State of Haryana vs Budh Singh

S.S. Rathor, J.

Respondent Jagjit Singh alongwith his father and mother namely Budh Singh and Smt. Savitri respectively were put to trial for offence under Sections 306 and 498A Indian Penal Code, vide commitment order dated 7.5.1986 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mohinder Garh. The trial Court acquitted all the accused for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. However, acquitting the two other coaccused, the present respondent being husband of the deceased was found guilty and accordingly convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. After recording finding of guilty and conviction, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The respondent has not filed appeal against his conviction under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, as mentioned above. Presumably, he has not filed the appeal as the sentence awarded is one year''s RI and he has remained in custody for a period of about 7 months 23 days during the trial. However, feeling aggrieved against the order of he trial Court dated 30.9.1986, the State has come in appeal in this Court against the order of acquittal of the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC.

Admittedly, Mst. Kaushalya wife of the respondent committed suicide in village Dhana on 27.1.1986 at 12.15 p.m. After recording of the report Ex. PC/1, ASI Dharam Parkash (PW 8), under the directions of the S.H.O. of Police Station Satnali went to the place of occurrence in the village. He held inquest report (Ex. PC) dated 27.1.1986 and had also opined therein that the deceased had hanged herself to death of her own without any foul play in the matter. In due course autopsy was conducted in the General Hospital, Mohinder Garh by Dr. Amarwati (PW 1), on the following day of occurrence at about 12 noon. Hanging was opined to be cause of death, Surat Singh (PW2), father of the deceased lodged the report Ex. PE at Police Station Satnali wherein he attributed the allegations of abetment by the accused which resulted into commission of suicide by the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased was being tormented and tortured by the accused owing to his failure to give and deceased''s failure to bring sufficient dowry. In due course, after the completion of the investigation and procedural formalities the accused were arrested and the challan was put in the court for initiation of criminal proceedings.

During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including Surat Singh (PW 2) and Anup Bai (PW 3) being father and mother respectively of deceased. Hari Singh (PW4), Guman Singh (PW5) and Bhanwar Singh (PW 6) were examined to lend corroboration to the statements of PWs 2 and 3 on the point of demand of dowry, maltreatment, harassment and tortuous treatment to the deceased by the accused.

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations against them. In addition, coaccused Budh Singh specifically pleaded that Smt. Kaushalya was never treated with cruelty. Surat Singh (PW2) had lodged the false report at the instance of Hari Singh (PW4), after he (Surat Singh) had been asked to return the ornaments gives by Budh Singh to Smt. Kaashalya at the time of marriage. Similarly, the present respondent denying the entire allegations against him, pleaded that he was innocent. He was living separately from his parents and Surat Singh visited his house about 10 days before the death of Kaushalya and had refused to send her with Surat Singh because he was at that time in the process of constructing the house. Smt. Kaushalya (deceased) also felt annoyed. She also usually remained upset because she could not give birth to a child.

After appraisal of the evidence, the trial Court recorded positive findings that the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased had committed suicide within 7 years of the marriage and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act was not available to the prosecution. Further, as per discussion of the evidence as contained in paras 17, 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court recorded a positive finding that no offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was made out because the prosecution failed to adduce any direct evidence on the point that the commission of suicide by the deceased in any way was intentionally aided by any act of illegal commission on the part of the accused. It is pertinent to mention that the trial Court also disbelieved the entire evidence on the record on the point of demand of dowry by the accused persons from the father of the deceased or from the deceased and for the nonfulfilment of the same, any maltreatment or harassment on that account caused or given to the deceased.

