Sakatar Singh vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 27, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, by which Kirpal Singh, Sakatar Singh and Joginder Kaur, appellants, were convicted and sentenced as under :

Kirpal Singh appellant :

Under Section 306/34, IPC, Seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months. u/s 498A/34, IPC, Two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment, of fine, further R.1. for one month.

Sakatar Singh, appellant:

Under Section 306/34, IPC, Four years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.1. for three months. u/s 498A/34, IPC, Two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.1. for one month.

Smt. Joginder Kaur, appellant:

Under Section 306/34, IPC, Three years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month. u/s 498A/34, IPC, Two years'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month.

Their substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Co-accused of the appellants, viz., Palvinder Kaur, Jasvinder Kaur and Kulvinder Kaur, were acquitted of the charges.

The prosecution story, briefly stated, is mat Devinder Kaur (deceased) was daughter of Pritam Kaur P.W. Baldev Singh, resident of village Landran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, was her father. She was married to accused Kirpal Singh in the year 1982 at Ambala City and two children were born out of their wedlock. The elder child was a female named Gurdip Kaur @ Nippi, who was 2 years of age at the time of occurrence. The younger one was a male named Ravinder @ Bablu, who was 9 months'' old when the occurrence took place. The birth of both these children had taken place at the parental house of their mother at Landran. One Mohinder Singh was go-between in the said marriage between Devinder Kaur and accused Kirpal Singh. P.W.14 G.S. Gosal, a retired IAS officer from Punjab and maternal uncle of Devinder Kaur, had not reconciled to this relationship but he had to yield to it as fait accompli. Two to three months after the solemnization of marriage, accused Kirpal Singh, his father Sakatar Singh, his mother Joginder Kaur and his sisters Palvinder Kaur, Jasvinder Kaur and Kulvinder Kaur started harassing and ill-treating, Devinder Kaur and making unlawful demand for T.V., Scooter and Fridge. After the birth of the second child of Devinder Kaur, none from the family of her in-laws had come to see her at Landran because they were annoyed with non-fulfilment of their unlawful demand. Therefore, on the advice of G.S. Gosal PW, Pritam Kaur (P.W. 7), mother of deceased Devinder Kaur, accompanied by her elder son Jaspal Singh, visited the house of the accused at Layalpur Basti, Ambala City and assured them that their demand would be fulfilled after the harvesting of the crop. Baldev Singh, father of Devinder Kaur (deceased), was not alive by then. After the said assurance, accused Kirpal Singh visited village Landran and brought back Devinder Kaur with their two children, Nippi and Bablu, to his house at Ambala City. Devinder Kaur, however, did not receive better treatment at Ambala as she was continuously taunted and harassed for not bringing demanded articles. PW Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch of village Landran, was also told by Devinder Kaur about this unlawful demand of the accused when he happened to meet her. On May 18,1986, just four days before the occurrence, Pritam Kaur had visited Ambala to enquire about the well-being of her daughter Devinder Kaur. She noticed Devinder Kaur in tears, who could not communicate anything to her as Joginder Kaur, her mother-in-law, also happened to be there. Devinder Kaur advised her mother not to come to her in future. It is also alleged that on the death of Baldev Singh, father of Devinder Kaur, all the accused wanted Devinder Kaur to have her share in several acres of land owned by her father.

On May 21,1986, Ajmer Singh, a resident of village Loh Simbli, which is near Layalpur Basti, Ambala City, broke the news at Landran that Devinder Kaur and her two children had been murdered by her in-laws (accused), hearing which inmates in the parental house of Devinder Kaur started weeping and crying and, after a short while, all of them accompanied by their neighbours and other well-wisher left for Layalpur Basti, Ambala. On reaching there, they found that Devinder Kaur and her two children had been removed to City Hospital by accused Sakatar Singh with burn injuries. The three injured were medico-legally examined by Dr. V.P. Mann (P.W. 3), who also sent ruqa, Ex. PG, to Police Post No. 3 of Ambala City about the arrival of three persons with burn injuries. The police rushed to the hospital .and sought the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Devinder Kaur to make a statement but the doctor declared her unfit to make a statement. Shortly thereafter, Devinder Kaur and her two children expired. On reaching Ambala, Pritam Kaur (P.W. 7) made a statement, Ex. PN, to the police; on the basis of which a case u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered vide FIR Ex. PN/2. Autopsy on the dead bodies of Devinder Kaur and her two children was conducted by Dr. N.K. Bedi (P.W. 1) and Dr. R.S. Garg (P.W. 2), both Senior Medical Officers of Civil Hospital, Ambala City and they opined that Devinder Kaur and her two children had died due to shock and toxaemia as a result of ante-mortem burns, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between the injuries and death was opined to be 24 hours and that between death and post-mortem between 24 hours and 36 hours. The doctors also found smell of kerosene from the scalp, hair and eye-brows of the deceased. Exhibit PA/1, Ex. PB and Ex. PC are carbon copies of post-mortem reports of the deceased.

