Rai Singh and ors. vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This order will also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 373 of 1988.

Rai Singh son of Kirpa Ram, aged 55 years, Ravinder son of Rai Singh aged 24 years Savitri wife of Rai Singh aged 50 years, Rajesh Kumar son of Rai Singh, aged 17 years, Rajender son of Ram Gopal, aged 58 years, Surat Singh son of Ram Gopal aged 60 years and Man Chand son of Sedha Ram aged 55 years all residents of Mandola were tried by Shri Hari Ram, Sessions Judge. Narnaul who vide his order dated March 17, 1988 acquitted Rai Singh, Ravinder, Rajesh and Savitri under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Rajesh under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC and Inder 498A IPC and all the accused under Section 201 IPC but convicted Rai Singh, Ravinder and Savitri accused under Section 304B IPC and 498A IPC and vide his order dated March 21, 1988 he sentenced Rai Singh). Ravinder and Savitri to undergo imprisonment for life each under Section 304D IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 498A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Feeling aggrieved, they have filed this appeal

Prosecution case, in brief, is that Raj Bala deceased was married to Ravinder accused. Amin Chand PW6 is father of Raj Bala. The marriage took place on May 3, 1985. The marriage was settled through Jagram Singh PW9. Abbe Singh PW10 is married to sister of Amin Chand. Abbe Singh belongs to village Mandola, the village of the accused.

At the time of settlement of marriage, Rai Singh father of Ravinder demanded that Rs. 5,100/ each should be given on three occasions namely "Teeka", Gorva" and "Vida". There was a demand of scooter also. Amin Chand has agreed to pay Rs. 3,100/ at the time of "Teeka", Rs. 4, 100/ at the time of Gorva" and Rs. 5,100/ at the time of "Vida" but he declined to give the scooter. Amin Chand, according to the settlement, paid the amount and marriage was solemnised. The accused had also demanded 32 sets of "Terricot" cloth but Amin Chand had given 32 sets of cotton cloth.

After the marriage when Raj Bala came to the house of the accused, her motherinlaw Savitri accused taunted her by saying that a girl from a starving family has come to their house.

Raj Bala came to her parents house on June 8, 1986 as her inlaws were illtreating her. Amin Chand PW6 his brother Rain Sarup PW7 and Jagram Singh PW9 came to the house of Rai Singh and asked him as to why Raj Bala was maltreated. Rai Singh told them that Ravinder husband of Raj Bala was not ready to keep Raj Bala as his wife and as such they could not permit her to live in their house.

Raj Bala stayed in the house of her parents from June 8, 1986 to January 5, 1987. Letters Ex. P1 and, Ex. P2 were received from Ravinder accused during this period

On January 5, 1987 Ravinder accused came to the house of Amin Chand and felt sorry and requested Amin Chand to send Raj Bala with him. Raj Bala was sent with him although Raj Bala was not willing. Ravinder and Raj Bala came to Ravinder''s village on January 6, 1987.

On January 8, 1987 Ravinder accused came to house of Amin Chand PW. Shanti PW8 Wife of Amin Chand met him and he told her that Raj Bala had fallen ill but he did not tell the name of the disease. Shanti informed Amin Chand when he came back from the school.

On January 11, 1987 Amin Chand PW6 and his brother Ram Sarup PW7 came to the house of the accused. They found Raj Bala hale and hearty. They talked with Raj Bala who told them that she was being harassed and she should be taken by them from the house of the accused. Amin Chand and Ram Sarup came to the tubewell where Rai Singh accused was present. They asked Rai Singh as to why Raj Bala was being harassed. Rai Singh said there are some petty problems in the family and he will see to it that she was not harassed and no such complaint will be there in future. Amin Chand etc. felt satisfied and left for their village.

