Rawal Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

This is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 7.6.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who convicted the appellants Rawal Singh, Smt. Bawi and Agya Ram under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for seven years.

Before I proceed further, I may state that the appeal was filed by three appellants Rawal Singh, Smt. Bawi and Agya Ram, but Smt. Bawi has since expired and resultantly her appeal stands abated and now I will be adjudicating the rights of Rawal Singh and Agya Ram, who are fatherinlaw and husband respectively of deceased Usha Rani, who died on 6.3.1995 by leaving a small daughter. I may also mention that along with Rawal Singh, Agya Ram and Smt. Bawi, Kumari Tripta, younger sister of Agya Ram, was also tried, but she was acquitted by the trial Court.

The brief facts of the case are that Usha Rani deceased was married to Agya Ram appellant. Rawal Singh is the father of said Agya Ram while Smt. Bawi deceased was the grandmother of Agya Ram and Kumari Tripta, since acquitted, is the younger sister of Agya Ram. According to the prosecution all the three appellants and Kumari Tripta used to harass Usha Rani for having brought inadequate dowry. Because of the harassment and maltreatment by the said persons, Usha Rani tried to end her life on 6.3.1995 at 9.30/10.00 a.m. by pouring kerosene oil on herself and putting herself on fire. She was got admitted in the hospital by her fatherinlaw Rawal Singh, where she suffered a dying declaration before Executive Magistrate on 6.3.1995. Thereafter the case was investigated and an F.I.R. under Section 498A IPC was registered against the accused. Usha Rani succumbed to her injuries on 22.3.1995 and the offence was changed to Section 306 IPC. However, the accused were challaned under Sections 498A and 304B IPC in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 29.8.1995 committed the accused to the Court of Session.

Vide orders dated 21.9.1995 the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined Arvind Parkash, Tehsildar PW1, Const. Subhash Chander PW2, Dr. Malkiat Singh PW3, Dr. Aruna Kumari PW4, Darshan Ram PW5 and SI Lakhbir Singh PW6.

Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. Accused denied those circumstances and the plea of Rawal Singh appellant was a under :

"After the departure of Agya Ram for his place of posting, Smt. Usha remained under depression and on that account, out of frustration she ended her life."

The plea of Agya Ram, husband of the deceased, was as follows :

"During the days of occurrence, I was serving in the State of Gujarat and I had come on leave to my native village. My mother has already died. Tripta coaccused is my younger sister and she was to be married. My wife wanted me that I should take her to my place of posting but I advised her that she should stay at home and I would take her only after the marriage of my sister Tripta. Although she insisted, but I did not agree to take her with me to Gujarat. After joining my duty, I learnt that she has ended her life and I came home and was arrested by the police."

I need not incorporate the plea of Smt. Bawi and Tripta as one has expired and the other has been acquitted.

The learned trial Court recorded the conviction against the three appellants under Section 304B IPC and aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

At the cost of repetition I am saying it that the appeal of Smt Bawi stood abated with her death. This appeal I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri J.B.S. Gill, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellants, Shri J.S. Brar, the learned Deputy Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State and with their assistance I have gone through the record of this case.