Further investigation in the matter was taken up by the police. Photographs Exhibits P11 to P16 were got taken and a scaled site plan. Ex. P.J. was also got prepared. The scene of the occurrence was also visited by the experts of Forensic Science Laboratory and the articles removed from the dead bodies were made over to the police by the doctors and the same were sent to the Laboratory for analysis. During investigation, letter Ex. P. 28, allegedly written by Devinder Kaur and posted from Ambala was produced before the Police. The letter was addressed by Devinder Kaur to her mother at Landran and it was found to contain the seal of Ambala Post Office as per comparison done by Mr. Ram Kishan, Sub-Post Master (P.W. 9) with the specimen seal of that particular day preserved in the Post Office. This letter, according to the prosecution, also spoke harassment and taunting of Devinder Kaur at the hands of her in-laws. After receipt of reports, Exhibits PT and PT/1, from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the offence was changed from the one u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, to that under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution, to prove its case against the accused, examined Dr. N.K. Bedi (P.W. 1), Dr. R.S. Garg (P.W.2), Dr. V.P. Mann (P.W. 3), Udey Bhan, Draughtsman (P.W. 4), Constable Raghbir Singh (P.W. 5), Naresh Kumar, Photographer (P.W. 6), Pritam Kaur (P.W. 7), Jaspal Singh (P.W. 8), Ram Kishan, Sub- Postmaster (P.W. 9), S.I. Hardev Singh (P.W. 10), Constable Daya Nand (P.W. 11), Ajmer Singh, informant (P.W. 12), Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch (P.W. 13), Mr. G.S. Gosal (P.W. 14), Inspector Charan Dass (P.W. 15) and Saminder Singh, DSP (P.W. 16) both Investigating Officers.

When examined u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, all the accused admitted marriage of Devinder Kaur with accused Kirpal Singh as also other relationship attributed to them. They, however, denied the story of harassment, ill-treatment or unlawful demand of dowry. The accused also did not dispute the death of Devinder Kaur and her two children due to burn injuries. They, however, disputed that Devinder Kaur was forced to take that extreme step because of their behaviour or conduct.

Accused Kirpal Singh in his defence pleaded that Devinder Kaur was a lady of hot temper and could not adjust in their family. She wanted accused Kirpal Singh to leave farming and start doing some job at Chandigarh, which was to be secured to him through the influence of her maternal uncle, Mr. G.S. Gosal, IAS Officer, Devinder Kaur also did not relish a homely life as a farmer''s wife and would often express that the parents of accused Kirpal Singh were illiterate, uncultured and with low standard of living. For these reasons, Devinder Kaur used to lead a very reserved life and she may have thought of ending her life as well as the lives of her two children. Accused Kirpal Singh further pleaded that he alongwith his parents and three sisters had been falsely implicated at the instance of G.S. Gosal (P.W. 14).

Accused Joginder Kaur, mother-in-law of deceased Devinder Kaur, pleaded alibi and stated that she had gone to the fields at the relevant time with meals for the people working in the fields. She denied that she ever harassed or taunted Devinder Kaur (deceased) or made any unlawful demand of dowry.

Accused Sakatar Singh, father-in-law of deceased Devinder Kaur, also pleaded alibi. His case was that he had gone to the fields with a plough to till the land and his wife Joginder Kaur had brought meals for him and that when they learnt that Devinder Kaur with her two children had committed suicide, they immediately rushed to the house and removed Devinder Kaur and her two children to the hospital.