On January 13, 1987 Abbe Singh PW10 was going to his tubewell at about 400 P.M. when he saw a dead body being taken by Rai Singh, Ravinder, Surat Singh and Man Chand accused. 56 other persons were also with the dead body. He talked with R i Singh who informed him that Raj Bala had died. Abbe Singh saw the dead body and noticed that tongue of Raj Bala was protruding out. Abbe Singh enquired from Rai Singh as to how she had died. On this Rai Singh confessed that Raj Bala has been murdered by him, his wife and son and they were going to cremate her to finish evidence. Abbe Singh asked Rai Singh whether he had informed the parents of Raj Bala who requested him to go and inform her parents and also requested him that he should ask her parents not to report the matter to the police. Rajesh and Rajender accused brought wood on a camel cart, Ravinder accused also confessed his guilt before Abbe Singh. Abbe Singh asked all the accused not to cremate the dead body but they said that they must cremate the dead body so as to destroy the evidence. Abbe Singh came to the village of Amin Chand and informed him.

13 Amin Chand, on receiving the information, came to village Mandola alongwith Raj Bala PW4, his brother Ram Sarup PW7 and Abbe Singh PW10 and reached there at about 7.30 P.M. They came to the cremation ground and saw that the dead body of Raj Bala was being cremated. They came to the village, made enquiries from the villagers and learnt that Raj Bala was hale and hearty. They then came to the house of Rai Singh and enquired from him who confessed his guilt and stated that they had murdered Raj Bala and be excused. Information to the police was given and after investigation, the accused was challaned and prosecuted in the court of Shri Hari Ram, Sessions Judge, Narnaul.

The trial Court acquitted Rai Singh, Ravinder, Rajesh and Savitri of the chare under Section 302 read with, Section 34 IPC finding that the case against them for murder is not proved. The trial court did not accept the testimony of Abbe Singh incriminating the accused for this charge.

The trial court also did not accept the prosecution case and acquitted Rai. Singh, Ravinder, Rajesh, Savitri, Rajender Singh, Surat Singh and Man Chand of the charge under Section 201 IPC as the version given by Abbe Singh that he met the accused while they were taking Raj Bala to the cremation ground and had made extra judicial confession stating that they had murdered Raj Bala and they wanted to destroy the evidence was not accepted by the trial court.

The trial court accepted the prosecution case, in so far as it related to the charge under Section 304B and 498 I PC and convicted Rai Singh, Ravinder and Savitri accused for these offences.

As Rai Singh his died during the pendency of appeal, his appeal abates and we are left with Ravinder and Savitri accused.

Prosecution in support of its case had examined H.C. Bihari Lal PW1 who had recorded the FIR on the statement of Amin Chand and PW2 SI Pohap Singh who had partly investigated the case.

PW3 Virender Singh Dhillon Draftsman had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PC.

PW4 Raj Singh resident of village Khera stated that on January 13, 1986 at about 516 00 PW when he was passing in front of house of Amin Chand PW, he heard that the daughter of Amin Chand had been murdered. He alongwith Amin Chand and others came to village Mandola and saw a body burning in the cremation ground. He alongwith Basti Rain remained in the cremation ground while Amin Chand and others went to village for making an enquiry and thereafter Ram Sarup and Amin Chand went to Police Station Khol for lodging a report.

PW4 Parbhu Dyal Patwari prepared site plan Ex. PF.

PW6 is Amin Chand, father of the deceased. He stated that he is working as a teacher in Government, Middle School, Bawania. He had three daughters and one son. His daughter Raj Bala was married to Ravinder accused on May 3, 1985 and the marriage was settled through Jagram Singh PW to whom his sister is married. His second sister is married to Abbe Singh PW of village Mandola. When the marriage was settled, Rai Singh accused father of Ravinder accused, had demanded that they should be given Rs. 5,100/ each on the three occasions namely Teeka", "Gorva" and "Bida". Rai Singh also demanded a scooter. He agreed to pay Rs. 3, 100/ at the time of "Teeka", Rs. 4,100/ at the time of "Gorva" and Rs. 5. 100/ at the time of "Bida" in the presence of Jagram Singh and he fulfilled his promise. He spent Rs. 50,000/ on the marriage. The accused had demanded 32 sets of "Terricot" cloth but he gave 32 sets of cotton cloth.

