Satpal vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

By this judgment, I dispose of two Criminal Appeals No. 547 SB of 1995 (Sat Pal v. State of Haryana) and 425SB of 1996 (State of Haryana v. Sat Pal), as both the appeals have arisen from the judgment dated 7.8.1995 and order dated 8.8.1995 passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hisar, who convicted the appellant u/s 304B read with section 498A, IPC, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years u/s 304B, IPC, but the trial court did not pass any separate sentence u/s 498A, IPC, keeping in view the fact that the appellant was convicted for the major offence.

Brief facts of the case are that the present appellant Sat Pal along with Banwari Lal, Sat Narain, Saraswati and Vimla were tried for the offence u/ss 304B and 498A, IPC, and the case set up by the prosecution in the trial court was that Neelam, deceased, was married to the appellant Sat Pal on 15.5.1989. At the time of the marriage, sufficient dowry articles were given to the deceased as per the capacity of the complainantparty but the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry articles given to the deceased. Ishwar Singh, father of the deceased, had expired about one year prior to her marriage. Balwant Singh, PW7, elder brother of the deceased, used to visit her matrimonial home situated in Village Pilli Mandoori, District Hisar. As and when he visited the house of his sister, the deceased used to complain to her brother that she was being treated with cruelty by the appellant and his companions on account of demand of dowry. Similarly, as and when the deceased used to visit the house of her parents situated in Village BaruwaliI, she used to make a narration to her brother that the appellant and his companions were harassing her for bringing more dowry from the house of her parents. Further, the deceased used to tell that all the accused had also given her beatings on account of bringing inadequate dowry. So much so, the deceased wrote certain letters to her parents complaining that cruelty was being meted out to her on account of insufficient dowry. After hearing these complaints, complainant Balwant Singh, Kasturi Devi, his mother in the company of other respectables went to the house of the appellant. Panchayat was also arranged. It is the story of the prosecution that one month prior to the death of Neelam, a Panchayat was convened by the complainantparty consisting of Amar Singh, Sarpanch, Bhajan Lal, Panch, Balbir, Panch and Mohan Lal, a retired D.S.P. In the said Panchayat, appellantSat Pal and his father Banwari Lal (since acquitted) had put a demand of Chest (Tijori) and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ and they also assured the complainantparty that in future they would not harass the deceased. After that, the demand of Chest (Tijori) was met by the complainantparty but it could not make the provision of Rs. 10,000/ so that it may be paid to the appellant. However, an assurance was given to the accused that the amount would be arranged within two months. On 8.3.1995, the deceased had also attended the marriage of the son of her uncle, at Village Bikaner in District Rewari, and from there, she had straightaway gone to her inlaws'' house.

The story of the prosecution proceeds that on 11.3.1994 at about 6/7 PM, Neelam committed suicide or she was murdered at the house of her inlaws in Village Pilli Mandoori and in this regard information was received by the complainantparty at about 11.30 PM on the same day through one Mahabir son of Budh Ram, resident of Village Pilli Mandoori. On receipt of the information, PW7 Balwant Singh, who is complainant in this case and PW8 Kasturi Devi along with Sarpanch Amar Singh had first gone to Sirsa and from there they took Mohan Lal, a retired D.S.P., their relation, and then they all reached village Pilli Mandoori. They saw the dead body of Neelam lying on the cot in the Chobara of her inlaws'', house. On their further enquiry, it transpired that Neelam had either committed suicide or was murdered by the accused. Thereafter, PW7 Balwant Singh left for the police station for lodging the report but on the way at Bus Stand, Pilli Mandoori, he met the police party headed by SI Nihal Singh, before whom he made his statement, Ex.PK. The statement was read over and explained to him and he signed the same in token of its correctness. Thereafter, PW11 SI Nihal Singh made his endorsement Ex. PK/1 underneath that statement and sent the same to the police station, through Constable Ravinder Kumar, for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex. PK/2 was recorded u/ss 304B and 498A, IPC, by Shri Lakhbir Singh. Thereafter, I.O. Nihal Singh, SI, rushed to the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report on the dead body of Neelam, Ex. PB, and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination along with his application, Ex. PA. From the spot, S.I. Nihal Singh also took into possession one Saree, found tied with the woodenrafter of the ceiling, vide recovery memo Ex. PN. S.I. Nihal Singh, then, prepared the rough site plan, Ex. PO. of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of Kasturi Bai, Siri Chand and other witnesses. After the postmortem examination, Constable Ravinder produced the postmortem report and other sealed parcels containing the belongings of the deceased, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PQ. Appellant was arrested on 17.3.1995 when he was produced by Ram Chander, Sarpanch of Village Pilli Mandori. Part investigation was also conducted by SI Som Raj, who on 24.4.1994, took into possession the letters Exs. P1 to P3 and Bahi, Ex.P4, vide recovery memo Ex. PL, when these letters and Bahi were produced by Balwant Singh, PW7. A supplementary statement of Balwant Singh was also recorded and on the completion of the investigation of the case, the accused were challaned in the court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused according to law free of cost and vide commitment order dated 13.7.1994, committed all the accused to the court of Sessions. Vide order dated 12.8.1994, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant and his companions u/ss 304B and 498A, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. D.L. Bansal, PW1, Mahabir Singh, PW2, Mahabir Parshad Gupta, PW3, Draftsman Shamsher Singh, PW4, Constable Om Parkash, PW5, Constable Ravinder Kumar, PW6, complainant Balwant Singh, PW7, Smt. Kasturi, mother of the deceased, PW8, Nihal Singh, PW9, Amar Singh, PW10, SI Nihal Singh, PW11, and SI Som Raj, PW12.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. Accused denied those circumstances. The defence of the appellant and his companions was as follows :