Accused Kirpal Singh examined Sucha Singh, a resident of Layalpur Basti, Ambala City, as D.W.I, who stated that he often visited the family of the accused and neither he nor his wife ever saw any quarrel between Devinder Kaur and her husband. He also stated that Devinder Kaur was never coerced to bring more dowry and that the accused were by themselves very well-off.

The undisputed facts of the prosecution case are that the accused are inter-related to each other in the manner described by the prosecution; that Devinder Kaur (deceased) was married to accused Kirpal Singh and their wedlock gave birth to two children, one male and one female and both the deliveries were arranged at the house of the parents of Devinder Kaur - of course one in Kharar hospital and the other in Chandigarh hospital; that Devinder Kaur lived for about three and half years after the marriage before taking extreme step of ending her life and that of her two infant kids; that Devinder Kaur committed suicide and ended the life of her two infant kids after sprinkling kerosene and setting fire to the clothes on the bodies, which is amply proved from the statement of Dr. V.P. Mann (P.W. 3), who conducted medico-legal examination of all the three, as also from the statements of Dr. N.K. Bedi (P.W. 1), and Dr. R.S. Garg (P.W.2), Senior Medical Officers, who had jointly conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Devinder Kaur and her two kids. In fact, it is for this reason that the offence was changed by the police from that u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, to one u/s 306 read with Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. At the cost of repetition, I observe that Devinder Kaur had committed suicide within seven years of her marriage.

Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which was inserted with effect from November 25, 1983, reads as under :

"113A.-Presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband".

Explanation-For the purposes of this section, ''cruelty'' shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

Simultaneously, Section 498-A was also inserted in the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows :

"498-A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation-For the purposes of this section, ''cruelty'' means

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any ''person related to her'' to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that a legal presumption of abetment is raised against the husband or his relative if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and is subjected to cruelty. The term ''cruelty'' as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code means, inter alia, harassment to the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property etc., or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Before a presumption of abetment is raised against the husband of Devinder Kaur (deceased) or his relatives, the prosecution, in order to discharge this onus, relied on the testimony of P.W. 7 Pritam Kaur, mother of Devinder Kaur (deceased), P.W. 8 Jaspal Singh, brother of the deceased, P.W. 14 G.S. Gosal, maternal uncle of the deceased and P.W. 13 Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch of village Landran, where deceased Devinder Kaur resided before her marriage. The prosecution also relied on letter dated May 21,1986 (Ex. P28) allegedly posted by Devinder Kaur from Ambala to her parents at village Landran, expressing her alleged agony and mental condition arising from the conduct of the accused.

P.W. 7 Pritam Kaur deposed that she had two sons and one daughter. Devinder Kaur (deceased), who was married to accused Kirpal Singh was the youngest of the three children. Just two to three months after the marriage, accused started harassing and ill-treating Devinder Kaur in order to fulfil their unlawful demand for TV, Scooter and fridge. She further deposed that her husband Baldev Singh, who was a Member Panchayat, had died; that both her sons were doing petty jobs; that both the deliveries of Devinder Kaur were arranged at her house at Landran and after the birth of second child, who was a female, the accused had showed indifference and annoyance over the failure on the part of the parents of Devinder Kaur to meet their unlawful demand for TV, Scooter and Fridge etc. Accused Kirpal Singh did not even visit Landran to take Devinder Kaur and her kids back to Ambala. She further stated that this indifference of the accused was discussed at home and a consensus was evolved that the accused be assured that their demand would be met after harvesting of the crop. She further stated that she alongwith her son Jaspal Singh (P.W. 8) had visited the house of the accused and assured them that their demand would be met after the crop was harvested and on account of this assurance, accused Kirpal Singh then visited Landran and brought Devinder Kaur and his two kids to Ambala. She further stated that the accused became impatient and again repeated their unlawful demand and that on May 18,1986, just four days before the incident, she had visited Ambala to meet her daughter Devinder Kaur, but the latter was in tears and did not talk to her in the presence of her mother-in-law. She further stated that after the death of her husband Baldev Singh, the accused wanted Devinder Kaur to have her share by inheritance of her father''s property and as mutation had been sanctioned in the names of her two sons, the accused thereafter felt more annoyed and increased the degree of harassment to her daughter. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 8) in his testimony fully corroborated the statement of his mother Pritam Kaur (P.W.7). It has also come in the statements of both these witnesses that after post-mortem, the dead bodies of Devinder Kaur and her two kids were taken to Landran for cremation and last rites but none from the accused side had accompanied the dead bodies to Landran nor did any one of them ever visit Landran thereafter.

