Satnam Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.7.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in Sessions Case No. 7 of 27.2.1987 (FIR No. 75 of 16.9.1986 of Police Station, Dera Bassi, under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code) whereby he convicted Satnam Singh, Raghbir and Mrs Geeta (appellants herein) under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for five years each. In addition, he sentenced Satnam Singh and Raghbir Singh to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ each or in default to undergo further RI for a period of six months each. He sentenced Geeta to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to undergo further RI for three months. He directed that amount of fine if realised shall be paid to the father of deceased Smt. Bimla.

Prosecution case briefly stated is as follows :

Smt. Bimla daughter of Sukhdev Singh was married to Satnam Singh about 1 years prior to 15.9.1986. Raghbir Singh and Ms Geeta appellants are Satnam Singh''s father and mother respectively. They are residents of village Sanauli while Sukhdev Singh PW is the resident of village Manjatri. Puran Chand is the husband of Geeta''s sister. Puran Chand had brought about the matrimonial alliance between Bimla and Satnam Singh. According to Sukhdev Singh, he had given dowry commensurate with his financial capacity. The marriage of another son of Raghbir Singh named Jit Singh took place on the day following the day of Bimla''s marriage to Satnam Singh. In the marriage of Jit Singh, the parents of Jit Singh''s bride had given earrings to Geeta accused and a ring to Raghbir Singh accused. Sukhdev Singh had not given any earrings to Geeta or ring to Ragbhir Singh. Soon after the marriage of Bimla to Satnam Singh, dissatisfaction arose in the mind of Satnam Singh, Raghbir Singh and Ms Geeta as according to them Bimla had not brought adequate dowry in marriage. On the 15th day of the marriage of Bimla with Satnam Singh, Bimla returned to the house of her parent along with her husband Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh left for his village leaving Bimla behind with her parents at village Manjatri. A few days thereafter Satnam Singh began visiting the house of his wife''s parents and requested his fatherinlaw to send Bimla to the matrimonial home. Bimla was sent to the matrimonial home about a month after she had been left there by her husband. She was sent to the matrimonial home per the request of her husband Satnam Singh. She stayed there for about four months. Appellants harassed, illtreated and taunted Bimla during that period of her stay in the matrimonial home. Harassed by their taunts and illtreatment, she returned to her parents house. She told her father Sukhdev Singh that her fatherinlaw was demanding ring and her motherinlaw was demanding earrings. She further told her father Sukhdev Singh that her husband had been illtreating her and giving her beatings. About four months prior to 15.9.1986, Satnam Singh, his father Raghbir Singh accompanied by Puran Chand went to the hose of Sukhdev Singh and requested him to send Bimla with them to the matrimonial home. Sukhdev Singh convened panchayat consisting of people including Joginder Singh Sarpanch, Bhajan Singh and Jawala Singh Panch. Sukhdev Singh told the panchayat about harassment, illtreatment to which his daughter had been subjected to in the matrimonial home by her husband, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw during her stay with them. Assurance was given to him by Puran Chand that he would see that his daughter was not harassed or illtreated by her husband, fatherinlaw or motherinlaw and that he should send his daughter to the matrimonial home with them without any fear of her being illtreated or harassed in the matrimonial home. His daughter, however, felt apprehensive of foul play at the hands of her husband and his parents. She told the Panchyat that if she went to the matrimonial home, they might kill her because of persistent demand for earrings and ring for her inlaws and her corresponding inability to fulfil their demand. She declared in the panchayat that she might feel compelled to commit suicide if she was forced to go to matrimonial home. She was sent to the matrimonial home on intervention of the panchayat supplemented by the assurance given by Puran Chand.