"I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case as parents of Neelam wanted us to deposit a handsome amount in the name of Kiran daughter of my son Satpal and when we could not oblige them on that account, I and other members of my family have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, Smt. Neelam wanted to reside at Sirsa with her husband Satpal and when Satpal did not oblige her, on that account she committed suicide."

In fact, the above plea was of Banwari Lal, coaccused of the appellant and the same has been admitted by the present appellant also.

When called upon to enter into their defence, the accused did not lead any oral evidence but tendered into evidence the medical treatment record Marks ''A'', ''B'' and ''C'' of appellant Sat Pal.

The learned trial Court believed the prosecution story in part. It gave benefit of doubt to the companions of the appellant, but the appellant was convicted u/s 304B read with section 498A, IPC, and sentenced in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

I have heard Mr. T.P.S. Mann, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Shailender Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court was not justified in recording the conviction u/s 304B, IPC, as it is not established on the record that the death of the deceased Neelam took place in connection with the demand of dowry. He submitted that though the case of the prosecution at the trial was that the appellant and his companions made a demand of Chest and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ and that the demand of Chest was met and the demand of Rs. 10,000/ was deferred to be met within two months, yet this part of the case relied upon by the prosecution is not proved on account of the fact that there was no such narration in the report which was lodged by Balwant Singh, brother of the deceased. The counsel submitted that the case which has been made out by the prosecution at the trial stage is nothing but a sheer improvement for which Balwant Singh has been duly confronted. The counsel even went to the extent that Balwant Singh is none else but the real brother of the deceased and had there been a genuine demand of dowry, Balwant Singh could not have forgotten to make a mention of the same in the F.I.R. lodged by him to the police.

On the contrary, the learned D.A.G. submitted that relations are the best witnesses and if Balwant Singh forgot some facts in stress, it should not be taken that there was no demand of dowry. Mr. Shailender Singh submitted that otherwise it is highly improbable that a lady, who was married on 15.5.1989, would commit suicide within 7 years of her marriage, especially when she was pregnant. The learned D.A.G. further submitted that if the ingredients of section 304B, IPC, are not proved, even then, the appellant can be convicted u/s 306 IPC.

Before I proceed further, I may mention that the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded at the Bar that at the most the offence u/s 498A, IPC is made out, for which the appellant may be convicted and sentenced.

Section 304B IPC lays down as follows :

"(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 purpose of this subsection, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 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."

A perusal of the above section would show that in order to succeed, the prosecution has to prove the following facts :

"(1) That the death of the woman took place due to burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) That such death had occurred within 7 years of her marriage;

(3) That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

(4) That such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry."

The stress is supplied to the words ''or in connection with demand of dowry''. In other words, if the death of a woman, though had taken within 7 years of her marriage and under abnormal circumstances, if it is not established on the record that the death had taken place in connection with the demand of dowry, the ingredients of section 304B, IPC, cannot be attracted. Now, it is to be seen what is the case of the prosecution before the police and at the trial stage.

A reading of the statement of Balwant Singh made before the I.O. shows that he never made a specific mention that the appellant and his relations made a demand of Chest or for a sum of Rs. 10,000/. Only general allegations were levelled by him to the effect that his sister was not happy in the house of her inlaws on account of inadequate dowry. For the first time, when Balwant Singh appeared as PW7, in court, he stated as follows :

"After that Panchayat we had sent the Chest (Tijori) on the next day but we could not afford to make the payment of Rs. 10,000/ to the accusedpersons and for that we had made a request for giving the time of two months."

Whether this part of the story is to be accepted by the court or not is a matter of fact. Balwant Singh is none else but the real brother of the deceased. In such like cases, relations and friends are good witnesses. It is not believable that Balwant Singh would omit a material fact in his statement made before the police. When his attention was invited to his statement, as to whether he made a mention of this fact of demand of Chest (Tijori) and money, he had to eat a humble pie when he stated :

"I had not stated before the police that many panchayats were convened by us and Amar Singh, Sarpanch, Bhajan Lal Panch, my brother Siri Ram, Dalip, Mohan Lal, DSP, had participated in those Panchayats, while making my statement at the bus adda of Pilli Mandori. I had stated before the police while my statement was recorded at Bus adda Pilli Mandori that a demand of Chest (Tijori) and that a sum of Rs. 10,000/ was made by the accused in the last Panchayat held one month prior to the death of Neelam and that we had given the chest on the next day and demand of Rs. 10,000/ was promised to be made within two months (confronted with his statement Ex. PK where it is not so recorded)."

