Smt. Krishna and Others vs State of Haryana

Ajay Tewari, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 5.2.2000 and order of sentence dated 9.2.2000 whereby all the three appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each for the commission of offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and in default of payment of fine they were sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. For the commission of offence u/s 304-B IPC, accused-appellant Vikram was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused-appellants Siri Kishan and Smt. Krishna were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the commission of offence u/s 304-B IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused-appellant Vikram was married to the daughter of the complainant. Saroj( deceased) on 15.3.1997. He had given sufficient dowry to his daughter as per his status but the husband and his parents were not happy with the dowry. They used to tease and taunt Saroj for bringing less dowry.

After six months of the marriage, Saroj was turned out of the matrimonial home after giving beatings to her by the husband. She was being asked to bring cash of Rs. 50,000/-from her parents. However, she was sent back by her father assuring that he would send the amount in a few days. After 15 days thereafter when brother of Smt. Saroj visited her, he did not find the atmosphere congenial and Saroj told him that she is being beaten continuously for not bringing the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. On the next day, father of Saroj then took respectable to the house of the accused where they assured that they would not beat Saroj. Two months before this occurrence, Vikram i.e. husband of Saroj had left her with her parents stating that if they were not able to give Rs. 50,000/- then she would better live with them and she had no place to live in the matrimonial home. About 25 days prior to the occurrence brother of Saroj had brought her to her matrimonial home ,however, he was told by the accused-appellants that either they should arrange for Rs. 50,000/- or they would have her dead body only.

On 29.04.98 on coming to know about the admission of Saroj in hospital, her father Jaipal Singh i.e. complainant had gone there along with his brother Kishan and son Joginder, nephew Lal Singh and some other respectable of his village reached Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon where Saroj told them that she was given severe beatings for not bringing Rs. 50,000/-that her husband and his parents had administered some poisonous substance to her. Soon thereafter she died in the hospital.

Jaipal Singh, father of the deceased made complaint before the police on the basis of which FIR was recorded. Post mortem on the body of Smt. Saroj was got conducted. Accused-appellants were arrested and after completion of usual formalities challan was filed in Court.

Accused-appellants were charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 and 406 of the IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses out of whom the most important witnesses are PW6, PW7, PW9 and PW 11. PW6 is Dr. R.N. Yadav, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon. He deposed that on 28.04.98 he conducted medical examination of Saroj wife of Vikram. There was history of foul smelling vomiting. Her husband and father-in-law were suspicious of her having consumed poisonous material. In his cross-examination he has testified that the patient was fully conscious and signed the MLR in his presence. PW7 is Dr. R.K. Sachdeva, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon who had conducted post mortem examination on the body of Saroj and after seeing the report of FSL he opined that the cause of death was aluminum Phosphide (Celphos). PW9 is Jaipal Singh(complainant), father of the deceased and PW11 is Joginder, brother of the deceased. They have corroborated the version as given in complaint.

After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They all have taken the plea that on the very first day of the marriage they came to know that Saroj was pregnant and on the very next day accused Vikram had gone to his in-laws and informed this fact to them. They requested him to save the honour of the family and thereafter she was brought back to matrimonial home. She was got aborted and a writing was executed by the father and brother of Saroj which is on the file as Ex. DY. That writing is signed by Jaipal Singh (complainant) and his son Joginder Singh only.

Accused-appellants in their defence evidence examined 9 witnesses out of whom DW2 is Dharambir who has stated that on the request of appellant Siri Kishan he had brought him, his son Vikram and wife of Vikram(i.e. the deceased) to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon in his car. They also picked up one Lal Chand of their village. Thereafter on the asking of Siri Kishan(accused-appellant No. 2) he along with Lal Chand went to Malerna in that very car. He has deposed that besides Jai Pal, father-in-law of Vikram, 7-8 persons also accompanied them to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon From there they came to know that she was shifted to Kalyani Hospital so they all went there and after one hour he came back to his village. He also deposed that from Malerna another Maruti van was engaged by Jai Pal. He did not utter even a single word regarding the factum of having consumed some poisonous substance by Saroj. He did not even go inside the hospital to see her. DW7 is Tara Chand who sold some land to son of accused-appellant Siri Kishan. DW8 G.S. Sangwaiya, Officer, Union Bank of India proved the statement of account Ex. DP of Siri Kishan. DW9 Dharam Singh is Lambardar of the village of the accused-appellants. He has testified to the extent that accused Siri Kishan owns agricultural land which has its market value in Crores. Thereafter defence evidence was closed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties the accused-appellants were convicted by the learned trial Judge as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued firstly that the extreme pungent nature, taste and smell of the aluminium phosphide renders it highly unlikely that it can either be administered by force or trickery. In this regard reference may be made to a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana, wherein it was held as under :-

