to harass the deceased and that they are poor persons. It was further stated by the complainant party that their demand would be met.

On 20.8.1985 Sushila was in the house of her parents at Rohtak when appellant Rajesh came there and took the deceased with him to Bahadurgarh. Sushila was sent along with Rajesh Kumar appellant on the assurance given by him that in future the deceased would not be harassed. On 21.8.1985 at about 10.00 one Balwan Ram resident of Rohtak, who is maternal uncle of Rajesh accused, came to his house and informed that Sushila had died. Upon this complainant along with his wife Phool Wati, sons Ramesh Chand and Rajesh went to Bahadurgarh in a car and there they got information from the sisterinlaw of Sushila that she (Sushila) had been admitted in St. Stephen Hospital, New Delhi and when they reached in the said hospital at about 1.30 a.m., after midnight, they came to know about the death of Sushila. It is further alleged by the complainant that dead body of Sushila was not shown to the complainant and her family members in the hospital by the inlaws of the deceased and other relatives were also present but they did not have any talk with the complainant. On 22.8.1985, the complainant saw the dead body of his daughter and found that there was bluish signs on her ear, neck and back. With the above allegations the case was investigated. The thanedar Shri Sukhbir Singh prepared inquest report on the dead body of Sushila on 22.8.1985. The viscera of the dead body was preserved and it was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for examination. The statements of Ramesh Kumar and Rajinder Kumar were recorded on 23.8.1985. Spot was inspected and rough site plan was prepared. The appellants were arrested along with Manju Rani a juvenile and she was tried separately. Ultimately poison was found in the viscera and on completion of the investigation of the case present appellants were challaned in the ordinary course under section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate supplied copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 30.1.1986 committed the appellants to the court of Sessions along with Manju Rani. Vide orders dated 4.3.1986, all the three appellants were chargesheeted under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove charges prosecution examined Shri Hukam Chand complainant father of Sushila as PW.1 and Shri Sat Narain, neighbourer of Shri Hukam Chand as PW.2. Ramesh brother of the deceased appeared as PW.3. Constable Darya Singh (PW.4) deposed about the fact that he delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate Bahadurgarh. PW.5 Doctor L.T. Remani conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sushila and stated that brain of the deceased was congested. He preserved the blood and viscera and made sealed parcel thereof for examination by the Chemical Examiner. This doctor earlier deferred the cause of death till receipt of report of the Chemical Analyst on 20.11.1985, the Doctor gave opinion that Zinc Phosphide was the cause of death. The report of this effect of the Doctor is Ex. PC/1. Sub Inspector Arjan Lal partly investigated this case. Sukhbir Singh ASI is yet another Investigating Officer who also partly investigated this case. Doctor Vijender Singh, Assistant Director, Chemical Forensic Laboratory, Haryana deposed that he had received three parcels in this case through Constable Surender Singh and after analysis he submitted report Ex. PL. Rattan Singh (PW.9) is also an Investigating Officer who partly investigated this case. PW.10 is Mr. Nelson who proved Ex. PE/2. Doctor Samuel Sudhakar proved the signatures of Doctor Parkash Gulbani.

On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. They denied them and the stand of Shri Pahlad Rai was as follows :

"My father late Shri Banarsi Dass used to reside at village Dujana. On 21.8.1985 I had gone to Dujana to perform the Shardh ceremony and on that day I had performed the ceremony and gave meals to Pt. Lachhi Ram at our house there. Shri Duli Chand Sarpanch was also present at that time. I returned to Bahadurgarh in the evening of 21.8.1985 and came to know that Sushila had suffered from food poisoning and after giving her treatment by Dr. Om Parkash of Bahadurgarh she had been shifted to a Delhi Hospital on the advice of Dr. Om Parkash. I at once rushed to St. Stephen Hospital Delhi but by that time she had already died. Her parents and brothers with one Sawan Ram and others had also reached the hospital at Delhi at about 7.00 p.m. and we told them all what had happened to Sushila and they were satisfied with our reply. But unfortunately they were misguided by some persons and they concocted this false case against us without any rhyme or reason for reasons best known to them. Sushila had very cordial relations with her husband and myself and my wife used to treat her like her own daughter and she lived a happy married life. There were no dowry demands from us and no harassment was ever caused by us to her. We have been falsely involved in this case."

