Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

By this judgment I dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 415SB of 1998 filed by the three accused Satvir Singh, his father Davinder Singh and his mother Paramjit Kaur against the State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 482DBA of 1998 filed by the State of Punjab against Satvir Singh, Davinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur and Criminal Revision No. 909 of 1998 filed by Tejinder Pal Kaur against Satvir Singh and others as all the three matters have arisen from one judgment and order dated 7.5.1998 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who convicted the three appellants under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each; in default of payment of fine each of the appellant was directed to undergo RI for four months, under Section 498A IPC. All the appellants were further directed to undergo RI for a period of 21/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each; in default of payment of fine each one was directed to further undergo RI for six months, under Section 306 read with Section 116 IPC. The trial Court also held that substantive sentences awarded to each of the appellants shall run concurrently and 3/4th of the fine, if realised, shall go to Tejinder Pal Kaur injured. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court acquitted the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC.

Whereas the accused have filed the appeal in order to secure their acquittal; on the other hand, the State has filed the appeal on the ground that accused should have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC and the prayer of the complainant is also to the same effect and further for the enhancement of the sentence.

The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Tejinder Pal Kaur is the daughter of Narinder Singh. She was married with Satvir Singh appellant on 15.11.1992 in accordance with Sikh religious rites. As per the version of the prosecution, the parents of Tejinder Pal Kaur victim gave colour T.V., doublebed, sofaset, petti, dressing table, costly clothes and ornaments in dowry. After about 5 months of the marriage appellants Satvir Singh, Devinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur started taunting the victim that her father and brothers had not given car and kothi in dowry when such like articles are commonly given. They also started giving taunts to the effect that the clothes which were given in dowry were useless rags. The victim observed patience. She had been informing her father Narinder Singh and uncle Maharaj Singh whenever they came to see her as she was rarely permitted to visit her parental house. Whenever the victim expressed her desire to visit her parental house, she was given beating by her husband, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. The victim had been informing her father and uncle about the harassment and cruel treatment from time to time on telephone. The father and uncle of the victim had been visiting the house of the appellants in order to make them understand and they used to persuade them not to cause harassment to Tejinder Pal Kaur, but the behaviour of the appellants did not change. Tejinder Pal Kaur during this wedlock gave birth to two male children. Their ages were about three years and 1 year at the time of the incident. In November, 1995 the father and uncle of the victim along with her brother Hardip Singh came to the house of the appellants and they had to part a sum of Rs. 20,000/ which amount they actually paid to Satvir Singh in order to please the appellants, but the greed of the appellants rather went up and continued to increase. The story of the prosecution further goes that on 16.6.1996 Tejinder Pal Kaur felt tired after performing the domestic work. Satvir Singh appellant came from the shop. His mother served meals to Satvir Singh and put excessive salt on the salad. Because of that Tejinder Pal Kaur became the victim of wrath and she was given beating by her husband. Her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw again started hurling abuses upon her and they said that many trains were running and why the victim does not end herself by coming under a train. As the lust of dowry could not be satisfied and that the victim used to be harassed under various occasions and she used to get beatings, on that night she decided to finish herself instead of becoming a burden upon her parents. On the morning 17.6.1996, Tejinder Pal Kaur woke up and she went to railway station in order to commit suicide under a train by coming in front of it. A train came from the side of Jalandhar which hit her, but the victim was saved. However, she received injuries serious in nature on her person. So much so her left arm was amputated on account of this accident. In short, the case of the prosecution is that the victim Tejinder Pal Kaur tried to commit suicide being fed up with the harassment and beating of the appellants on account of demand of dowry.

Tejinder Kaur was admitted to S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar on 17.6.1996 at 5.20 a.m. ASI Rajinder Singh on receipt of message of her admission, came to the hospital. He submitted application Ex.PD to the doctor in order to record the statement of Tejinder Pal Kaur. He sought the opinion of the doctor as to whether she was fit to make a statement or not. The doctor had declared her unfit to make statement. On that day at 11.00 a.m. another application Ex.PE was submitted to the doctor, who again declared the injured unfit to make a statement at 9.40 p.m. Yet another application Ex.PA was submitted by ASI Rajinder Singh on 18.6.1996 and this time vide opinion Ex.PA/1 at 4.15 p.m. the doctor declared the injured fit to make a statement. Resultantly, statement Ex.PB of the complainant was recorded. It was read over and explained to her. Tejinder Pal Kaur signed the said statement in Punjabi in token of its correctness and it was attested by ASI Rajinder Singh besides Dr. Parkash Singh at 5.15 P.M. The Thanedar Shri Rajinder Singh made endorsement Ex.PB/1 underneath the said statement and it was sent to Police Station G.R.P., Amritsar, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PB/2 was recorded vide Rapat No. 31 dated 18.6.1996 registered at 5.35 p.m. The special report of this case was also sent to Illaqa Magistrate through Constable Manjit Singh and it was received by the Magistrate at 10.10 p.m. on the same day. The formal F.I.R. was recorded by SI Banarsi Dass. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PJ with correct marginal notes. On 19.6.1996 Dr. Mohinder Singh, Sr. Resident, XRay Department, Civil Hospital, Amritsar medicolegally examined Tejinder Pal Kaur and observed the following injuries :

Crepe bandage was applied over the uppermost part of the left arm, near the shoulder joint. Rest of the upper limb was missing. Injury was subject to operation notes.

Multiple scabbed abrasions of varying sizes (13 cms.) were present on the back of right shoulder region and back of right arm. Complaint of pain in the shoulder region.

Multiple abrasions were present on the front of the abdomen in its upper 2/3rd.

Bluish contusion 21 x 6 cms was present on the lower part of the abdomen.

Bluish contusion 15 x 10 cms. was present on the front of chest in its upper half with abrasion over it, more so on the left side.

Multiple abrasions of varying sizes (14 cms) were present on the back of chest and abdomen in the area of 37 x 14 cms.