When Raj Bala went after marriage, her motherinlaw had taunted her that a girl from a starving family had come to their house and that her father had not given the scooter in the marriage. The accused were not satisfied with the dowry. They used to harass her.

In June 1986. Raj Bala was beaten by Rai Singh, Savitri and Rajesh accused. She came to the house of Amin Chand on June 8, 1986 and informed them about the maltreatment. He, his brother Ram Sarup and Jagram Singh came to the house of Kai Singh where Rai Singh and Savitri met them. Rai Singh and Savitri told them that their son does not want to keep his, daughter Raj Bala and they will not permit her to live in the house. Ravinder accused was serving in the army. Amin Chand had been receiving letters from Ravinder. According to Amin Chand, Ravinder in his letters had shown his unwillingness to keep Raj Bala as his wife. The letters were produced by Amin Chand before the police.

From June 8, 1986 to January 5, 1987, Raj Bala stayed at the house of Amin Chand. On January 5, 1987 Ravinder accused came to Amin Chan''s house and begged pardon on his behalf and on behalf of his parents and promised not to repeat any mistake. He requested that Raj Bala be sent with him. Raj Bala was sent. Rai Bala had apprehension that she will be murdered but Amin Chand did not attach any importance to her request. Ravinder and Raj Bala left for their village on January 6, 1987. On January 8, 1987 Ravinder came to the house of Amin Chand and informed him that Raj Bala was ill but he did not tell the name of disease,

On January 11, 1987 Amin Chand alongwith his brother Ram Sirup came to village Mandola and went to the house of the accused. Raj Bala was found to be quite in good health. Raj Bala informed him that she was being harassed and that she should be taken by him. Amin Chand and his brother came to the tubewell where Rai Chand was present and asked him as to why Raj Bala was being harassed. Rai Singh assured that these were only small matters and he will ask his other family members not to do any such thing in future. Amin Chand and his brother came back to their village.

On January 13, 1987 at 5/600 P.M. Abhe Singh PW came to Amin Chand and informed him that Raj Bala''s body was being taken to cremation ground by Rai Singh, Rajender, Surat Singh and Mam Chand. Abbe Singh further told him that on enquiry, Rai Singh accused told him that it was the dead body of Raj Bala. Abbe Singh then saw the dead body and found tongue of Raj Bala protruding out. He asked Rai Singh whether they had informed the parents of Raj Bala but Rai Singh felt nervous and he requested Abbe Singh to inform the parents of Raj Bala and beg their pardon.

Amin Chand alongwith Ram Sarup and others came to Mandola and went to the cremation ground where they found dead body of Raj Bala in flames. According to him, they came to village Mandola and made enquiries from the villagers and were informed that Raj Bala was hale and hearty during the day, When they came to the house of Rai Singh, Rai Singh admitted his guilt and stated that they have murdered Raj Bala and they may be excused. Amin Chand alongwith Ram Sarup then went to the police Station and lodged FIR Ex. PAL. He identified letters Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 written by Ravinder accused to him.

Ram Sarup PW7, Shanti PW8, Jagram Singh PW9 Abhe Singh PW 10 supported the version given by Amin Chand.

PW11 R. S. Bagri Judicial Magistrate Ist Class stated that specimen signatures of Ravinder accused were taken in his presence,

PW12 S.I. Inder Singh is the Investigating Officer.

After the close of the prosecution case the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. Ravinder accused further pleaded as under :

"It is a false case. Raj Bala used to remain ill since the time of her marriage. We protested to parents of Raj Bala as to why the ailing daughter was married and why her ailment was concealed. She was got treated by her parents and later on by us at Rewari. She was got treated at Jaipur in October 1985. Raj Bala died a natural death due to her illness. 60/70 persons Joined her Cremation. The parents of Raj Bala were also informed."