The counsel for the appellants submitted that though there is a reference of fatherinlaw in the dying declaration of the deceased, the name of appellant Rawal Singh does not find mention in the dying declaration. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation against Rawal Singh that he made a specific demand of a particular article of dowry from his daughterinlaw. The counsel submitted that a reasonable doubt has already crept in on the record, the benefit of which can easily go to Rawal Singh. The counsel also made an effort that the offence under Section 304B IPC is not made out visavis Agya Ram also and that at the most the offence under Section 498A or in the alternative under Section 306 IPC is made out. But I am not convinced with the arguments of Mr. Gill when he argued that benefit of doubt be given to Agya Ram appellant. On the contrary, the learned DAG submitted that the dying declaration should be accepted a whole coupled with the statement of Darshan Ram PW5, the father of the deceased, from which it is quite clear that both these appellants made a demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased and as such all the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC are made out.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be easily granted to Rawal Singh appellant and his appeal is liable to be accepted while that of Agya Ram should be rejected in toto. The dying declaration of Usha Rani is relevant for our purposes. According to Section 304B 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. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act further lays down that when 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. Thus the reading of both these sections would show that in order to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC with the aid of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act it has to be proved on the record that the deceased was subjected to such cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Such demand, in the view of this Court, should be little bit specific and must not be vague so as to infer that such a demand for dowry must have been made by a particular person. Here Smt. Usha Rani vide her statement Ex.PA stated before the Executive Magistrate that her marriage took place about two years back with Shri Agya Ram and she also gave birth to a female child, who is aged about 4/5 months. Her husband, fatherinlaw, grandmotherinlaw and Nanad Tripta used to taunt her that what she had brought from the house of her parents and that they did not give her to eat, so much so her husband did not give her maintenance. Further, she has stated in her statement for all these reasons she had been fed up and was compelled to commit suicide which she did on that morning at about 9.30/10.00 a.m. by pouring kerosene oil on her inside a room and thereafter she put herself on fire. She has further deposed that at that time her grandmotherinlaw was alone present but subsequently her fatherinlaw and Nanad came inside the house and the villagers after hearing the raula and commotion came there and they extinguished the fire and thereafter her fatherinlaw took her to Civil Hospital, Mukerian where she was got admitted. Thus the statement of Smt. Usha Rani would lead to an irresistible conclusion that her main grouse was that her husband was not paying the maintenance. With regard to the allegations of dowry, her allegations more or less remain vague. But nevertheless she had made certain allegations that she was subjected to taunts that she had brought inadequate dowry from the house of her parents.

Now I would like to touch with the statement of PW5 Darshan Ram, father of the deceased. This witness stated that "All the four accused after the marriage started maltreating my daughter on account of dowry and used to give her beatings for not bringing sufficient dowry." So far as the beating aspect is concerned, there is no reference in Ex.PA. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was some demand of dowry, the question arises whether it has been made by Rawal Singh or by the husband of the deceased. There is no specific allegation of a particular item that was being asked for by the husband or by the fatherinlaw. Nevertheless this Court can reasonably draw a conclusion that if there was demand of dowry, this can only come from the mouth of the husband irrespective of the fact that he was serving in Gujarat during those days. Otherwise it does not stand to reason why a woman within two years of her marriage should commit suicide and especially when she was going to leave a child of 4/5 months. It is the admitted case of the parties that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and I have already concluded above that there was a demand of dowry which can only come from the mouth of Agya Ram. This aspect of the case stands proved even from the statement of PW5 Darshan Ram who is a natural witness of this case because regarding the demand of dowry etc. only the relations, friends and the relatives of the family of the deceased can provide satisfactory evidence.

From the statement of Shri Arvind Parkash, Tehsildar it stands proved that he recorded the dying declaration and the deceased was fit to make a statement. The dying declaration can be relied upon either in part or as a whole. The part of dying declaration has already been relied upon by the trial Court when it gave benefit of doubt to Kumari Tripta. Dr. Malkiat Singh PW3 proved the certificate of fitness by stating that deceased was fit to make a statement before the Executive Magistrate and Dr. Aruna Kumari PW4 deposed about the postmortem examination stating that deceased was having 50 per cent burns and the cause of death in this case was septaecaemia and shock on account of burn injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor has further stated that the burns were ante mortem in nature. Thus I am of the opinion that the case of Rawal Singh appellant is distinguishable from his coaccused Agya Ram. Rawal Singh is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, his appeal stands accepted and he stands acquitted of the charge framed against him. But so far the appeal of Agya Ram is concerned, it is hereby dismissed in toto.

Let intimation about the acceptance of appeal of Rawal Singh be sent to the Central Jail, Ludhiana where he is serving the sentence. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted or convicted in any other case.