Multiple abrasions were present on the front and outer aspect of both legs in its lower half 1/2 x 1 cms. and 2 x 11/2 cms.)

Bluish contusion on the back of left thigh 30 x 12 cms. and on the back of right thigh 27 x 10 cms. with abrasions over it.

Injury no. 1 was kept under observation subject to operation notes. Injuries No. 2 to 8 were kept for xray and progress report. Injuries No. 2 to 8 were found to be caused by blunt weapon and probable duration was 23 days. The opinion about weapon used for injury No. 1 and probable duration was deferred till the receipt of operation notes. Ex.PH is the correct carbon copy of the M.L.R. Before the examination of the injured, the left arm from the shoulder was already found missing.

On 20.2.1996 Hardip Singh produced photographs and passbook and these were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PK/1. Satvir Singh appellant was arrested on 27.6.1996, while the other appellants were arrested on 2.7.1996. It may be mentioned here that F.I.R. in this case was registered under Sections 304B, 511, 498A and 120B IPC.

On completion of the investigation of the case, on above allegations the challan was submitted in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused free of cost as per Section 207 Cr.P.C. and vide commitment order dated 27.9.1996 committed the appellants to the Court of Session in order to face the trial.

Vide detailed order dated 11.1.1997, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar framed charges against the appellants under Sections 498A, 304B read with Sections 511 and 306 read with Section 116 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The framing of the charges against the appellants became subjectmatter of further litigation. The appellants filed a revision against the charges in the Hon''ble High Court, which interfered in the order of the learned Sessions Judge and quashed the charges under Section 304B read with Section 511 and 306 read with Section 116 IPC, but only retained the charge under Section 498A IPC. Against this judgment of the High Court the complainant went in appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which interfered in the order of the High Court by making the following observations :

"However, in our view in the facts and circumstances of the case, namely, that the trial had already begun and the evidence of one witness was already recorded, it was not an appropriate stage at which the High Court should have meticulously examined the nature of charges framed in the light of allegations in the F.I.R. especially when the other evidence was already available on record and it should not have quashed the charges by intercepting the trial of the Sessions Case. It has also to be appreciated that evidence to be led in supporting charge under Section 498A I.P.C. which is retained by the High Court, will overlap with the evidence which might be led for supporting the quashed charges as they cover the same incidents and project same nature of allegations against the accused. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties and leaving all the questions quite open, we deem it fit to allow the trial to continue and to come to its logical end on all the charges originally framed against the accused. The prosecution will therefore have full opportunity to establish its case on all charges against the accused who will also have full opportunity to meet the same on merits. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and at the stage at which the trial had reached, therefore, in our view, the High Court should not have interfered in the Revision Application. Only on that short ground, the order under appeal is set aside and the sessions trial is restored in its original number for being proceeded further in the Sessions Court on all the charges originally framed. The accused are on bail. They shall continue to be on bail till the disposal on the Sessions Case. It is obvious that the prosecution as well as the accused will have full liberty to furnish whatever evidence is required to be furnished by the respective sides and on that evidence, the learned Sessions Judge will come to his own conclusion. The trial is ordered to be expedited as the Sessions Case is of 1996 being Sessions Case No. 334/96 which is now being restored to the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

It is made clear that the question as to whether any of the accused can be said to be guilty of any of the charges levelled by the prosecution will abide by the result of the trial in the light of the evidence that may be led at the stage of trial and which will be decided without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court as the observations made by the High Court do not service pursuant to this order. The learned Magistrate to whom the record of the case has been sent pursuant to the order of the High Court will be recalled by the Sessions Court and then the learned Sessions Judge will proceed further in accordance with law.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Parkash Singh, Jr. Resident, Department of Orthopaedic, Medical College, Amritsar PW1, who certified as to whether Tejinder Pal Kaur was fit to make a statement or not. PW2 Dr. K.D. Vasisht also certified whether Tejinder Pal Kaur was fit to make statement on different dates. This witness further deposed that on 21.6.1996 on police application Ex.PF he recorded a number of operation notes Ex.PF/1. Parminder Singh, Draftsman, who prepared scaled site plan Ex.PG, appeared as PW3. PW4 is Dr. Mohinder Singh, Sr. Resident, XRay Department, Civil Hospital, Amritsar, who conducted medicolegal examination on Tejinder Pal Kaur and noticed 8 injuries, which I have already incorporated above. This witness further deposed that injuries No. 2 to 8 are possible by a train accident and that when the patient was brought to him for examination, her left arm from the shoulder was already missing. He further stated that the patient was unable to flex her lower limbs at the level of her knee joints and hip joints. Tejinder Kaur injured appeared as PW5. Her father Narinder Singh appeared as PW6. Varinder Kumar, Manager, Bank of India, Branch Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, appeared as PW7 and deposed that saving bank account was opened on 23.11.1994 in the name of Hardip Singh Monga and Darshan Kaur Monga, residents of B135, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and this was a joint account. On 25.11.1995, Rs. 20,000/ were withdrawn from this account through a cheque. This evidence is indicative of the fact that a sum of Rs. 20,000/ was paid to the appellants as alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R. Investigating Officer ASI Rajinder Singh appeared as PW8 and deposed that at the first occasion the injured was not fit to make a statement and finally he recorded the statement of the injured Ex.PB in the presence of Dr. Parkash Nath (Singh ?), who also attested the said statement. The other Investigating Officer Banarsi Dass, SI appeared as PW9 and as per him, he arrested the accused. Other witnesses were given up as unnecessary.