On 15.9.1986, Pal Singh went to Sukhdev Singh PW to inform him that his daughter Bimla had burnt herself to death in the chaubara of her inlaws. On receipt of that information, Sukhdev Singh went to the house of inlaws of his daughter Bimla alongwith his son Gurmukh Singh and found the deadbody of his daughter Bimla lying in the chaubara of her inlaws with burns all over the body. Police was also present there. His son''s thumb impression was obtained on inquest report. The deadbody was taken to Civil Hospital, Rajpura for post mortem examination. On 17.9.1986, Sukhdev Singh was called to Police Station Dera Bassi and his statement was recorded. It may be mentioned here that the matter was reported at Police Station, Dera Bassi by Satinder Singh, Sarpanch of village Sanauli vide DDR No. 7 recorded on 15.9.1986 at 2.30 PM. On 15.9.1986 at about 10/11 AM, Satinder Singh Sarpanch of Village Sanauli was away to Mubarakpur. At about 11.00 AM or 12.00 noon, Jit Singh Panch came to him and told him that Raghbir Singh''s daughterinlaw i.e. wife of Satnam Singh had burnt herself to death. Thereupon, Satinder Singh Srpanch and Jit Singh went to Village Sanauli. They took Sampuran Singh chowkidar, Jagir Singh Panch and Baldev Singh with them to the house of Raghbir Singh. They reached the chaubara of his house and found Bimla lying dead with burns. Clothes worn on the deadbody were also lying burnt. A bed was lying in the chaubara which was intact. According to Satinder Singh Sarpanch, Jit Singh Panch and others, there was rumour in the village that Satnam Singh, Raghbir Singh and his wife used to illtreat and harass Bimla which compelled Bimla to blow out the flame of life in her. Satinder Singh Sarpanch left Sampuan Singh chowkidar with the deadbody and went to Police Station Dera Bassi alongwith Jagir Singh and Baldev Singh Panches and reported the matter to the police vide DDR No. 7 Ex. P.F. Post Mortem examination on the deadbody of Bimla was performed by Dr. Dhanpat Rai Gupta, Senior Medical Officer Incharge A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura on 16.9.1986. The deadbody was identified by Satinder Singh and Gurmukh Singh. Burnt clothes were sticking to the deadbody. Tongue was swollen and protruding between the teath. There were 100% deep burns on all over the body and scalp. All organs were congested. Stomach was empty. Burns were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death, in his opinion, was due to shock as a result of burns. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was within 36 hours. Formal FIR Ex. PF/1 was recorded on 16.9.1986 at Police Station, Dera Bassi. after the receipt of post mortem report on the basis of DDR No. 7 dated 15.9.1986 Ex. PF. After investigation, Satnam Singh, Raghbir Singh and Ms. Geeta were challaned.

Case was committed to the court of Sessions at Patiala.

Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala charged the accused (appellants) under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 5.3.1987. The accusedappellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

Vide order dated 10.7.1987, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala amended the charge. He charged the accused under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

With a view to bring home to the accused, the charge levelled against them, the prosecution examined Dr. Dhanpat Rai Gupta, S.M.O. Incharge of A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura PW1; Sukhdev Singh PW2, Rajesh Kumar Draftsman Municipal Committee PW5, Joginder Singh PW4 and ASI Bakhshish Singh PW5. Besides affidavit Ex. PE of Head Constable Amrik Singh No. 189 was tendered into evidence. Satinder Singh, Jagir Singh, Baldev Singh, Jit Singh and Mukhtiari PWs were given up as won over. ASI Brahma Nand was given up as unnecessary.

The accused when examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the imputations appearing in the persecution evidence against them and stated that it is a false case. In their defence they examined Puran Singh DW 1, Puran Chand DW 2, Head Constable Balbir Singh No. 436 of Police Station Dera Bassi DW3, Mukhtiari wife of Gurbax Singh DW4 and Kapuria Ram DW5.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code proved against the accusedappellants, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.

I have heard Shri T.S. Sangha, counsel for the appellants, Shri B.S. Sewak, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Punjab and have gone through the records.

Looking to the growing number of young brides being sacrificed at the altar of dowry, the legislature introduced section 304in the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B Indian Penal Code, defines `dowry death'' as follows :

" 304B. (1) 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.

Explanation. For the purposes of this subsectoin, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

Subsection 2 of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code has made dowry death punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Dowry death is not murder of a young bride but it has been viewed with the same seriousness by the legislature as murder while providing that the dowry death can be punishable with imprisonment for life. If young bride is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home by her husband or relative of her husband because of demand for dowry being made on her but not fulfilled by her, the legislature has come to the rescue of such young brides by the introduction of section 498A Indian Penal Code which has made mere cruelty to such young brides punishable. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :

" 498A. 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.

(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 is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

Since absolute proof of dowry death of young bride or cruelty to the young bride takes place in the matrimonial home which is invariably away from the place of her parents is difficult to had the legislature introduced section 113A and 113B in the Evidence Act, 1872 with the object to soften the rigours of such proof. Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows :

"113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a 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 the 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 or this section, `cruelty'' shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1960)"

Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows :

`113B. Presumption as to dowry death. 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.

