Puran Singh and Ors. vs State of Haryana

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Puran Singh, Pat Ram and Ram Rati have by way of this appeal challenged their conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000 each, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months each, under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his order dated 27th September, 1984.

Shrimati Kusum Lata (since deceased) was married to Puran Singh appellant in the year 1981. Her father Raghbir Singh PW4 spent about Rs. 50,000 on her marriage. Shrimati Kusum Lata started living with Puran Singh appellant at village Baliana. Once or twice Shrimati Kusum Lata informed her father Raghbir Singh that she was being taunted for bringing insufficient dowry. Kapur Singh PW5, brother of Shrimati Kusum Lata, once went to village Baliana to see his sister Kusum Lata and on his return from there he also informed his father Raghbir Singh that Kusum Lata was being harassed by Puran Singh appellant and his mother Ram Rati. In 1982 Kusum Lata visited her father''s house and told him that herinlaws were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. She further told her father that herinlaws had asked her to bring more dowry from her parents. Thereafter Puran Singh appellant visited his fatherinlaw''s house to take Kusum Lata back. Raghbir Singh PW impressed upon him not to harass Kusum lata. Raghbir Singh PW then sent his daughter Kusum Lata along with Puran Singh appellant. Thereafter Kapur Singh PW went to visit his sister Kusum Lata at her inlaws house. Kusum Lata gave a letter to him and also orally told him that her inlaws were demanding Rs. 4000. Puran Singh then again visited his inlaw''s place at Rohtak and asked his fatherinlaw to pay Rs 4000 to him. Raghbir Singh in the presence of some neighbour paid Rs. 4000 to Puran Singh and told him that he and his wife should live in peace. In spite of all this the appellants continued harassing Kusum Lata. Raghbir Singh PW then called Puran Singh and Pat Ram appellants to his village and in the presence of his son Kapur Singh and some other neighbours told them not to harass Kusum Lata. Both the appellants felt offended and left the house of Raghbir Singh without taking meals. Two and a half months prior to the death of Kusum Lata she was brought to the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, where she delivered a female child. The montherinlaw of Kusum Lata had come there in connection with the delivery and after Kusum Lata was discharged from hospital and taken away, her father sent his son Jai Parkash with the customary gifts. Jai Parkash, on return, told his father Raghbir Singh that the inlaws of Kusum Lata were not happy with the presents since no gold ornaments were given to the new born. After about a month of the delivery Kusum Lata again visited her parents and told her father that her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw had again put forward a demand of Rs. 20,000 and had threatened that in case the amount was not paid Kusum Lata would be deserted. On 5th December, 1983, Kapur Singh PW again visited village Baliana and learned that Kusum Lata was given beating by Puran Singh appellant and his mother. On 8th December, 1983, Raghbir Singh PW learnt about the disappearance of Kusum Lata. He went to Baliana and enquired about the whereabouts of Kusum Lata from the sister Puran Singh appellant but she showed ignorance about the same. Raghbir Singh then enquired about the whereabouts of Puran Singh and his mother. Somebody from the neighbourhood told him that there was a quarrel going on for the last four or five days in the house of the appellants. In the meantime, Puran Singh, appellant and his mother entered the house. On enquiry by Raghbir Singh, they told him that they did not know about the whereabouts of Kusum Lata. Raghbir Singh then gave two or three fist blows to the mother of Puran Singh. She then informed Raghbir Singh that Kusum Lata was lying in the well situated in the fields. Raghbir Singh then went to Police Station, Sampla, on 9th December, 1983, and made an application before the Station House Officer. On the basis of the same first information report exhibit PG/1 was recorded, on 9th December, 1983, at about 8.50 a.m. Earlier to this a report, Exhibit PB, about the death of Kusum Lata was made by Maha Singh brother of Pat Ram appellant. On the basis of that report, Assistant SubInspector Sin Ram went to the spot and found the dead body of Kusum Lata lying there. He conducted the inquest proceedings and despatched the deadbody for autopsy. Dr. N. K. Bishnoi PW 1 conducted post mortem examination on the deadbody on 9th December, 1983, at 2.30 p.m. Following is the report of the examination :

"The length of the body was 154 cm and it bore no mark of ligature ........... rigor mortis present. Post mortem staining present. The typical ant bite present on the lower lip and tip of nose. Tongue slightly swollen. Clothes on the body were wet at places. Skin of the hand and feet was slightly corrugated and had washer woman appearance. No external marks of any injury present on the body. Trachea and larynx were slightly congested and contained fine white forth. Both lungs were distended and indented by ribs, heavy, oedematous and on cutting large quantity of blood stained forth came out. Right chamber of heart was full of dark fluid blood. Left chamber of the heart was empty. Stomach and small intestines contained water and very small amount of semidigested food material. Brain, spinal cord, liver, spleen and kidneys and large vessels were congested. Rest of the organs were healthily.