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 Satvir Singh appellant is as follows :

"I have been falsely involved in this case. 5/6 months before the occurrence, myself, my wife and my two children had gone to Delhi to attend the marriage of sister of Tejinder Pal Kaur. She has been adopted by Maharaj Singh, her uncle (uncle of Tejinder Pal Kaur). A dispute had taken place with Maharaj Singh there. Narinder Singh, my fatherinlaw had taken the side of Maharaj Singh and had not supported me. Thereafter, I did not visit the house of parents of Tejinder Pal Kaur but she had been visiting her parental house with the children. My inlaws had also been visiting my house. On 16.6.96 it was Sunday and the shops were closed. Tejinder Pal Kaur insisted me to visit her parental house stating that she was not to go alone as whenever she visited alone, she felt insulted. I refused to accompany her. She also did not go to her parental house on that day. She prepared the evening meals and we happily took the same. She is of emotional nature and is sensitive. In the Hospital, I called my relations to provide blood to my wife. My blood group did not match with that of my wife. My younger brother Kanwaljit Singh, my brotherinlaw (my sister''s husband) Kuljit Singh and my cousin Gurinder Singh had donated the blood for her treatment. I provided medicines as advised by the doctor. Consent was obtained from me for her operation. Bed head ticket was signed by me. At the time of her admission, my father had also signed the bed head ticket. Police came there. I narrated my version. On 17.6.96 Maharaj Singh came to Amritsar from Delhi and thereafter all the relations of the injured started giving beating to us and we were made to run away from the hospital. My wife was conscious at that time. The next day, we were not allowed entry in the hospital by the relations of my wife. The mob had attacked us at our house. We went to P.S. GRP, Amritsar. The mob had reached there also. The SHO had advised us to surrender in the Court stating that the police would not be able to help us as the mob was inclined to kill us. We applied for anticipatory bail and then surrendered in the Court. I am living in separate portion of the same house. I and my wife had separate mess and business."

The plea of Davinder Singh appellant, father of Satvir Singh appellant is as follows :

"I am innocent and have been falsely involved in the case. I and my wife Paramjit Kaur along with our younger son Kanwaljit Singh have separate residence from Satbir Singh in the same house. We have got separate mess and business."

The defence of Smt. Paramjit (Kaur ?) appellant in the shape of her plea before the trial court was as under :

"I am innocent. I have been falsely involved in this case. I and my husband Davinder Singh alongwith our younger son Kanwaljit Kaur live separately in a separate portion of the same house and are having separate mess."

When called upon to enter into their defence, appellants examined PW1 Ashok Kumar, who is a neighbour of the appellants and according to him Tejinder Pal Kaur had been living happily in the house and she was going to the house of her parents. Moreover, the parents of the victim had also been coming to the house of the appellants in order to meet Tejinder Pal Kaur. Further this witness deposed that Satvir Singh and Davinder Singh have separate business. Satvir Singh, his wife and children used to live separately having separate mess but in the same house in a separate portion. Raghu Nath Sharma, Head Clerk, Incometax Department, Amritsar appeared as DW2. He brought income tax record of M/s Modern Optical, Batala, Road, Amritsar. According to this witness, Satvir Singh is its proprietor. As per the incometax return for the year 199596, submitted on 6.9.1995, the capital of the said firm has been shown as Rs. 1,11,798/ and the copy of the return is Ex.DB. Daya Nath DW3 is Incometax Clerk and he deposed that M/s Davinder Singh and Sons, Amritsar was an incometax assessee. Davinder Singh was the proprietor of the firm and the capital shown of the firm was Rs. 2,04,822/. Surinder Bhagat DW4 is the Asstt. Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Amritsar and according to this witness Satvir Singh got himself insured on 22.3.1996 for Rs. 25,000/ and Tejinder Pal Kaur is the nominee. This insurance policy was purchased for 25 years. DW5 Baljinder Singh, Postal Asstt. deposed that on 17.3.1993 Tejinder Pal Kaur purchased Kisan Vikas Patra for Rs. 5,000/ and the date of the maturity is 17.3.1998 and Satvir Singh is the nominee. DW6 Kanwaljit Singh deposed that Tejinder Pal Kaur has an account in Punjab and Sind Bank, Golden Temple Branch, Amritsar and her last balance in the account was Rs. 6319/. DW7 O.P. Suri is the Labour Inspector and he deposed that the area of Darshni Deori, Amritsar falls within his jurisdiction. On 16.6.1996 the firm was not challenged by their office. DW8 Ramesh Chander, Labour Inspector deposed that area of Batala Road, Amritsar falls within his circle and the said area remains closed on Sundays and on 16.6.1996 M/s Modern Opticals was not challaned. Surinderjit Sharma appeared as DW9 and he deposed that a saving bank account was opened in the post office on 24.3.1994 with a sum of Rs. 5,000/ and a balance of Rs. 12,472/ was outstanding. This account was opened in the name of Satvir Singh and the nominee of the account was Tejinder Pal Kaur. Raj Kumar, Record Keeper, State Bank, Atta Mandi Branch, Amritsar, appeared as DW10. He brought the statement of account of Paramjit Kaur. According to this witness, the bank account was opened in 1984 in the name of Paramjit Kaur and in the month of May, 1996, the balance was Rs. 26,147.48. DW11 is Rajiv Kumar, Clerk, SalesTax Office, Amritsar and he brought the summoned record of M/s Ashoka Opticals. DW12 is Paramjit Singh and DW13 is Santokh Singh, who deposed that Kuljit Singh, Gurinder Singh and Kanwaljit Singh donated blood on 17.6.1996.