The stand of Smt. Shanti Devi was as follows :

"On 21.8.1985 Sushila deceased had taken breakfast consisting of Burfi, Milk, Parantha and apple at about 9.30/10.00 a.m. She started complaining of pain at about 1.30/1.00 p.m. and started vomiting and loose motion. I at once called Dr. Om Parkash who gave her an injection and also intravenous Glucose. My sons Rajesh husband of Sushila and another son Gobind Ram are running factory at Delhi where they go from Bahadurgarh early in the morning at 7 a.m. and return late in the evening at about 9 p.m. and on that day also as usual both of them had left for Delhi at 7.00 a.m. When Sushila suffered this trouble at 1.30 p.m., I gave a telephonic message from the clinic of Dr. Om Parkash to my son Rajesh who immediately thereafter took Sunil Kumar brother inlaw and my daughter Usha and reached Bahadurgarh in the car of Sushil Kumar along with them. On their reaching Bahadurgarh Dr. Om Parkash advised them to take Sushila immediately to Delhi hospital as her condition was not improving. At that time my son Rajesh informed his maternal uncle Sawan Ram at Rohtak asking him to inform the parents of Sushila at Rohtak and tell them to reach Delhi St. Stephen Hospital and thereafter, I along with my son, soninlaw Sunil Kumar and daughter Usha took Sushila in the car and got her admitted in the hospital at about 4.30 p.m. Sushila, however, did not respond to the treatment and she died at 6.00 p.m. My husband Pahlad Rai who had gone to Dujana also reached St. Stephen Hospital a little after Sushila''s death. Hukam Chand, his wife and their two sons along with Sawan Ram also reached St. Stephen Hospital at about 7.00 p.m. Sushila had been living happily in our family. There was neither any harassment nor any cruelty meted out to her by us. She was loved and liked by all of us and we are unfortunate to leave her. The parents of Sushila were also satisfied about her untimely sudden demise but we are still perplexed as to why they concocted a false story on the following day and got this false case registered. There was no dowry demand from our side. I am a chronic heart patient and was ailing at that period also."

Stand of Rajesh appellant was as follows :

"I along with my brother Gobind Ram are running a factory of Electronic goods and accessories at Delhi where we both go from Bahadurgarh every morning at about 7.00 a.m. and return to Bahadurgarh at about 9.00 p.m. As usual on 21.8.1985 also we had gone to the factory from Bahadurgarh at about 7.00 a.m. It was about 1 O''clock that I received a telephonic call from Bahadurgarh and my younger sister told me on the phone that my wife Sushila has seriously suffered from food poisoning and was vomiting and passing loose motion and despite treatment given by Dr. Parkash she is not improving. My sister asked me to reach Bahadurgarh immediately. On this message I collected my brother inlaw and my sister from Delhi and we three reached Bahadurgarh in the car of my brotherinlaw Sunil Kumar. On reaching Bahadurgarh, Dr. Om Parkash advised me that the treatment given by him has had no effect and she be removed to Delhi for better treatment. I thereupon, gave a telephonic message to my maternal uncle Sawan Ram at Rohtak requesting him to inform the parents of Sushila immediately and tell them to reach St. Stephen Hospital at Delhi where I was taking Sushila. I took Sushila along with my mother, brotherin law Sunil Kumar and Usha my sister to St. Stephen''s Hospital in the car of Sunil Kumar where she was got admitted at about 4.30 p.m. She later died at about 6.00 p.m. My father had gone to Dujana to perform the Shradh ceremony of my grandfather who used to reside at Dujana in the evening at Bahadurgarh where he learnt about Sushila''s condition and he rushed to Delhi but by the time he reached Sushila had expired. The parents of Sushila along with Sawan Ram also reached Delhi at about 7.00 p.m. The two brothers of Sushila had also come along with them from Rohtak. On my enquiry from my wife at Bahadurgarh she had told me that she had taken breakfast at about 9.30 or 10.00 a.m. and thereafter she had started complaining of acute pain in the stomach at about 1.00 p.m. resulting in vomiting and diarrhoea. She had told me that she had taken nothing except some Burfi, milk, a parantha and apple and it was probably due to some infection or contamination of milk preparation that she had suffered food poison. Sushila was very much loved and liked by me and by my parents and sisters. She was living very happily in our family. There was no dowry demand or any harassment to her from our side. Her parents and brothers were also happy and satisfied over her married life in our family and they were also satisfied that she had suffered food poisoning on 21.8.1985, but unfortunately they took an adverse turn on the following day probably due to some instigation from someone and they concocted this false story and falsely involved us in this case. We are ourselves very much worried over her sudden demise and at least I have not so far reconciled about her sudden loss. We are innocent."

When called upon to enter into defence, accused examined Lachhi Ram, Duli Chand Gupta, Dr. Om Parkash, Dr. S.N. Khosla, Dr. S.P. Gupta, Sawan Mal and Constable Raj Mal as DW.1 to DW.7 respectively.

The trial of Manju was separated as she was found to be child. The trial court, however, convicted and sentenced Shri Pahlad Rai, Shanti Devi and Rajesh Kumar under sections 498A and 306 IPC in the manner stated above and feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

I have heard Shri C.B. Kaushik Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Sailender Singh, DAG Haryana appearing on behalf of the State and Shri H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant and with their assistance gone through the record of this case.