The above successful confrontation to Balwant Singh, thus, leads me to hold that the third ingredient of Section 304B, IPC, has not been proved in this case.

Even the letters which were relied upon by the prosecution in this case have also not been believed by the trial Court and for cogent reasons because these letters were not produced before the I.O. at the first instance and from these letters also there is no indication that there was a demand of Chest and Rs. 10,000/.

Now, it is to be seen whether the second contention which was raised by the counsel for the State that the offence under section 306, IPC is made out is established or not. Here, I would like to refer to the provisions of section 306, IPC, which lays down that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The stress is on the word ''abetment'', which has been defined in section 107, IPC. Before a person can be convicted u/s 306, IPC, there should be a direct or implied nexus between the act and the conclusion. If, there is no reasonable nexus from which the court may be able to formulate an opinion that consequences were direct or implied as a result of the alleged act of abetment, the offence u/s 306, IPC cannot be constituted. In order to constitute abetment, one single act in a particular case would be enough.

Supposing a young girl of 14 years was ravished by two persons or by a gang of persons, the girl is too sensitive, she cannot accept that her virginity may be demolished at the hands of wolfs. Being a sensitive girl, she takes into her head to finish herself lest she may suffer the humiliation of the society for all times to come and she commits suicide under the stress of that sexual act. In the opinion of this court, it will be a single act of abetment and, in such a situation, the offender can be safely convicted under section 306, IPC. To elaborate further, there can be series of acts as well, consequences of which would be that a person is compelled to finish himself and these series of acts would also constitute abetment, if it is established on the record that such series of acts had gone to the extent that there was no other option to the deceased but to finish herself. If the husband or the relative of the husband, creates such a situation in the family or makes the atmosphere of the family so surcharged that it has become difficult for a lady to live in the house of her inlaws and she prefers to die instead of facing daily shame and torture, in that situation also, it can be said with reasonable certainty that the ingredients of abetment are established. If a woman on a single act of cruelty or a series of acts of cruelty, just takes into her head and decides to finish herself, in that situation, the ingredients of section 306, IPC, will not come into play. Here is a case where the deceased Neelam was definitely not happy in the house of her inlaws and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment and the evidence of Balwant Singh coupled with the statement of his mother, clearly indicate that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty and for this reason, the ingredients of section 498A, IPC, are attracted in this case. According to this section, 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. The Explanation added to this action is of importance, according to which, cruelty means 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, 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.

What is cruelty or harassment will be a point of fact in each and every case. Reverting to the statement of Balwant Singh, it has been clearly stated by him that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry in the shape of articles was given as per the capacity of the complainantparty but the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry articles. Even the deceased was complaining to her brother that her inlaws are not satisfied with the dowry. This amounts to mental harassment within the meaning of section 498A, IPC. The statement of Balwant Singh has been fully corroborated by the other natural witness, Smt. Kasturi, who is the mother of the deceased. It has been stated by her that the deceased used to tell her that she was being subjected to harassment on account of demand of dowry. The statement of Kasturi is not specific but general in nature from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and who else could subject her to such cruelty except for the appellant, who was the husband of the deceased. The appellant was not fair in his conduct. He did not bestow love and affection to his wife. Rather, she was put under tension and mental strain. The deceased could not bear the stress, harassment and cruelty and she adopted the extreme step of committing suicide. The medical evidence coming forth from the statement of Pw1 Dr. D.L. Bansal, shows that the deceased committed suicide when she hung herself. There was ligature mark, highup in neck, obliquely placed alongwith the line of mendible of the size of 25 cms x 3 cms with a gap of six cms behind the left ear. The mark was above thyroid cartilage. It was hard, parchment like congested and reddish brown. The doctor clearly stated that the cause of death in this case was asphyxia as a result of hanging.

Resultantly, I hold that the charge u/s 304B, IPC, against the appellant is not made out. He stands acquitted of this charge but definitely the charge under u/s 498A, IPC, stands proved when the prosecution has been able to lead cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence on the record. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellant is sentenced to R.I. for three years and he shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for a period of 9 months. Entire fine, if recovered, shall go to the mother of the deceased Smt. Kasturi.

Resultantly, the appeal stands partly allowed and intimation about the decision of this appeal be sent to the Central Jail, Hisar.

So far as the appeal of the State is concerned, it stands dismissed because I have already acquitted the appellant of the major charge u/s 304B, IPC, and have awarded the maximum punishment as prescribed u/s 498A, IPC.