The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants from the charge under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC. However, the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 116 IPC in the manner as stated above. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, the offence under Section 304B was not made out as per the reasons given in para No. 21 of the judgment which I would like to quote as under :

"21. It is the version of the prosecution that Rs. 20,000/ were paid to Satvir Singh accused in November, 1995 by the father and brother of injured. Narinder Kumar, Manager, Bank of India, Branch Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar states as PW7 that on 25.11.1995 Rs. 20,000/ were withdrawn from the account of Hardip Singh Monga and Darshan Kaur Monga. The amount was withdrawn through a self cheque. As per evidence on record, Hardip Singh is the son of Narinder Singh. It is denied by the accused if any such demand was made. Any way, for arguments sake, if it is taken that the said payment was made, possibly it cannot be stated that the said payment related to the demand of dowry. There is absolutely nothing to show if there was any demand of such a payment from the side of accused. Narinder Singh states that the amount was paid to Satvir Singh accused just to please him so that he may not cause harassment to Tejinder Pal Kaur. The marriage between Tejinder Pal Kaur and Satvir Singh was solemnized in the month of November, 1992 and as per evidence, the accused had started maltreating her 4/5 months after the marriage. It was taunted that car and kothi have not been given in dowry. Be that as it may, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the injured was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry soon before the occurrence. Injured herself has not been able to state and prove as such. Thus, in the given circumstances, by no stretch of reasoning, it can be stated that the accused are liable for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC."

I have heard Shri R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri S.S. Narula, Advocate on behalf of the appellants, Shri J.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the State, Shri Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate on behalf of the complainant and with their assistance I have also gone through the record of this case.

The present appeal was argued by the learned senior counsel and the learned State counsel from legal and factual aspects and first of all I would like to deal with the legal aspect before I deal with the evidence to cover the factual position of the case. The legal submission which was raised from the side of the complainant was that the learned trial Court committed a patent illegality and was not justified in acquitting the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC. According to the State counsel as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant the appellants could be convicted under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC. Had the victim died in this evidence, the act and conduct of the appellants would have constituted the offence under Section 304B IPC because in that eventuality the death had taken place within seven years of the marriage; the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of the dowry and the death of the victim would have been abnormal and all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC were fully met. On the contrary, the learned senior counsel Shri Cheema submitted and examined the compatibility of Section 498A, 306 and 304B IPC in the light of two provisions of the Indian Evidence Act as contained in Sections 113A and 113B and submitted that Section 304B is not attracted in this case. The compatibility of Section 498A goes with Section 306 IPC. He further submitted that Section 304B was framed by the legislature for a different situation with a different intent and purposes and this Section i.e. section 304B IPC has no compatibility in similarity with section 498A IPC. Before this Court may give the answer to the legal proposition put forth by the counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate for me to examine and quote each of the provisions. Section 498A which was introduced in the Code in the year 1983 lays down as follows :

"498A. 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 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."

Thus the reading of Section 498A clearly makes out that whenever a husband or a relative of a husband or a woman treats such woman with cruelty, he commits the offence of Section 498A IPC. For our purposes the two explanations which have been added to section 498A IPC are of significant importance. By virtue of Explanation (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 would also amount to cruelty. In short, if the conduct of the husband is such that it can lead to a woman to commit suicide or to cause such grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, such an act would again fall within the meaning of cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A IPC. Thus the meaning to Explanation (a) is of wide importance and the meaning attached to Explanation (a) has to be interpreted widely. A single act of a person can fall within the mischief of various offences. He can be guilty under Section 498A IPC; under Section 306 IPC and that very act can further bring within the mischief of Section 304B IPC. It is true that Explanation (a) added to Section 498IPC has some common elements with the provisions of Section 306 IPC but it cannot be said that Section 498A alone has the compatibility with Section 306 IPC. From Explanation (b) added to Section 498A would further show that this section has also the compatibility which can lead to the offence under Section 304IPC. If harassment to a woman has been caused with a view to coercing her or any person related to her in order to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person to meet such demand, such harassment would amount cruelty under Section 498A IPC. Thus the legislature has drafted Explanation (b) which is more near to the provisions of Section 304B IPC so far as the demand of dowry etc. is concerned. Thus the short meaning of Section 498A can be described that if a woman is subjected to maltreatment and such treatment can likely to lead her to commit suicide or to cause herself grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, such conduct on the part of the husband, whether mental or physical, will be considered as cruelty. If the husband surcharges the atmosphere of the family and that of the matrimonial home to such an extent that a selfrespectable woman takes into her head to finish herself instead of daily sufferings, such an act definitely will come under Section 498A IPC. But if in that direction the lady steps forward and tries to finish herself, under the stress of cruelty, the husband is also guilty for abetment under Section 306 IPC. To illustrate further, if taunts are given daily to a woman or if she is subjected to insults daily by her husband or any relative of the husband and the victim instead of receiving love and affection decides to finish herself under the stress of humiliation, such a husband or relative of the husband has also created such circumstances from which a reasonable inference of abetment can be well gathered. To proceed further if the wilful conduct of the husband or her relative is such that they are compelling the wife to bring money or any property or valuable security and by that conduct if a woman again takes into her head to finish herself, such an act on the part of the husband or his relative would again constitute abetment for the purpose of Section 306 IPC apart from Section 498A IPC. Situation can also come where a victim is met with cruelty as defined and understood under Section 498A IPC beyond a period of 7 years and in that eventuality provisions of Section 304B IPC may not be attracted yet it cannot be said that such a woman has not been treated with cruelty under Section 498A IPC and if the acts of cruelty had gone to the extent through which those acts can lead to a woman to commit suicide or to cause herself an injury as she could be put with a danger to life, limb or health, this would also amount to abetment on the part of the husband of the relative. Similarly, if on account of demand of property or valuable security the atmosphere is created in such a manner that a woman thinks proper to die instead of living in shame, stress and torture, such surcharging atmosphere in the family will be a step towards abetment.