Assailing the judgment of the learned trial Court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that benefit of doubt can be extended to Shri Pahlad Rai and Shanti Devi as there is no satisfactory proof that they ever abetted Smt. Sushila for the purpose of commission of the offence. Though an effort was also made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to argue that there is no evidence of abetment visavis any of the accused and in these circumstances the trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting all the appellants under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that if all the allegations of the prosecution are taken to be correct still the offence cannot travel beyond under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On the contrary it has been submitted on behalf of the State that the evidence of abetment cannot be led by the prosecution directly as the death of Smt. Sushila had taken place in the house of her inlaws and there are compelling circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn in favour of the prosecution that there was an abetment on the part of the appellant so as to compel the deceased to take poisonous substance in Zinc Phosphide which was the cause of death. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that marriage of Sushila took place on 4.12.1984 and her death took place on 21.12.1985 within 81/2 months and no sane lady would try to commit suicide unless there are compelling circumstances. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that there are consistent allegations levelled by Hukam Chand that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and the court is justified in drawing a reasonable inference that circumstances must have been created to such an extent that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. In these circumstances a reasonable inference can be drawn with regard to abetment. Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior counsel for the complainant, however, submitted that the trial court was justified in recording the conviction of all the three appellants under section 306 read with Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

After considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the case of Pahlad Rai and Shanti Devi can be distinguished from the case of Rajesh Kumar who is husband of the lady. A reading of the FIR would show that Shri Hukam Chand has not made any specific mention about the alleged articles regarding demand of dowry. The allegations as contained in the FIR are generic in nature. Significant improvement has been made in the statement of Shri Hukam Chand when he appeared as PW.1 and he stated that it was complained to him by his daughter that the three appellants had been making demand of T.V., fridge and VCR which are commonly given in dowry by the parents to their daughter. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that with the death of their daughter, her parents would become jealous so as to implicate every male or female member of the family of the husband. Shri Hukam Chand has tried to involve Ms. Manju who even did not know the implication of the dowry articles. In these circumstances the conduct of Shri Hukam Chand has to be examined and scrutinized.

Of course, in such like cases testimony of relations and friends of the victim has to be considered more reliable. Shri Hukam Chand is none else but the father of the deceased. In case the deceased had a genuine complaint with regard to the alleged harassment she would definitely complain to her parents and brothers. Section 306 IPC lays down that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. What is an abetment is again subject matter of definition as contained in Section 107 IPC. A person abets doing of a thing who instigates any person to do that thing or secondly.............; or, thirdly intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. In the present case the death of Smt. Sushila had taken place in the hospital and she was taken to the hospital from the house of her inlaws. In these circumstances, it becomes impossible for the prosecution to produce direct evidence of abetment. If the husband creates such an circumstance in the family compelling the spouse to resort to extreme steps of such like taking his life, the court would be justified in drawing every reasonable inference against the accused that the deceased was subjected to abetment. The proved facts in this case are that the marriage of Sushila took place on 4.12.1984. When a girl marriages with a boy, she goes to the house of her inlaws with a sense of protection and respect. She would be the last lady to resort to act of suicide unless the circumstances are created. In this case the death of Smt. Sushila had taken place within 81/2 months of her marriage. It has come in the FIR lodged by Hukam Chand that her daughter had been complaining to him that she was being subjected to cruelty on account of inadequate dowry. Statement of Hukam Chand has been corroborated by his son and neighbourer. It is also in evidence that just one day before her death Sushila was in the house of her parents. On 21.8.1985 it was Rajesh Kumar who took the deceased to his house. In these circumstances it becomes incumbent upon Shri Rajesh Kumar to explain under what circumstances the death of Sushila had taken (sic) poisonous substance. The possibility cannot be ruled out that Rajesh might have abetted the deceased or the might have given taunts so as to compel the deceased to resort to extreme steps. The theory of food poisoning is totally ruled out from the crime. It is not proved that on 21.8.1985, any other family member of Rajesh Kumar became victim of food poisoning. Even the demanded articles like fridge, etc. can be demanded by one accused Rajesh. There is no satisfactory evidence that Smt. Shanti Devi and her husband Pahlad Rai ever compelled the deceased to bring alleged articles of dowry so to draw an inference about the act of abetment on their part. In this view of the matter, I extend the benefit of doubt to Shanti Devi and her husband and their appeal stands accepted and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. So far as appellant Rajesh Kumar is concerned, I do not see any merit in the appeal on his part. While maintaining his conviction and sentence under sections 498A and 306 IPC, the same is hereby dismissed.