P.W. 13 Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch of village Landran, also corroborated the prosecution version as regards ill-treatment and harassment meted out to Devinder Kaur by the accused on account of dowry. He deposed that Baldev Singh, father of the deceased, was a Member Panchayat, who used to say that Devinder Kaur was sad and unhappy after her marriage and was being harassed and ill-treated on account of bringing insufficient dowry. He further stated that Baldev Singh used to mention that the accused were demanding more dowry in the form of Scooter, TV etc. The witness further stated that at one point of time, Devinder Kaur had met him at Banur; while on her way from Landran to Ambala City, and had uttered that she did not know as to what was in store for her at the house of her in-laws. He further stated that Devinder Kaur had also mentioned to him that after the death of her father and sanction of mutation in the names of two sons of Baldev Singh, the bitterness in the heart of the accused had increased further.

P.W.14 G.S. Gosal, who is a retired IAS officer from Punjab and maternal uncle of Devinder Kaur (deceased), deposed that Devinder Kaur was a sweet tempered girl; that he was not reconciled to the marriage of Devinder Kaur with accused Kirpal Singh; that fraudulent representation had been made by the accused that Kirpal Singh was Overseer and that they had substantial land. He further stated that accused Kirpal Singh was found to be just a Matriculate and the land was also not that much. He further stated that after marriage, Devinder Kaur used to speak to him about the cruelty at the hands of her in-laws and that even his brother-in-law, Baldev Singh, used to mention about the unlawful demand of more dowry including Fridge, TV, Scooter, etc. by the accused. He further deposed that his brother-in-law was worried about the well-being of Devinder Kaur during his life-time; that the mother of Devinder kaur in consultation with other relations of family had evolved a consensus that something should be given to the in-laws of Devinder Kaur in order to keep their mouth shut and it was decided that all this would be done after the first death anniversary of his brother-in-law as by that time, the money would be available after harvesting of the crop. The witness further stated that by the passage of time, they had learnt that the accused had asserted for a share also in the inheritance of his brother-in-law Baldev Singh and that after some time, they learnt that Devinder Kaur along with her two children had committed suicide by setting fire to her and her children, on account of the pressure brought on her by her in-laws for more dowry and share in the estate of his brother-in-law.

Another piece of evidence on which the prosecution relied is the letter dated May 21,1986 (Ex. P28) allegedly written by Devinder Kaur (deceased) from Ambala to her mother Pritam Kaur in Punjabi, but its English transliteration has been supplied for facility of the Court. The letter written on a postal inland letter has been proved by G.S. Gosal (P.W. 14), Pritam Kaur (P.W. 7) and Jaspal Singh (P.W. 8). It was further proved by Ram Kishan, Sub-Post Master (P.W. 9) that the letter, Ex. P28, had been actually posted from Ambala. This witness deposed that he had compared the seal on letter, Ex. P28, with the specimen seal of the office of posting kept in the custody of Sub-Post Master and it bore the posting date stamp of Railway Road, Ambala City Post Office of 20.5.1986. The letter, Ex. P28, brings out three things. It speeks about the treatment meted out to Pritam Kaur by the in-laws of Devinder Kaur on her visit to Ambala City. It also speaks of the tears'' dominated atmosphere which followed the return of Pritam Kaur from Ambala City. It also speaks of the comments and observations made at the house of in- laws of Devinder Kaur on a present of Rs. 20/- given to Jaspal Singh (P.W.8), brother of Devinder Kaur, when he had visited Ambala City. In the letter, Ex. P28, a word of advice had also been written by Devinder Kaur to her mother that she should ask Jaspal Singh to visit Ambala and throw Rs. 20/- back before her in-laws.

Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellants, argued that for constituting abetment within the meaning of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be proved that the accused had actually instigated or facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. He further argued that to instigate means to urge, tempt, incite, bring about persuasion, impel, encourage and animate. Mr. Bali further argued that maltreatment of the wife by her husband does not amount to instigation to commit suicide. He also contended that all the witnesses in the prosecution story are from the side of Devinder Kaur (deceased) residing at Landran and none else had been joined from Ambala City where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. Thereafter, the learned Counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses being mother, brother and maternal uncle of the deceased and Sarpanch of the village to which they belonged, are interested witneses and, thus, they cannot be relied upon. He further argued that since there was no independent evidence in regard to actual abetment by any of the accused, therefore, the appellants were entitled to be acquitted. It was further contended by Mr. Bali that the suicide by Devinder Kaur was committed out of depression as there was a family history that she suffered from depression and was a case of schizophrenia.

Elaborating his arguments further, the learned Counsel for the appellants argued that there were two letters on the record, which were Exhibits DA and DB. It was contended that letter, Ex. DA, was written by Jaspal Singh (D.W. 8), brother of the deceased, and was addressed to his sister Devinder Kaur and that the second letter, Ex. DB, was written by Devinder Kaur herself and was addressed to her husband Kirpal Singh and that both these letters were in Punjabi and their reading suggested nothing but love and affection between the two parties. Letters, Ex. DA and Ex. DB have been admitted by Pritam Kaur (P.W. 7) in her cross-examination while the same have been denied by Jaspal Singh (P.W. 8), brother of Devinder Kaur. As Jaspal Singh (P.W.8) was examined after Pritam Kaur (P.W. 7), I do not rule out the possibility of some kind of tutoring, particularly after these were admitted by Pritam Kaur, who claimed to know Punjabi and to identify the writing of her children. However, simply one letter addressed by Devinder Kaur to her husband Kirpal Singh or by Jaspal Singh to his sister are not expected to depict the true relations between the parties. The grief and mental agony in the mind of Devinder Kaur could only be expected from her letters addressed to her parents and not to her husband. Any letter written by a wife to her husband and considered offensive by the husband would have invited further trouble to the wife. So, the letters, Exhibits DA and DB do not help the appellants.

Mr R.S. Cheerna, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the complainant, contended that there was no suggestion either to Pritam Kaur, mother of the deceased or to Jaspal Singh, brother of the deceased, or to Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch, that the deceased suffered from schizophrenia. There is no evidence on record to show family history of depression at the house of Pritam Kaur, mother of the deceased. The appellant adduced no evidence to suggest that Devinder Kaur (deceased) was ever treated in any hospital or otherwise for her depression. Therefore, I do not agree with the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that Devinder Kaur might have committed suicide under some fit of schizophrenia and the same is, therefore, rejected.

Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate, next argued that the story of harassment or maltreatment of Devinder Kaur by the accused is negatived from other circumstances, He contended that there was a marriage of father''s sister''s daughter of accused Kirpal Singh and both Kirpal Singh accused and Devinder Kaur along- with her two kids had attended and participated in that marriage with full joy and gaiety. Mr. Bali also argued that if the relations between the deceased and her husband were strained, there would have been no union of hearts of the couple in that marriage. Not only this, argued Mr. Bali, but the marriage of Devinder Kaur''s brother was also solemnised and as per admission of Pritam Kaur (P.W. 7) and Jaspal Singh (P.W. 8), both accused Kirpal Singh and his wife Devinder Kaur had attended that marriage. He argued that these circumstances were inconsistent with the story of cruelty; rather these were consistent with the harmonious relations between the deceased and accused Kirpal Singh. I do not think if this strikes at the root of the prosecution story. It appears that Devinder Kaur was being dragged like a chattel behind her husband Kirpal Singh, accused, in agonising circum- stances and the mere fact that she had attended the two marriages with her husband Kirpal Singh, accused, does not negative the story of cruelty.

It was further argued by Mr. Bali that as per admission of the prosecution witnesses, no Panchayat from village Landran or from Ambala had been assembled by the complainant party and if there had been any unlawful demand for dowry from the side of the accused, the complainant party would not have lagged behind in arranging Panchayat to make an endeavour to bring about an amicable reconciliation between the parties. He contended that this also negatives the prosecution story of cruelty by the appellants.