Now I would like to refer to the provisions of Section 306 IPC for further examination of the legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. As per this section which defines abetment of suicide "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." Here the word `abets'' as appearing in Section 306 IPC will be a relevant term for our purposes. Whether in a particular case there is an abetment on the part of the accused or not will be considered as a question of fact. In order to sustain conviction proof that deceased committed suicide is a condition precedent. Instigation to commit suicide is also a fundamental condition as a result of which the victim makes an attempt or commits suicide, is the other ingredient. In the opinion of this Court the word "abetment" should be given a larger import. It should cover not only when there is a direct evidence with regard to the abetment but also to cover all those circumstances where the conduct of a person is such that he has created such circumstances which compel a person to resort to the extreme step of taking his life, would amount to abetment. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing and lays down as follows :

"A person abets the doing of a thing who

First. Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

As per Explanation 1, a person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure, thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. As per Explanation 2, whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. In order to constitute abetment the abettor must be shown to have intentionally abetted the commission of the crime. Intentionally aiding with active complicity is the gist of offence. A person instigates another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to do the act by any means, or language direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, inspiration or encouragement. Creating such circumstances in the family such as making repeated demands of dowry, such as giving taunts to the daughterinlaw that she does not know how to prepare the meals, that her parents had not taught her how to live in the family, how to behave with elders, how to look after the children, how to deal with the guests etc. are some of the illustrations that if these unfounded repeated allegations are levelled against the daughterinlaw either by the inlaws or by the husband or by the relative of the husband with the intent to bring hatred, humiliation, insult, ridicule, to make small a woman, suggestive taunts so that a woman may commit suicide or lead herself to commit suicide, all these illustrations, which are not exhaustive, would definitely give an indication that there is an abetment on the part of a wrongdoer. To explore further as to whether there is a compatibility of Section 498A with Section 304B IPC, now I would like to refer to the provisions of Section 304B IPC itself which deals with dowry death. According to this Section 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. According to Explanation added to this section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thus, a close reading to Section 304B would show that when (i) the death of a woman is caused; (ii) by any burns or bodily injury; (iii) or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (iv) within seven years of her marriage; (v) 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; (vi) for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death". Again I would like to read the provisions of Section 304B IPC along with the provisions of Section 498A IPC which will show that Section 498A and Section 304B IPC can go together and they have compatibility. When Section 304B talks of cruelty or harassment, it talks in the term of the explanation added to Section 498A IPC. According to this section, cruelty means any wilful conduct which can lead to a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her or which can endanger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical. In other words, both physical and mental cruelty have been relevant and admissible for the purposes of Section 498A IPC. Similarly, any harassment to a woman with a view to ask her any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would also amount to cruelty. If this interpretation of Section 498A is read and is tried to be fitted with Section 304B, both these sections will go side by side and there is no contradiction or incompatibility. The only difference is that Section 304B will come into play if the death of a woman takes place under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to harassment or cruelty for on in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. On the other hand, if it is not established that there was a demand of dowry soon before the death, a person can still be convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC. If the act of such an individual leads to incomplete act of suicide, then a person can also be convicted under Section 306 read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, a person can also be convicted under Section 304B read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code irrespective of the fact that Section 498A has been drafted by the legislature and has been incorporated in the Indian Penal Code. The legislature in Section 304B IPC has intentionally used the words "soon before her death". It has not used the words "at any time during the marriage". What is "soon before her death" will be again a question of fact in each and every case. If a woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment just 10 or 15 days before her death in connection with the demand of dowry, such an act on the part of a wrongdoer will attract "soon before her death". No hard and fast rules can be fixed by a Court of law while interpreting the words "soon before her death", but definitely it has to be seen by the law Courts that the grave acts of cruelty and harassment should be in connection with any demand for dowry which has the same meaning as mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. If the alleged acts of cruelty are committed beyond 7 years of the marriage as mentioned in Section 498A IPC, in that eventuality Section 304B may not come into play because of the passage of time. The legislature thought that within 7 years of the marriage a woman would try to adjust herself in a new set up. Here I also want to interpret the words "where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances". The words "occur otherwise than under normal circumstances" are to be interpreted independently from the words "burns or bodily injury". The legislature could not contemplate of the positions which may lead to dowry death. They only wanted to become a little bit illustrative by making a mention "when the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances", because the legislature was aware that a victim, that is the woman, in suchlike cases would invariably be in the house of her inlaws where a direct evidence may not be available to the prosecution or to the family of a woman from her parental side, the investigating agency may feel handicapped in collecting the evidence in order to prove burns, bodily injury or abnormal circumstances.

There can be instances and there are instances when the inlaws of the women had disposed of the deadbodies in a clandestine manner in order to screen themselves from legal punishment. Instances are not lacking when deadbodies after causing death under abnormal circumstances are thrown away in the canals or cremated without even sending information to the parents or other relatives of the girls from their parental side. Keeping that difficulty in view the legislature has made this section only illustrative by incorporating the words "burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances". In short, the cruelty or harassment as mentioned in Section 304B IPC has to be given the same meaning as given in Section 498A IPC. If those acts of cruelty or harassment are in connection with the demand of dowry, the provisions of Section 304B will come into play, but it may be wrong on the part of the law Courts to say that there is no compatibility of Section 498A and 304B IPC. In my opinion, Section 498A goes with both the sections, that is Section 306 and Section 304B IPC. If on account of the cruelty, as mentioned, defined and understood under Section 498A IPC, a woman commits suicide, it will come within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. Such an act of cruelty will also and should fall within the meaning of abetment subject to the test of other probabilities which I have highlighted above. If cruelty is of so grave that a woman decides to finish herself, it will certainly constitute cruelty apart from abetment and Section 306 would go along with Section 498A IPC. If on account of the cruelty and harassment as understood under Section 498A a woman dies under abnormal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of the husband in connection with any demand of dowry, the person can be convicted both under Section 498A read with Section 304B IPC.

Here I also want to deal the aiding provisions as contained in the Indian Evidence Act. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman and according to this Section 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 any relative of her husband. As per explanation the cruelty shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the IPC. This section will definitely come into play when a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and will cover those cases where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty. This provision has been introduced by the legislature so as to make the position of the prosecution little bit easy lest it may not be in a position to collect the sufficient evidence in all cases about the alleged abetment and in order or cover the difficult situation with which the prosecution may face during the course of investigation or trial, the provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act have been introduced. Whereas Section 113A was introduced in the year 1983 while Section 113B was introduced in the year 1986 like Section 304B of the IPC.