In their defence, the accused examined DWI T.M. Wargis, Compounder in Doctor Vyas''s Neuro Psychiatric Hospital, Jaipur who had brought the admission register of the said hospital and stated that on 18101985 Smt. Raj Bala wife of Ravinder was admitted in this hospital as a patient of mental disorder. Entry of the register is Ex. DB and prescription slip is Ex. DB/1 which was prepared by Dr. Vyas and he identified the signatures of Dr Vyas Doctor Vyas. was incharge of Mental Hospital, Jaipur and after his retirement, he has started his clinic, Raj Bala was discharged on October 31, 1985.

DW2 J.P. Chowdhri Principal, Shri Krishan College, Kanwali, proved certificate Ex. DF issued by him to Rajesh.

DW3 Dr. Babu Lal Goel. a private practitioner of Rewari stated that he is running a clinic under the name Goel, Hospital at Rewari since 1981. On August 6, 1985 Raj Bala deceased was brought to him for check up and he found her, to be suffering from chronic bronchitis and his clinical findings were confirmed by X ray examination. Xray report of Raj Bala is Ex DG and prescription issued by him is Ex. DG/1. He further stated that the diagnose mentioned in Ex. DB of Dr. Vyas Hospital is schizo phienia.

DW4 Mool Chand stated that he had attended the marriage of Ravinder with Raj Bala. There was no ill feeling between the parties. His plot adjoins the residential house of accused and he was on visiting terms to the house of the accused. After marriage, he learnt that Raj Bala was having some trouble in her lungs. She was got treated at Rewari but there was no improvement in the illness of Raj Bala.

He further stated that Raj Bala died on January 13, 1987 in the house of the accused. He had joined the cremation of Raj Bala which was attended by 7080 persons of the village. He further stated that Rajesh, Rajender, Surat Singh and Mam Chand accused were not present at the time of cremation nor the dead body was stopped by Jagram Singh and Abhe Singh while being taken to the cremation ground. In fact he never saw Jagram Singh and Abhe Singh there the had seen the face, of the dead body for putting "Ghee" as is customary and her tongue was not protruding out.

DW5 Vijay Kumar deposed about Rajesh''s presence in the college on January 13, 1987.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their help.

As we have already observed, the accused were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC but Rai Singh, Ravinder and Savitri accused were convicted under Section 304B and 498A IPC.

Section 304B reads as under :

"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 be shall called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death".

41 To attract Section 304B IPC, prosecution is to prove that, the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage and was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of husband for or in connection with any demand of dowry.

It is established on the file that Raj Bala died in the house of the accused within seven years of the marriage. The crucial question which remains to be answered is whether she died otherwise than under normal circumstances and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry.

To establish that Raj Bala died otherwise than under normal circumstances, prosecution is depending upon the evidence of Abbe Singh PW 10, Jagram Singh PW9, Amin Chand PW6 and Ram Sarup PW7.

Abhe Singh stated that he saw the dead body of Raj Bala being taken to the cremation ground and on seeing the dead body, he found the tongue of deceased protruding out. This version has been, supported by Amin Chand and Ram Sarup. The trial court did not accept the testimony of these witnesses and acquitted the accused of the charges Under Section 302, read with Sec. 34 IPC and 201 IPC It has come in the evidence of Amin Chand and Ram Sarup that they were not informed about the death of the deceased and she was cremated in their absence. According to Amin Chand and Ram Sarup, it was Abhe Singh who had informed them regarding the death of the deceased. As Abhe Singh has not been relied upon by the trial court the source of information to Amin Chand cannot be called reliable. Even if it is assumed for argument''s sake that no information was sent to the parents but the question is whether simply because no information was sent, an inference can be raised that it was not sent as the accused had guilty mind. To our mind this circumstance alone although quite important is not sufficient to raise an inference that as nonformation was sent to the parents of the deceased so the accused had committed the crime. To raise this inference, there should be other circumstances present in the prosecution evidence which do not exist in this case. Raj Bala was suffering from bronchitis and had been under the treatment of Dr. Babu Lal Goel at Rewari. She had also been suffering from schizophrenia as it shown from the record of Dr. Vyas Hospital. it is in evidence that two sisters of Amin Chand were married, at village Mandola and one of them is married to Jagram Singh PW9. If she had died otherwise than under normal circumstances then somebody from village Mandola would certainly have come forward and stated that she had died an unnatural. Prosecution has examined Jagram Singh PW9 and Abbe Singh PW10. Both are husbands of sister of Amin Chand PW. They both belong to village Mandola. They had given evidence about the cremation of deceased. Both of them have not been relied upon by the trial court and their version has not been accepted. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be safely said that deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances.