Explanation. For the purpose of this section, `dowery death'' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

Looking to the Legislative background while introducing section 498A, 304B in the Indian Penal Code and Section 113A and Section 113B in the Indian Evidence Act, we have to weigh the death of Smt. Bimla which took place after 1 years of her marriage in the matrimonial home.

Mahatma Gandhi said in Young India of June 2, 1928 that there is no doubt that custom of dowry is heartless. Dowry system must go. Marriage must cease to be matter of arrangement by parents for money.

Smt. Bimla wife of Satnam Singh died on 15.9.1986 in the matrimonial home. According to the post mortem examination, there were 100% deep burns on all over the body and scalp. These burns were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was due to shock as a result of burns. For bringing home to the accused that it was dowry death, the prosecution had to prove that death took place within seven years of her marriage and it was a death under abnormal circumstances and further soon before her death, she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with demand for dowry. Sukhdev Singh PW, who is her father, has stated that on the following day when Bimla''s marriage took place, the marriage of Jit Singh another son of Raghbir Singh took place. He had not given any earrings to Smt. Geeta i.e. motherinlaw of his daughter. He had not given any ring to Raghbir Singh i.e. fatherinlaw of his daughter. On the other hand parents of the bride of Jit Singh had given earrings to Geeta and ring to Raghbir Singh. Nongiving of earrings to Geeta and ring to Raghbir Singh by him was the cause of cruel treatment being meted out to Bimla by her husband and parentsinlaw. Sukhdev Singh PW has stated that on 15th day of the marriage of Bima, she returned to his house alongwith her husband Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh left her with him while he himself returned to his village Sanauli. A few days after, Satnam Singh began visiting his house time and again and requested him to send Bimla. On his request, he sent Bimla to the matrimonial home a month after she had been left with him by her husband. She stayed there for four months. Thereafter, She came to him and told him that her fatherinlaw was demanding ring and her motherinlaw was demanding earrings and that her husband had been illtreating her and giving her beatings. About four months prior to her unfortunate end she was sent to the matrimonial home through the intervention of respectables including Joginder Singh Sarpanch, Bhajan Singh and Jawala Singh Panch and Puran Chand mediator of the marriage. He was not ready to send her to matrimonial home because she was harassed and illtreated during her previous stay with them. He sent her to the matrimonial home on the assurance given by Puran Chand (mediator of the marriage) that nothing untoward would happen to her and he would see that she was treated with love and affection. His daughter was not ready to go to the matrimonial home and she told the Panchayat that she was apprehensive of foul play at the hands of her husband and parentsinlaw who might kill her if she want to the matrimonial home to cohabit with her husband because of their persistent demands for earrings and ring for her parentsinlaw and the inability of her parents to fulfil that demand. She also declared before the panchayat that forced by their illtreatment, she might have to commit suicide. She had stayed in the matrimonial home for about four months when she met with her unfortunate end. The question that arises is whether there was any demand for earrings for Geeta and ring for Raghbir Singh by Satnam Singh, Geeta and Raghbir Singh upon Bimla. It was submitted by the leraned Counsel for the appellants that this fact does not find mention in the statement of Sukhdev Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. DA. it was submitted that the omission to state this fact is a very serious omission which would recoil