Shri Cheema, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, while defending the judgment on legal aspects, relied upon State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and Ors., 1991(3) Recent C.R. 489 and submitted that Section 304B of the IPC was provided by the legislature with a clear intent to curb the menace of dowry deaths etc. He submits that such offences are generally committed in residential homes and in secrecy and that independent and direct evidence is not easy to get and, therefore, in order to cover that difficulty the legislature has introduced the provisions of Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act so as to give strength to the prosecution. The counsel submitted that there can be a situation where husband or his relative by wilful conduct creates a situation which he knows will drive the woman to commit suicide and she actually does so, in that case the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC would be attracted. The conduct of the person would tantamount to inciting or provoking or virtually pushing the woman into a desperate situation of no return which would compel her to put an end to her miseries by committing suicide. In such a situation the attraction of Section 304B read with Section 116 of the IPC would be illegal. I do not accept this position of law. What I understand is that a commission of crime under Section 498A can lead to dire consequences and can lead to both the situations under Sections 306 and 304B of the IPC. If a woman is pushed to such a desperate situation of no return that she commits suicide, of course the person who has created such situation would be convicted and sentenced under Section 306 besides under Section 498A of the IPC. If that very woman under those very circumstances dies on account of the burns, bodily injury or under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is also shown that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry, the person so guilty will also be punishable under Section 498A read with Section 304B of the IPC. But definitely it will be wrong to say that Section 498A has only the compatibility with Section 306 of the IPC with the aiding Section 113A of the Evidence Act and that section 304B of the IPC is totally independent and that the aiding section for this section is only section 113A of the Evidence Act. In Smt. Shanti and another v. State of Haryana, 1991(2) RCR (Crl.) 55 : A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1226 , there is an oblique reference of such a situation. It was held that Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC are not mutually exclusive. When a woman is subjected to cruelty after marriage, the charges under Sections 498A and 304B can be framed and that in view of the conviction under Section 304B, a separate sentence under Section 498A is not necessary. The observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court are given in para No. 5 of the judgment and the relevant observations can be quoted as follows :

"No material was placed to show that the deceased suffered any such attack previously. If it was natural death, there was no need for the appellants to act in such unnatural manner and cremate the body in great and unholy haste without even informing the parents. Because of this cremation no postmortem could be conducted and the actual cause of death could not be established clearly. There is absolutely no material to indicate even remotely that it was a case of natural death. It is nobody''s case that it was accidental death. In the result it was an unnatural death; either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming that it is a case of suicide even then it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, S. 304B is attracted and this position is not disputed that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under S. 304B beyond all reasonable doubt."

The above dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court would show that it has given broader meaning and interpretation to the wording of Section 304B of the IPC as I also intend to do so.

Now it has to be seen whether a person can be convicted under Section 304B with the aid of Section 511 of the IPC or not ? In this case the appellants have been chargesheeted on these lines. The appellants have been acquitted under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC for the reasons given in para No. 21 of the judgment, already quoted above. A person can only be convicted under Section 511 IPC if he attempts to commit an offence punishable by the Code and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence. A reading of this Section would show that there should be an attempt on the part of the wrongdoer. The question whether a particular act amounts to an attempt to commit an offence is basically a question of fact depending on the nature of offence and the steps to be taken in order to commit that offence. Here is a case where the allegation of the prosecution goes in a manner that there were insults, insinuations and taunts to the victim, allegations of cruelty, physical and mental torture, demand of dowry and there was condemnation on the part of the appellants qua the dowry items brought by the victim. Would it amount to an attempt or would it amount to abetment ? In the opinion of this Court the impugned act of the appellants would fall within the definition of "abetment". It is not the case of the prosecution that there was any attempt on the part of the appellants that they allegedly threw the victim in front of the running train. Such an act would certainly bring an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that at the time of the present incident none of the appellants was present on the railway track. In these circumstances this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in framing a charge against the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 511 of the IPC, rather the charge should have been under Section 304B read with Section 116 IPC. I do not subscribe to the view of Shri Cheema when he submitted that the appellants could not be convicted and sentenced under Section 306 read with Section 116 IPC in view of the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC. Section 498A is totally independent and does not cover a situation that "express provisions has been made in the Code". Section 498A though overlaps to some extent with Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC, but it will be wrong to say that express provisions have already been made in the Indian Penal Code of abetment for the purposes of Sections 306 and 304B of the IPC.

From the above discussion thus it has now become evident that Section 498A has the compatibility to go along with Sections 304B and 306 IPC. A person can be charged under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the IPC, if the death of a woman has taken place within 7 years of her marriage and she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and apart from Section 306 of the IPC if she decides to take her life by committing suicide which itself amounts to unnatural death. This Court is also of the view that a person can be convicted under Section 306 read with Section 116 and under Section 304B read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code though he may be chargesheeted under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC. The charge under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC may not go together as possibly there cannot be any attempt on the part of a wrongdoer. In the present case this Court has also no difficulty to convict the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 116 IPC keeping in view the fact that entire evidence in this case was recorded in the presence of the appellants, who happened to listen to the evidence and no prejudice had been caused to them.

Now I proceed to discuss the factual position of this case in the light of the evidence which has been led by the parties.