The second question which arises for decision is whether soon before her death, Raj Bala was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. According to prosecution, the marriage took place on May 3, 1985. There was demand of Rs. 5, 100/ on three occasions namely "Teeka", "Gorva" and "Vida", a scooter and 32 sets of "Terricot" cloth. The demand of scooter which was made was not agreed to but marriage was performed and according to Amin Chand, he fulfilled his promise. According to the PWs, there was harassment of the deceased and in June 1986 she was given beatings by Rai Singh, Savitri and Rajesh since acquitted accused. She had come to her parental house on June 8, 1986 and narrated about harassment. Amin Chand, Ram Sarup and Jagram Singh PWs had gone to Rai Singh where according to Ram Sarup PW7 and Jagram Singh PW9, they were told that Ravinder accused was not happy with the marriage and he did not went to keep Raj Bala as his wife. and Raja Bala will not be happy in this house. From June 8, 1986 to January 5, 1987 Raj Bala remained in the house of her parents. During this period, Ravinder accused had written letters Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. On 511987 Ravinder accused came and begged pardon on his behalf and on behalf of his family members and took Raj Bala on January 6 1987 to his house. On 811987 Ravinder again came to the house of Amin Chand and told him that Raj Bala was not well. They came to Ravinder''s village on January 11, 1987 and found Raj Bala hale and hearty and on 13th she died.

The demand of dowry at the time of marriage, whether settled or unsettled, is not of much consequence if subsequently there was no harassment on account of dowry because Section 3048 IPC will only apply if there is harassment or cruelty for or in connection with dowry, soon before her death. In this case, according to Ram Sarup PW7 and Jagram Singh PW9, who ate uncles of the deceased, in June 1986 they were, told by the parents of Ravinder accused that he was not happy with the marriage and he did not want to keep Raj Bala as his wife and Raj Bala will not be happy in this house. The question which now arises for determination is whether Ravinder was unhappy with Raj Bala on account of insufficiency of dowry or there were some other reasons for friction in their married life. Ravinder accused had written letters Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. Letter Ex. P1 is dated December 3, 1986 and letter Ex. P2 is dated June 6, 1986. In Ex. P1 and Ex. P2, there is no mention of any demand of dowry or any friction on that count. In Ex. P2 dated June 6, 1986 he only shows his inability to say anything to his parents or Raj Bala. Both the parties quarrelled and he requested Raj Bala that she should try to understand his difficulty as he was neither in a position to say something to his, parents nor to her and further stated that if he had committed any wrong he was ready to have shoe beatings from her father. The letter addressed to Raj Bala is very affectionate. Letter addressed to Raj Bala is reproduced below :

"My sweet heart Raj Bala, May you live long. Raj Bala whichever I had asked you, I did due to some reasons. I shall tell all the details as and when I shall come but you should forget it completely and do not worry in any manner and not to weap and you should keep yourself happy and answer the letter early on receipt of letter. I will be happy only on receipt of your letter. If I come in the marriage of Billu, I should have to keep 2 kg. weight more. I can understand from this hint that you were happy. Now, what I should write? Only I shall wait for your letter. If you want to say more than this, you may say on my arrival. In the end, I again write you that do not think wrongly. Whichever I had asked you, I asked you due to mother so that it may keep her happy. You know that it is my duty do keep them happy. I have the love in my heart which I had earlier. I uttered ill words to you but at the time of my departure, I felt very much sorry but I was helpless. Because you know the habits of my mother but you should not tell your parents about these contents of the letter otherwise same dispute will be created and keep yourself happy. Love to Vijay Kumar and Maya. Regard to mother, father, grandmother and grand fatherinlaw. Pardon me for any mistake committed by me. Reply soon at the earliest."