The cause of the death, in my opinion, was asphyxia as a result of drowning which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between the death and post mortem was within about 48 hours."

On 9th December, 1983, Assistant Sub Inspector Sis Ram went to the spot and prepared rough sitplan Exhibit PL. On 10 December 1983, Sis Ram Assistant Sub Inspector arrested both the appellants. He also formally arrested Shrimati Ram Rati appellant who had already been granted prearrest bail. Two earnings Exhibits P1 and P2, one nose pin Exhibit P3, one golden patri Exhibit P4 and one earoring Exhibit P5 belonging to Kusum Lata deceased were taken into possession by the Assistant SubInspector. After due investigation the appellants were sent up for trail.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the appellants denied the prosecution allegations. Puran Singh came out with the following version which was also adopted by Pat Ram :

"My relations with KusumLata were quite cordial. I am the eldest son of my parents. Suresh my brother is younger to me and is studying in the 10th Class. My other brothers are even younger to him. My sister Darshan was married a day prior to my marriage and she is residing in herinlaws. My parents are illiterate. My parent had been showing all love and affection to KusumLata being the first daugtherinlaw. Since my marriage there was not even a single instance of any alteration or quarrel between myself and my wife. Kusumlata was very much beautiful and because of her beauty I used to call her Santra. She had also strong attachment for me. She had even got my name written on her right arm. Prior to the delivery of the child, my parents got Kusumlata treated from Civil Hospital, Rohtak, where she was administered injection of titosid. It was at my advice that the aforesaid treatment was given to Kusumlata in Civil Hospital, Rohtak. NP At the time of the delivery best medical aid was provided to Kusumlata by my parents. We had celebrated the birth of the daughter. My father had also sent a letter Exhibit D1 to me. It was written by my sister at the instance of my father. My sister Darshan had also came to my house on 19.9.83 to attend on Kusumlata. The relations with my in laws of all my family members were quite cordial. Once Raghbir Singh PW had mal treated Kapur Singh PW as a result of which Kapur Singh had left the house and taken up a job at Delhi. I had brought him around and advised my fatherinlaw to bring back Kapur Singh to his house. Even reply of that letter was received by me from my fatherinlaw. My fatherinlaw did not complain to me in any of the letters about the maltreatment of Kusumlata. I had given to Kapur Singh Rs. 250/ to purchase ghee for Kusumlata on the occasion of delivery. Kapur Singh had also taken Rs. 500/ on his personal level and had asked me not to mention about it to anyone. Kapur Singh and Jai Parkash used to frequently take money from me to meet their expenses.

On 7.12.1983 myself and my wife Kusumlata had slept in the chobara of our house. My wife Kusumlata said to me that night that I should take her along to Faridabad as she wanted to live in a city. I told her that I would take her along after a month and in the meanwhile I would arrange for residence. It appears that Kusumlata was fond of living in a city having been brought up in a city. She was sensitive by nature. On 8.12.83 my wife got up at 6.00 a.m. and came out of the house and we thought that she has gone out of the house to answer the call of nature. However, when she did not return to the house then we started search for her. My father Pat Ram also came to Rohtak to enquire from Raghbir Singh if Kusumlata had come there. Thereafter, Raghbir singh and Kapur Singh PWs came by car to our village. By that time, we were not aware about the whereabouts of Kusumlata. Kapur Singh and Raghbir Singh returned from Baliana to Rohtak saying that they would find out if Kusumlata has arrived at their house at Rohtak in the meanwhile. Thereafter, we learnt that Kusumlata''s body was lying in the well. We sent Pehladas to Raghbir Singh to inform about it. Maha Singh was sent to the police station, Sampla, to lodge a report. Raghbir singh, Kapur Singh and Barfi Devi came to Baliana again in the care before the arrival of the police. Inquest proceedings were conducted by the police in the presence of Ragbir Singh. At that stage, Raghbir Singh etc. did not express any suspicion. After return of the police from the village, Raghbir Singh, Kapur Singh and Barfi Devi had asked to hand over the custody of my daughter to them and also asked us to return the belongings of Kusumlata including the articles of jewellery given to them. My mother declined to give the custody of the daughter saying that the child would not be happy if it was kept by somebody else. Myself and my father told Raghbir Singh and Kapur Singh that while we are feeling the loss of Kusumlata they are more interested in the return of dowry articles. As a result of this, Raghbir Singh etc. became enraged, left our house and then falsely involved me in this case. In order to pressurize us to return the dowry articles to Raghbir Singh etc., this present false case has been got planted against me. I came to know in jail that Raghbir Singh PW wants forcibly to remove the articles belonging to Kusumlata. I made representation to Superintendent of Police through jail authorities on 26.1.84 Raghbir Singh PW armed with arms and several other associates tried to raid our house and tried to remove our articles but he failed in his attempt due to the intervention of the respectable of the village and report to this effect was lodged in Police Station, Sampla."