Smt. Tejinder Pal Kaur appeared as PW5. Before I incorporate her material statement in this judgment, I may state that when this witness came in the witnessbox she was brought in the courtroom on a stretcher. The witness deposed on oath as follows :

"I am B.A., B.Ed. Before marriage I worked as teacher. I was married in 1992 with Satbir Singh accused now present in court. Davinder Singh accused is the father of Satbir Singh. Accused Paramjit Kaur is the wife of Davinder Singh accused. My parents at the time of marriage had given sufficient dowry. 4/5 months after marriage, the accused then started maltreating me on the ground that my parents had not given Car and Kothi in dowry. They also stated that the clothes given in dowry were useless and that I should take them to my parents'' house. I informed my father on telephone that the accused were causing harassment to me on the account of inadequate dowry. The accused did not permit me to see my parents. The accused used to give filthy abuses and beating to me. Two male issues were born from the wedlock. They are of the ages of 4 and 2 years. My father, my uncle Maharaj Singh and brother Hardip Singh had been coming to my inlaws'' house, to the accused and requested them not to cause harassment to me, but they did not stop to do so. In Nov., 1995 my father, uncle and brother came to the house of the accused and paid Rs. 20,000/ to Satbir Singh, my husband in the presence of Davinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur accused. On 16.6.1996 my husband Satvir Singh came to the house at about 10 p.m. from the shop. My motherin law Paramjit Kaur served Salad to him by putting more salt. My husband when took that Salad started abusing me as more salt had been put by my motherin law. Accused Davinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur started abusing me and told that many trains were running and that I should commit suicide by coming before the train. My husband also stated so. One can approach the railway line from my inlaws'' house on foot within 10 minutes. I was fed up with maltreatment, taunting of the accused and did not like to live more. I also did not want to put more burden on my parents. On 17.6.96 I left my inlaws house at about 4 a.m. and reached the railway line coming from Jalandhar. When I reached railway line, no train was coming. I then waited for about 15 minutes. I stood in the railway track on which the train was coming from Jalandhar side. I was run over by the train and I sustained injuries. I received injuries on my spinal cord and other parts. I became unconscious. I made statement Ex.PB to the police when I was lying admitted to S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar. This statement was read over to me and I signed the same in token of correctness. I am unable to move about after the occurrence. I remained confined to the bed. Lower part of the body stands paralysed. I remained admitted to hospital for four months. I am under regular treatment since the time I was discharged from the hospital. My left arm was amputated in the hospital as the same was crushed when I was run over by the train."

I have intentionally incorporated in verbatim the statement of the victim in order to assess whether this Court can invoke the provisions of Section 304B read with Section 116 IPC or not. The statement of the lady has also been corroborated in all material particulars by her father Narinder Singh PW6, who stated on the following lines :

"Tejinder Pal Kaur is my daughter. On 15.11.92 she was married to Satbir Singh accused now present in Court. Davinder Singh is the father of Satbir Singh. Paramjit Kaur is the wife of Davinder Singh. Dowry was given by me at the time of marriage according to my capacity. I had given colour T.V., double bed, sofa set, cooler, clothes, ornaments. 4/5 months after marriage, the accused had started taunting Tejinder Pal Kaur that Kothi and Car had not been given in dowry. The clothes gives in dowry as stated by the accused were rags. I have been going to the house of the accused alongwith my brother Maharaj Singh and my daughter had been telling us that the accused used to taunt her as such. Myself and my brother Maharaj Singh had been requesting the accused not to cause harassment to her. Tejinder Pal Kaur had given birth to two male issues. They are of the age of 4 and 2 years. The accused did not permit her to visit the parental house. Whenever she asked Satbir Singh to allow her to visit the parental house, he used to give bearing to her. In Nov., 1995, my son Hardip Singh had withdrawn Rs. 20,000/ from the joint account with his mother. Myself, Maharaj Singh and Hardip Singh took this amount to the house of the accused. The amount was paid to Satbir Singh accused in the last week of Nov., 1995, just to please him as he may not cause harassment to Tejinder Pal Kaur. Harassment to Tejinder Pal Kaur was not stopped by the accused. Being fed up with the harassment caused by the accused. Tejinder Pal Kaur tried to commit suicide on 17.6.1996 by coming before a running train. On 17.6.96 I came to know about the incident in the morning time when I was present at my house. A telephonic message was received from some person about the admission of my daughter to the hospital and then I, my wife and other relations went to Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar, where my daughter was admitted. She remained admitted to hospital for about 4 months. Her left arm has been amputated by the doctor at the time of operation because of the accident. Lower part of the body of Tejinder Pal Kaur is affected by paralysis. She is unable to move. She always remains lying on the bed. She is bed ridden. My statement was recorded by the police."

During the course of submission, the learned senior counsel Shri Cheema also referred to the material portions of the statements of these witnesses appearing in the crossexamination and his line of argument was that the statements of the victim and her father firstly are not probable so far as the demand of dowry is concerned. The counsel submitted that invariably occasions for making demand of dowry are either before the engagement, at the time of engagement, just before the marriage and immediately after the marriage. If the inlaws or the husband want to treat the bride with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry, there could be other occasions also from which an inference can be drawn that such inlaws or husband had made a demand of dowry. The counsel further submitted that in this case the element of "demand" is missing. The last amount which was allegedly parted was Rs. 20,000/ and that too in the month of November, 1995. There is no evidence that there was any demand of dowry before the parting of the alleged amount. The counsel wanted to impress upon this Court that the alleged demand of dowry is nothing but a concoction. From an educated lady, who was earlier a teacher, the demand of dowry cannot be legitimately inferred. It is all a creation on the part of the Investigating Officer or on the part of the victim and her father. The counsel also submitted with reference to the statements of the DWs that the inlaws of Tejinder Pal Kaur had been depositing the amounts in the bank even in the name of the lady as nominee and from all these acts it can be inferred that there was no demand of dowry soon before this incident and, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 304B read with Section 511 IPC. The counsel also wanted to say that Section 511 IPC could not go with Section 304B and this aspect of the case has also been accepted by the learned Deputy Advocate General and Shri Baldev Singh, the learned senior counsel, who appeared on behalf of the complainant. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the factual position that there is no merit in the submission of Shri Cheema. In such like cases the victim, her relations, friends, etc. are the best witnesses. I cannot forget the major fact that the victim is an educated lady. She is B.A., B.Ed. She has two male issues. If everything was good in the house of her inlaws, she would not have resorted to such an act. The element of greed has no dimensions. It is located in the heart of a criminal like a motive. Sometimes a person is very greedy but he is not in a position to express through mouth. He tries to express through actions or through the help of others. If the victim was not harassed on account of dowry, she could easily confine her allegations upto cruelty, but in the present case in the view of this Court the basic problem arose with the inadequate dowry which had led to cruelty as understood under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and then to the demand of dowry. The conduct on the part of the appellants was to such an extent that no alternative was left on the part of the victim but to make an attempt to finish her life. It has been categorically stated by Smt. Tejinderpal Kaur firstly in her statement before the Investigating Officer and second time before the Court that 4/5 months after the marriage the appellants started maltreating her on the ground that her parents had not given car and kothi in the dowry. Further it has been stated by Smt. Tejinderpal Kaur that the appellants used to give her the taunts that the clothes given in the dowry were useless and that she should take them to the house of her parents. In that situation what a poor and helpless woman could do ? She had to inform her father about the harassment which she met on account of inadequate dowry. When a woman marriages herself she goes with certain expectations in the house of her inlaws. Her primary anxiety is to get financial security, love and affection on the part of her husband and his family members. She sacrifices herself for the welfare of her husband. If her aspirations go deep in the sea and she is visited with filthy abuses and beatings and she is not even allowed to go to the house of her parents, such an act on the part of her husband and his relative will not only constitute an act of cruelty but also constitute an act of abetment and if that cruelty and abetment is in relation to the dowry, the conviction can be based under Section 304B read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code. Though Section 498A to some extent overlaps with Section 304B of the IPC but it cannot be said that sufficient provision has already been incorporated in the Code in the shape of Section 498A so as to deprive the law Courts from recording the conviction under Section 304B read with Section 116 of the IPC.