In Ex. P1, be asks Raj Bala that she should not misbehave with his parents and if she respects his parents only then there will be proper married life.

These letters, when seen in the light of statements of Ram Sarup and Jagram Singh show that there were differences between Raj Bala and Ravinder as according to Ravinder as shown in his letters, she was not very respectful to his parents. In this situation if the PWs were informed by Rai Singh and his wife that Ravinder did not want to keep his wife and this marriage will not work, it cannot be said that, harassment or cruelty was for or in connection with demand for dowry. It is also in evidence that Ravinder came on January 5, 1987 and took Raj Bala from her parents house and apologized for his conduct. There was no mention of any demand for dowry at that time. Raj Bala died on January 13, 198 7. She was a patient of bronchitis and schizophrenia. It is not certain whether she died of any of these diseases or in a fit of depression being a patient of schizophrenia she committed suicide by consuming something. The accused can be held responsible if the death is not under normal circumstances resulting from cruelty on account of demand for dowry. None of the prosecution witnesses said a word that after marriage there was demand for dowry. Demand at the time of marriage was not fully met but the marriage was performed after some agreement as settled by Jagram Singh PW. After the marriage, it was Ravinder accused, the husband, who was not feeling happy with his wife due to reasons other than demand of dowry and when he patched up, he felt sorry for his conduct. There can be so many misunderstandings between a husband and wife and relations can be strained and even bitter but it cannot be always said that every strained relation between the husband and wife springs from the demand of dowry.

To attract Section 304B IPC, the prosecution should have led evidence that the relations were strained on account of demand for dowry and she was subjected to cruelty on that score but the prosecution led no evidence to that effect. In fact prosecution evidence and the relations of the deceased produced by the prosecution suggest that demand for dowry dispute was not in existence before her death as marriage was solemnised after a settlement. The inlaws of Raj Bala i.e. parents of Ravinder may not be happy or may be having a feeling that she was not from a rich family but there is no evidence to suggest that she was ever harassed on that score. The reason for the strained relations appears to be that Ravinder had his own notions of life and wanted that Raj Bala should be of absolute obedience to his parents and Raj Bala might not be coming up to his expectations. This aspect is covered from letters Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. It is also clear from the course of events that Ravinder was also apologetic and had apologized for his conduct, brought Raj Bala to his house a few days before her death and during that period, there was no complaint of harassment on account of dowry. The evidence is not clear as to whether she died a natural or unnatural death. According to the DWs., she died a natural death and was cremated in the village in the presence of 70/80 persons. This evidence may be true or my not be true but the evidence led by the prosecution i.e. statements of Abbe Singh and Jagram Singh have been rejected by the trial court and nothing else remains in the prosecution evidence to suggest that Raj Bala died otherwise than under normal circumstances.

The accused have been acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 201 IPC. The acquittal of accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC will lead to the inference that they had not committed the murder of the deceased. The direction of prosecution evidence was to that effect. In the presence of the findings of the trial court that the deceased was not murdered and there being no evidence led by the prosecution to show another suspicious circumstance, it is not possible to give a finding that she died otherwise than under normal circumstances.

The above discussion will show that there is no satisfactory evidence led by the prosecution to show that Raj Bala was subjected to harassment or cruelty for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death or that she died otherwise than under normal circumstances.

As these two aspects are required to be proved under Section 304B IPC and in their absence no conviction under Section 304B IPC can be upheld, we are constrained to hold that offence under Section 304B IPC is not proved against the accused.

Consequently the trial court was not justified in convicting them under Section 304B and 498A IPC. Their conviction and sentence are set aside. This appeal is accepted and the accused appellant are acquitted of all the charges. Accordingly Criminal Revision No. 373/88 filed by Amin Chand complainant is dismissed.