heavily on the truth of the prosecution case. Suffice it to say, in statement Ex. DA, Sukhdev Singh had stated that he had given dowry is Bimla''s marriage according to his financial capacity. Raghbir Singh, Geeta and Satnam Singh were, however, not happy with dowry he had given and started taunting Bimla. On the day following the day of Bimla''s marriage, the marriage of Jit Singh the other son of Raghbir Singh took place. Jit Singh''s bride brought more dowry visavis the dowry which Bimla had brought for them. Raghbir Singh, Satnam Singh and Geeta Began illtreating Bimla because they were not satisfied with the dowry which Bimla had brought for them in he marriage. 15 days after Bimla''s marriage to Satnam Singh, Satnam Singh brought Bimla to his house and left her there and took her with him after some time. She stayed in the matrimonial home for about 5/6 months. Satnam Singh''s parents were demanding ring and earrings. His daughter expressed her inability to fulfil this demand saying that her parents were poor. Thereupon, they started hurling more taunts on her. After some time her parentsinlaw sent her to his house saying that she would not be brought till she brought ring and earrings for them. It is true the demand for ring and earrings by Bimla''s husband and inlaws does not appear in the manner in which it appears in the statement of Sukhdev Singh PW.2 made by him before the court but it appears quite clear that there was demand for ring and earrings by them and they were not satisfied with Bimla because she had not brought dowry to their satisfaction. In earlier statement Ex. DA of Sukhdev Singh this fact clearly figures. There is no improvement at all by Sukhdav Singh PW on his earlier statements. Sukhdev Singh PW is a rustic, slight improvement here and there by him on his previous statement cannot induce the court to say that his is a fabricated statement. If the substratum of the statement remains the same that there had been demand for dowry, we cannot dub his statement before the court as an improved version on his earlier version. Broadly speaking the grievance of Sukhdev Singh PW before the police was that the husband and parentsinlaw of his daughter were not satisfied with the dowry he had given in marriage and they taunted her that the dowry brought by her was inadequate and that she had not brought ring for Raghbir Singh and earrings for Geeta. Joginder Singh PW4, who is sarpanch of village Manjatri, stated that about four months prior to 15.9.1996 i.e. when Smt. Bimla burnt herself to death, her father Sukhdev Singh had convened a Panchayat consisting of respectables of the village on the occasion when Satnam Singh accompanied by Purn Chand came to Village Manjatri for taking Bimla to the matrimonial home. Jawala Singh Panch and Bhajan Singh exSarpanch were also among the respectables of the village. Panchayat asked Bimla why she was not willing to go with her husband to the matrimonial home, she told that she was being illtreated and harassed by her husband and his parents and earrings and ring were being demanded by them from her. Puran Chand gave assurance to Bimla and her father that she would not be illtreated or harassed in the matrimonial home if she went to matrimonial home. Bimla told the panchayat that if she went to the matrimonial home she would commit suicide if she was harassed again by her husband and his parents. She committed suicide in the matrimonial home four months after she was sent by the respectables in the wake of the assurance held by Puran to her. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Joginder Singh PW4 should not be believed as if he had really attended the socalled assemblage, he would have gone to village Sanauli the moment the information about her death had reached village Manjatri. Suffice it to say, he attended that assemblage. Smt. Bimla was sent to matrimonial home on the assurance given by Puran Chand. He joined the investigation of the case on the third day of the death of Bimla because earlier he was away from the village.