This case can be viewed from a different angle. Had Smt. Tejinderpal Kaur expired in that accident, certainly all the essential ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC had been complied with. The death in that eventuality had taken place within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there was a demand of dowry soon before her death. With her survival the offence under Section 304B read with Section 116 IPC is made out.

What should be the meaning given to the words "soon before her death", remains a question of fact ? In such like cases it cannot be expected that on every day there will be a demand of dowry. If the relations between the bride and her inlaws and husband had gone sour on account of dowry and for that reason the lady is being given disrespect from time to time and being tortured or harassed and again after few months some demand is made, certainly such demand will be in connection with dowry. In November, 1995, a sum of Rs. 20,000/ was paid by the parents of the victim. No father would like to pay a reasonable amount of Rs. 20,000/ unless there is a demand. In November, 1995, there was no function in the house of the accused from which an inference may be drawn that the father of the victim gave the amount of Rs. 20,000/ by way of gift. The series of proved facts are supposed to be seen. The basic cause was inadequate dowry. Excuses are worked out as to how the victim should be harassed and one day prior to the main incident the victim was visited with cruelty not only by her husband but also by her inlaws. That is an incident which can also attract Section 498A IPC.

Since in the present case it stands proved from the statements of two witnesses that Smt. Tejinderpal Kaur victim was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and the incident of cruelty had taken place within seven years of her marriage, therefore, I am inclined to convict each of the appellants under Section 304B read with the aid of Section 116 of the IPC as in the opinion of this Court the aid of Section 511 IPC cannot be drawn as also conceded by the counsel for the State and by the counsel for the complainantparty.

The injuries on the person of the victim are also suggestive of the fact that these injuries were received by her when a running train struck against her person. The poor lady had to lose her arm from the shoulder joint. She suffered spinal injuries as a result of which she has practically become a patient of paralytic. It has been stated even by the doctor that the patient was even unable to flex her lower limbs at the level of knee joints and hip joints. With the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 116 IPC, the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 read with Section 116 IPC should not be sustained because Section 306 IPC is a lesser offence as compared to Section 304B. Of course, the appellants are guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

Summing up my above discussion, I am of the opinion that Section 498A IPC has a compatibility both with Sections 306 and 304B IPC though in certain areas these sections may overlap with each other. There is no bar for the law Courts to record a conviction under Section 498A read with Section 304B IPC nor there is any bar to record a conviction under Sections 498A and 304B with the aid of Section 116 of the IPC. Also it is concluded that when a conviction has been recorded for a higher offence like Section 304B, the Court may not record conviction for a lower offence. The offence of Section 306 IPC is lower in rank as compared to the offence under Section 304B IPC.

The learned counsel for the appellants also wanted to distinguish the case of each of the appellants and his main stress was upon appellant Davinder Singh, the fatherinlaw of the victim. The counsel submitted that Davinder Sing had no cause or occasion to give abetment to the victim nor he had any reason to treat the victim with cruelty, muchless in connection with the demand of dowry. But I am not in a position to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Motherinlaw and fatherinlaw were also in the episode along with Satvir Singh. The victim was being harassed by all the three. They are not satisfied with the articles of dowry and for that reason the victim was coerced from time to time. She was insulted, humiliated and an educated lady could not tolerate all these insults. There was immediate abetment one day prior to the occurrence when the inlaws even instigated the victim to finish herself by jumping before a running train. In such state of affairs each one of the appellants is liable to be convicted for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, and I order accordingly.

With regard to the quantum of sentence, I maintain the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge when he sentenced each one of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each; in default of payment of fine each of the appellants was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. I sentence each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ each; in default of payment of fine each of the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304B read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Keeping in view the future miseries likely to be suffered by Smt. Tejinderpal Kaur, I am inclined to say that the entire fine, if realised, shall go to her so that she may not become an extraordinary burden upon her brothers and their wives.

The net result is, the appeal of the appellants fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The State appeal is hereby allowed and the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304B read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code instead of under Section 304B read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code as the charge goes. The criminal revision filed by the complainant party stands disposed of in the light of the observations made above.

Before I part with this judgment, I may also clarify that I am not endorsing the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 306 read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the conviction and sentence awarded under Section 304B readwith Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code.

Let intimation about this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, who will bring to the notice of the appellants that they have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304B read with Section 116 along with Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.