The defence version is that Devinder Kaur was a lady of peevish nature; that she possessed ill-temper; that she came from a family employed in service and could not adjust in the family of farmers; that she wanted accused Kirpal Singh to leave the farming and take up employment at Chandigarh which could be secured to him with the influence of her maternal uncle, G.S. Gosal, a retired IAS officer. One Sucha Singh was also examined in defence, who deposed that peace prevailed at the house of the accused and there was no demand for any kind of dowry. Such type of witnesses are not difficult to procure. It is also not correct that Devinder Kaur had come from the family of service people. Her father was a Member Panchayat and was a farmer. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that a bride of one farming family could not adjust in the family of the bridegroom which was also a farming family. Moreover, it has come in the evidence of G.S. Gosal (P.W. 14) that Devinder Kaur was a lady of sweet temper as she had been living with him and studying at stations where he remained posted.

Admittedly, Devinder Kaur with her two kids took the extreme step of suicide within seven years of her marriage with accused Kirpal Singh. She had been driven to take this extreme step on account of cruelty to her, which lay in unlawful demand by the accused for more dowry items, as brought out in the statement of Pritam Kaur (P.W. 7), her mother, Jaspal Singh (P.W.8), her brother, Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch (P.W. 13) and G.S. Gosal (P.W. 14), her maternal uncle. The mental agony and harassment at the hands of her in-laws is further brought out in letter dated May 21,1986, Ex. P28 allegedly written by Devinder Kaur from Ambala to her mother, Pritam Kaur, at Landran. The accused did not lodge any report with the police that Devinder Kaur had herself taken this extreme step of suicide. The case was registered on the statement of Pritam Kaur, mother of the deceased. It is in evidence that after post-mortem examination, the dead bodies of Devinder Kaur and her two kids were taken to village Landran for last rites and cremation. It is also in evidence, which remains un-rebutted, that none from the family of the accused had accompanied the dead bodies to village Landran or participated in the cremation at Landran. Although the defence version talks of love, affection and peace at the home of the accused, but there is un-rebutted evidence that both the children of deceased Devinder Kaur were born at her parent''s house in the hospitals, for which arrangements were made by her parents and not by her in-laws (the accused). This clearly shows the indifference of her in-laws towards Devinder Kaur. After the delivery of the second child, who was a male, the accused again showed their indifference towards Devinder Kaur. Accused Kirpal Singh, whose bounden duty after marriage was to bring back his wife and kids, did not go to his in-laws for seven months and the reason for this indifference appears obvious. It was the non-fulfilment of unlawful demand of the accused for TV, Scooter and Fridge. Finding this indifference, the elders in tine family of the parents of Devinder Kaur assured the accused that their demands would be met after the crop was harvested. Accused Kirpal Singh then visited Landran and took back his wife and children to his house at Ambala. This speaks of the greed of the family of the accused. Not only that, none from the accused side, as observed earlier, had participated in the cremation of dead bodies of Devinder Kaur and her two kids at Landran but also no intimation about the occurrence was sent by the accused to the parents of Devinder Kaur. They came to know of it from one Ajmer Singh of village Loh Simbli, which is few kilometres away from the house of the accused at Ambala. The defence version that one barber was deputed to convey this information has not been corroborated from the statement of any of the PWs. The matter aggravated after the death of Baldev Singh, father of Devinder Kaur (deceased), because the accused had started coercing Devinder Kaur to demand her share in the inheritance of her father. When the mutation of inheritance of Baldev Singh was sanctioned in the name of his two sons, it further aggravated the matter. All this suggests no other inference but cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate, further contended that Sakatar Singh, appellant, had got Devinder Kaur and her two children admitted in the hospital at Ambala; therefore, his conduct was such that he deserved to be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find no force in the argument advanced by the Counsel for the appellant. Sakatar Singh, appellant never went to see Devinder Kaur at the hospital where his grandson and grand-daughter were given birth by Devinder Kaur. Moreover, he did not visit village Landran when prosecutrix Devinder Kaur gave birth to his grandson. Sakatar Singh, appellant, also did not visit Landran when Devinder Kaur and her two children were cremated. Therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit of his having got admitted Devinder Kaur and her two children with burn injuries in the hospital. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is rejected.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.