In defence, they examined Dr. Indu Lalit DW1. He stated that on 25th July, 1983, the wife of Puran Singh appellant came to the antenatal clinic with A.N.C. No 457. She was 20 years old and had six weeks old pregency. She was advised tetanus oxide injection and one tablet of iron daily. She was also advised checkup of haemoglobin, blood and urine tests. He proved outdoor ticket Exhibit D1 relating to Kusum Lata. DW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Shiv Charan stated that Puran Singh appellant was posted as a Constable at Faridabad in 1983. The record regarding the leave of the Constable is kept in the office of the Superintendent of Police. On the basis of the record he stated that Puran Singh appellant remained on leave from 17.5.1983 to 23.5.1983, 17.7.1983 to 21.7.1983, 22.9.1983 to 24.9.1985 and lastly from 2.12.1983 to 9.12.1983. Puran Singh was supposed to report for duty on 10th December, 1983, in the forenoon. On 12th December, 1983, a telegram was received wherein Puran Singh appellant prayed that his leave be extended das his wife had expired. DW3 Head Constable Raghbir Singh proved an application purporting to have been signed by Puran Singh appellant and received through the Superintendent, Jail, Rohtak. The same is Exhibit DK. DW4 Khushi Ram Investigator, Selective Security Service Bureau, New Delhi, stated on the basis of the record that one Kapur Singh son of Raghbir Singh worked as Security Guard from 6.6.1983 to 4.8.1983. After Puran Singh appellant tendered into evidence photostat copies of the appointment letter Exhibit DL photostat copy of birth certificate Exhibit DM and photostat copies of commendation certificate Exhibit DN, DO, DP, DQ, DR, and DS, the appellants closed their defence.

The prosecution, besides Dr. M.K. Bishnoi PW1, examined Ram Singh Constable PW2 who brought the daily diary of Police Post No. 7, Faridabad. He stated that in December, 1983; Puran Singh appellant was posted in Police Post No. 7, Faridabad, as Constable. He submitted a leave application which was brought by this witness in original. Its copy is Exhibit PD. Leave for period 2nd December, 1983 to 10th December, 1983, was sanctioned to Puran Singh appellant and he proceeded on leave on 2nd December, 1983, at 5.35 p.m. Puran Singh did not report for duty on 10th December, 1983. His absence report was recorded in the daily diary on that date. PW3 Daya Nand Patwari prepared siteplan Exhibit PF. Raghbir Singh PW4, father of Kusum Lata, Kapur Singh PW5, brother of Kusum Lata PW8, Ram Saran material uncle of Kusum Lata and PW9 Ram Singh deposed about the maltreatment and harassment of Shrimati Kusumlata by the appellants. PW4 Raghbir Singh lodged first information report Exhibit PG/1. PW6 Shrimati Barfi Devi, PW7 Jai Parkash, Chhatar Singh PW10 and Inder Singh PW11 were tendered for crossexamination. PW12 Sis Ram Assistant Sub Inspector recorded the first information report, investigated the case and arrested the appellants.

Mr. U.D. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants, has taken me through the findings of the learned trial Judge as contained in para 28 of the judgment which read as under :

"The learned Public Prosecutor did not contest the submission of the learned defence counsel and in my opinion, rightly that the harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or her paternal relations to satisfy the greed of the husband and inlaws of the woman was not an offence on the date of the occurrence and since such conduct has been made an offence by insertion of the provisions of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code w.e.f. 25.12.1983 vide Act No. 46 of 1983, hence the accused are not liable to be convicted on a charge under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. I am also conscious of the fact that there is no evidence on the record to show that the accused had actively instigated the deceased to commit suicide or facilitated the commission of the suicide by her by doing any act."

Mr. U.D. Gaur has also placed reliance on a Division Bench authority of this Court reported as Raj Kumar v. The State of Punjab 1983(1) Recent CR 553 : 1983(1) C.L.R. 660 , wherein their Lordships very elaborately interpreted the definition of `abetment'' of an offence. Their Lordships were pleased to hold that the expression `instigate'' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is defined `as urge on, incite, bring about by persuasion'' and in Webster, it has been defined `as urge forward, provoke with synonyms of stimulate, urge, spur, provide, tempt, incite, encourage animate''. The word `instigate'' in common parlance would mean'' to go, to urge forward or provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act.'' I am of the view that in the face of the findings of the learned trial Judge himself and in view of the ratio in Raj Kumar''s case (supra), the conviction of the appellants under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Consequently, I allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the appellants.