It is true that there is no mention about Puran Chand having mediated the marriage of Bimla to Satnam Singh in the statement made by Sukhdev Singh under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, however, equally true that she was sent to the matrimonial home on the assurance given by Puran Chand that Bimla would not be illtreated or harassed in the matrimonial home by her husband and parentsinlaw. It would bear repetition that Sukhdev Singh PW is a rustic. How could he be consistent with arithmatic precision in his statement before the court with what he had stated before the police? This fact does find mention in his statement that he sent Bimla to the matrimonial home on the intervention of respectables of village, named Joginer Singh etc. and on the assurance given by Puran Chand that she would not be illtreated in the matrimonial home. A careful going through of the statement made by him before the court would reveal that the story deposed to by him is the same which he had deposed before the police at the earliest occasion. There is no doubt that if a witness takes a somersault before the court visavis his earlier statement before the police he renders himself unreliable but if substratum of the version remains the same that there had been demand for dowry, his version will have to be subjected to closer scrutiny before it is accepted.

It may be exaggeration on the part of Sukhdev Singh PW when he stated that his daughter told him that her husband had been giving her beatings and the fact remains that in his earlier statement, he had stated that his daughter was being illtreated by her husband and her parentsinlaw as they were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her in marriage. In the Inquest proceedings the statement of Sukhdev Singh Ex. DB/1 was recorded in which he had stated that his daughter stayed in the matrimonial home for 5/6 months and thereafter her motherinlaw Geeta and fatherinlaw Raghbir Singh began taunting her. As a sequel to their taunts, Bimla came to him. His soninlaw Satnam Singh told him that till a pair of earrings was given to his mother and ring to his father he would not take Bimla to the matrimonial home. He told Satnam Singh that he was poor, unable to give earrings and ring for his mother and father. He sent Bimla with Satnam Singh on the assurance given by Puran Chand. He had stated that Satnam Singh and Raghbir Singh kept illtreating Bimla. In later statement, recorded on 17.9.1986 Ex. DA he had stated that Raghbir Singh and Geeta were asking for ring and earrings from Smt. Bimla and that Smt. Bimla replied that her parents were poor and unable to fulfil this demand and thereupon they began taunting, harassing her still more. Smt. Bimla came to him. Satnam Singh began visiting his house. After some time he sent Bimla with Raghbir Singh and Satnam Singh. Thereafter Raghbir Singh and Satnam Singh sent Bimla to his house telling he that she would not be taken to the matrimonial home till she brought earrings and ring. In my opinion, the substratum of the statement of Sukhdev Singh PW during inquest proceedings is also the same.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no proof that Jit Singh''s bride had brought a pair of earrings/ring for her parentsinlaw. It was submitted that if she is not proved to have brought earrings and ring for her parentsinlaw the whole foundation of the prosecution case will crumble like a house of cards. Suffice it to say, Smt. Bimla died in the house of her inlaws within 11/2 year of her marriage and cause of death was burns.

The question then arises is: whether it was a case of death by accidential fire or it was a case of death by commission of suicide. In his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Satnam Singh stated that on 15.9.1986, he was at his tailoring shop at Chandigarh Aerodrome about ten kilometres away from his village while his father and mother were working in the fields. The deceased was separate in mess and residence and he used to live in the chaubara alongwith his wife. At about 10.30 AM when his wife was working on the stove, she caught fire. She immediately came out of chaubara. While running to the courtyard of chaubara, she raised hue and cry `bachao, bachao''. Fire spread engulfing her. Mukhtiari, Kirpal Singh neighbours and Jagir Singh Panch of village Sanauli reached the chaubara and tried to save the deceased by throwing ash and earth on her but to no effect. She fell near the door of chaubara. Dr. Karam Singh was brought by Avtar Singh. Soma Singh brought his parents from the fields while he was called by Rajinder Singh from his shop. He and driver Satpal Singh went in a truck belonging to Sarpanch Satinder Singh of village Sanauli to bring Sukhdev Singh father of deceased and in that truck Sukhdev Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jit Singh and some other ladies came to the spot at about 4.00 PM. He, his father and mother were arrested by Police from the house. No value can be attached to the defence version because there is no evidence that Smt. Bimla caught fire while working on a stove. The deadbody of Smt. Bimla was found in the chaubara itself. If Smt Bimla had caught fire while working on the stove she would have run for safety. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the burnt clothes worn by Bimla were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory by the prosecution. If those had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratoory the Forensic Science Laboratory would have analysed them. If on analysis it had been found that there was element of kerosene in them that would have been an assuring circumstance that she had doused herself with kerosene. Suffice it to say the burnt clothes were sticking to the body. Dr. Dhanpat Rai Gupta PW1 stated that there was no smell of kerosene or petrol from the pieces of clothes sticking to the body. The pieces of clothes sticking to the body were removed by the doctor and they were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. No inference can be drawn if those pieces of clothes were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory as if those clothes had been burnt altogether how could there be the emission of any smell of kerosene. Even otherwise the kerosene evaporates after some time.

House of Puran Chand PW1 is at a distance of 300/400 yards from the house of the accused appellants. It is not believable that on hearing hue and cry of Smt. Bimla he reached the house of her inlaws from her house and saw Bimla ablaze crying `bachao, bachao''. Puran Chand DW2 who stated that there was no dispute between Smt. Bimla and her husband and prentsinlaw about non giving of earrings or ring to her parentsinlaw by her parents and therefore, there could be no question of his joining any assemblage for resolving any dispute between them, cannot be believed as if he had been forthright in his statement he would have stated that Jit Singh''s bride brought earrings and ring for her parentsinlaw in her marriage to Jit Singh when he had attended that marriage. Puran Chand DW2 must support the defence version as he is massar of Satnam Singh. Mukhtiari DW3 must also support the version of Satnam Singh as she is their neighbour. Smt. Bimla was dead before arrival of Mukhtiari. She has not stated that it was being said at the spot that Smt. Bimla had caught fire accidentally while working on stove. Kapooria DW is the fatherinlaw of Jit Singh son of Raghbir Singh. He must state that he had given no earrings and ring for Geeta and Raghbir Singh as if he states that he gave earrings and ring for Geeta and Raghbir Singh that might imperil and jeopardise the matrimonial relations of his own daughter with Jit Singh.