...Aluminium Phosphide is available in the form of chalky white tablets. When these tablets are taken out of the sealed container, they come in contact with atmospheric moisture and the chemical reaction takes place liberating phosphene gas (PH3) which is the active ingredient of ALP. This gas is highly toxic and effectively kills all insects and thus preserves the stored grains. When these tablets are swallowed, the chemical reaction is accelerated by the presence of hydrochloric acid in the stomach and within minutes phosphene gas dissipates and spreads into the whole body. The gas is highly toxic and damages almost every organ but maximal damage is caused to heart and lungs. Sudden cardiovascular collapse is the hallmark of acute poisoning. Patients come with fast thready or impalpable arterial pulses, unrecordable or low blood pressure and icy cold skin. Somehow these patients remain conscious till the end and continue to pass urine despite unrecorded blood pressure. Vomiting is prominent feature associated with epigastric burning sensation. The patients will be smelling foul(garlic like) from their mouth and vomits. Many of them will die within a few hours. Those who survive for some time will show elevated juglar venous pressure, may develop tender hepatomegaly and still later Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome(ARDS), renal shut down and in a very few cases toxic hepatic jaundice. The active ingredient of ALP is phosphene gas which causes extensive tissue damage. A spot clinical diagnosis is possible in majority of cases of ALP poisoning. However, ALP on account of its very pungent smell (which can drive out all inmates from house if left open) cannot be taken accidentally.

As per learned counsel the offence u/s 304-B IPC would definitely not be made out. As regards the explanation for the suicide, learned counsel has argued that actually the deceased committed suicide because she was having illicit relations with her cousin prior to her marriage and she was having a pregnancy of about five months at the time of marriage. There is a settlement Ex. DY in this context on the file which has been wrongly discarded by the learned trial Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants has next argued that there was delay in lodging of the FIR despite there being much time and opportunity for doing so and this serious infirmity has been overlooked by the learned trial Court. He has further stated that the learned trial Court has relied upon the testimony of interested witnesses i.e. the father and brother of the deceased whose statements were materially discrepant and conflicting. He has also argued that there is no evidence on the file which could show that the deceased was ever treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. Even no such evidence prior to the date of incident has been brought on the file to prove this fact. He has also argued that the statement Ex.DD recorded by the investigating officer absolutely exculpates the appellants which could have been treated as dying declaration but the same has not been treated as such by the learned trial Judge.

On the other hand learned AAG has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

After considering the rival contentions and going through the case file I am of the opinion that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be termed as unusual delay because when the father of the deceased came to know about the admission of her daughter in the hospital his first priority was the well being of his daughter. When she died, he immediately reported the matter to the police. Another argument of learned counsel is that demand of dowry is not proved. The consistent statements of the father and brother of the deceased clearly prove that she was being harassed on account of dowry and the deceased had disclosed this fact to her father also when she was admitted in hospital that she was beaten up by the accused on account of their demand of dowry. The investigating officer in his statement as PW13 has also corroborated the version of the complainant. He has stated that on receipt of ruqa from the hospital he had reached there and the complainant had presented a complaint to him on which he had recorded the FIR. The testimony of all these witnesses remained unshaken during the test of cross-examination. As far as settlement Ex. DY is concerned that is signed by complainant Jai Pal Singh and his son Joginder. It is not signed either by accused Vikram or by deceased Saroj. So, the argument of the learned counsel that the same has been wrongly discarded by the learned trial Court holds no ground.

In view of the above discussion this Court is of the opinion that the appellants would only be liable for an offence u/s 306 IPC and not u/s 304-B IPC. It cannot be held that there was no demand for dowry. Consequently the contributory factor of the conduct of the appellants in driving the deceased to suicide cannot be denied. Resultantly, I convert the conviction of the appellants from Section 304-B IPC to Section 306 IPC. However, conviction under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is maintained.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that appellant No. 1(mother-in-law) has undergone more than 10 months out of the total sentence of seven years, appellant No. 2(father-in-law) has undergone a little more than one year out of total sentence of seven years and appellant No. 3 (husband) has undergone 1 year and 8 months out of total sentence of 10 years. He has prayed for taking a lenient view against the appellants stating that appellants No. 1 and 2 are old parents-in-law and there is none else to look after them except appellant No. 3 at this stage of life. Eleven years have since elapsed.

As regards appellants No. 1 and 2, I cannot persuade myself to hold that they are equally guilty as their son. It is trite that if the unfortunate woman had at least the support of her husband she would not have driven to suicide. In the totality of circumstances I deem it appropriate to reduce their imprisonment to which they have already undergone.

As regards appellant No. 3 husband, on conversion of his conviction from Section 304-B to Section 306 IPC, I deem it appropriate to reduce his sentence to five years. However, his conviction under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is maintained. Let him be arrested to serve out the remaining period of his sentence. Sentence of fine is also maintained.

With these observations this appeal is disposed of.