Section 113A of the Evidence Act raises presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman on proof of the fact that she was being subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of the husband if she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage.

Harassment of a woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her to meet such demand, is `cruelty''. If there was constant demand for earrings and ring upon Smt. Bimla and on account of her inability to fulfil that demand she was harassed, taunted or illtreated that would amount to `cruelty''. In his earlier statement recored on 15.9.1986 Ex. DB/1 of Sukhdev Singh PW there is mention that Smt. Geeta was not satisfied with the dowry brought by Smt. Bimla in her marriage to Satnam Singh. All that he had stated in statement Ex. DB/1 was that his soninlaw Satnam Singh had told that till pair of earring was given to his mother and ring to his father he would not take Bimla to the matrimonial home, He had further stated in statement Ex. DB/1 that thereupon he replied that he was poor unable to afford earrings and ring. At that time, Smt. Bimla was with him. Satnam Singh''s massar came to him and on his assurance that Bimla would not be illtreated, he sent Bimla to the matrimonial home about four months prior to this incident. Thereafter also, Raghbir Singh and his son Satnam Singh continued quarrelling with Bimla. In later statement Ex. DA dated 17.9.1986 also, Sukhdev Singh had not named Smt. Geeta as illtreating Smt. Bimla. He named only Satnam Singh and Raghbir Singh illtreating Bimla.

Assuming that Smt. Geeta also joined Satnam Singh and Raghbir Singh in the demand for earrings and ring that will not attract the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Provisions of Section 498A would be attracted if demand for dowry is accompanied by harassment of the woman so that she feels coerced to meet that demand. Demand for dowry may be an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act but it is not an offence of the type defined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

In this case, the prosecution has successfully proved that Smt. Bimla doused herself with kerosene and set herself ablaze because she was being illtreated by her husband and fatherinlaw because she had not been able to fulfil their demand for earrings and ring for Smt. Geeta and Raghbir Singh respectively. On proof of the fact that when death took place, marriage of woman was within seven years and that she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand for dowry made on her remaining unfulfilled, the provisions of section 113 of the Evidence Act would be attracted.

Marriage is not a matter of arrangement by parents for money. Marriage is an important institution devised by society object of which is the procreation of human race and the performance of certain religious duties. Solemnization of marriage was an important social function among followers of each religion in every clime. From times immemorial, the respectable type of marriage in India has been commemorated by giving away one''s daughter or sister at wedlock with dedicated gifts or earrings or cash one could easily afford to give. Marriage is not only union of one man with one woman but the union of two families. In earlier periods, the element of monetary bargain into marriage was not at all present and the main consideration for marriage was the social and economic status of the families and compatibility of horoscopes of the bride and bridegroom. Element of dowry has entered the domain of marriage and in some cases, it has polluted the domain of marriage because of growing materialism. Dowry is viewed as menace by social scientists, religious Pundits and the forerunners of the society. Taking stock of the menace of dowry which was taking heavy toll of young brides, the legislature introduced section 304B in the Indian Penal Code.

To lessen the burden of proof on the prosecution, the legislature introduced section 113A and 113B in the Evidence Act. Cruelty simpliciter to a young bride on account of demand of dowry remaining unfulfilled has been made punishable by section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

In my opinion, the prosecution has successfully brought home to Raghbir Singh and Satnam Singh the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and they were justifiably convicted by the learned trial Court under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Their conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is accordingly maintained.

Smt. Geeta accusedappellant ought to have been given the benefit of doubt. She is accordingly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code framed against her.

It was Satnam Singh and not Raghbir Singh who was kingpin in the case. If Satnam Singh wanted, he could have asked his father that his inlaws were poor and were unable to meet their demand. It was he who drove his wife out of the matrimonial home and sent her to her parents with a view to bringing her ear rings and ring and therefore no leniency could be shown to in so far as sentence is concerned. Appeal qua Satnam Singh accusedappellant is dismissed as regards sentence also.

Keeping in view that Raghbir Singh was only in the back screen the sentence imposed upon him seems to be excessive. So, the sentence imposed upon him is slashed and is brought down to three year''s. R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default to undergo further R.I. for three months. Appeal qua Raghbir Singh is also dismissed subject to the reduction in the sentence as pointed out above.