The statements of the prosecution witnesses mainly Surat Singh (PW 2), Anup Bai (PW 3), Hari Singh (PW 4). Gurnam Singh (PW 5) and Bhanwar Singh (PW 6) have been gone into with the assistance of counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that three sisters of Surat Singh (PW 2) ae married in village Dhana. Hari Singh PW is his one of the real brothersinlaw. The information regarding the death of Smt. Kaushalya was conveyed to her parents by the accused through special messenger namely Ram Sarup. The police was also informed by accused party. The accused participated in the inquest proceedings and the deceased was subjected to autopsy. Admittedly, no person had noticed any conversation between the deceased and the accused before suicide was committed. A careful perusal of the statements of the PWs also dosed not convince that the accused had ever made any demand of dowry. Surat Singh (PW2) came present on the date of occurrence and was present before.......the police when the inquest proceedings were initiated. No such complaint or allegations of demand of dowry were made by him at that time. It was only on 4.2.1986 i.e. after eight days of occurrence, he reported the matter to the police when wild allegations of demand of dowry on the part of the accused were made. The police at the time of preparing inquest report, recorded the statements of accused alongwith the statements of respectables of the village namely Manphool Singh Sarpanch, Dev Karan Singh Lambardar, Bhan Singh and Udey Singh. It is not disputed that Surat Singh (PW 2) had also come at the spot when police arrived in the village. On inquiries and verification of facts, the police came to the conclusion of no foul play on the part of the accused. Even during trial no convincing evidence has been placed on the record about the demand of dowry from the deceased by the accused. Hari Singh (PW 4) who is real brotherinlaw of Surat Singh (PW 2) had admitted in examinationinchief itself that he had no talks with Smt. Kaushalya Devi during her visits to his house. He purported to have written a letter Ex. PD to Surat Singh PW and nothing incriminating is written therein. He had admitted that the had no talks with Smt. Kaushalya Devi either before or afterwards about the alleged maltreatment given to her by the accused persons when he wrote the letter Ex. PD. It is apparent that if Smt. Kaushalya Devi had made any complaint same would have found mentioned in the letter Ex. PD which otherwise is conspicuously silent. This witness has further admitted that he came to know about the death of Smt. Kaushalya Devi at 3 or 3.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence. His house is at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the accused. He has not given any explanation as to why he did not visit the house of Smt. Kaushalya Devi on learning about her death, being so close a relation. He admits that Surat Singh (PW 2) stayed at his house in the village for about 78 days but he did not advise Surat Singh to lodge the report. This indicates nothing but one fact that there was no grouse or complaint in the mind of Surat Singh PW2 till he stayed with his brotherinlaw (Jija). It is only after he left the village that Surat Singh PW 2 thought to lodge the FIR to pressurise the accused persons not to ask for return of ornaments given to the deceased Kaushalya Devi and which as suggested by the defence were lying with Surat Singh (PW 2). Guman Singh (PW 5) has not supported the prosecution story at all. Bhanwar Singh (PW 6) has also not supported the prosecution case in any manner. In corssexamination he has admitted that he never saw the accused persons maltreating Kaushalya Devi. He has expressed his ignorance as to under what circumstances Smt. Kaushalya Devi had committed suicide.

There is no doubt, that the marriage of the deceased with Jagjit Singh accused was performed with all possible simple ceremonies. To disbelieve the concocted story of demand of dowry, another glaring fact is that the three real sisters of Surat Singh (PW 2) are also married in the village of the accused. PW 2 Surat Singh has admitted that his brotherinlaw (Jija) Bhag Singh to whom his real sister is married, refused to help him in the matter. It can safely be presumed that three sisters of Surat Singh (PW 2) (Bhuas of the deceased), would have been very much in the know of any illegal demand of dowry or that any of the accused had harassed or humiliated the deceased for any cause. If the deceased was ever subjected to harassment or was maltreated for not meeting the demand of dowry either of these three ladies must have come to know of the same and must have conveyed the same to Surat Singh (PW 2) who was their real brother. Even none of these ladies has been examined during the trial. Noncomplaining by any of whom to Surat Singh and their nonexamination in the court, goes a long way to show that there was no demand of dowry by the accused.

Of course, the conviction under Section 498A Indian Penal Code has not been challenged by way of appeal in this Court. The conviction has been recorded on the ground that the wife was driven to commit suicide, having suffered prolonged indignity and humiliation due to will fully indifferent and wilful conduct of the husband. This observation has been made by trial Court on the ground that after three years of the marriage, wife had left the house of her husband and thereafter she continued staying with her parents for a period of about two years and during this period the respondent (husband) never cared to take any measures to bring her back and rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home. The trial Court has further observed that this conduct on the part of the present respondent must have caused emotional upheaval and tension in the mind of the wife particularly when she could not bear a child.

For this reason, as viewed by the trial Court, deceased Kaushalya committed suicide. No doubt, the deceased could not conceive a child. If a woman is not in a position to give birth to a child and for his reason she takes in her head to put an end of her life, by no stretch of imagination any wilful act or conduct can be attributed to the husband. Even if it is presumed that the wife had gone for a period of two years to her parents house after three years of the marriage and no efforts were made by husband to bring her back, it again would not amount to any wilful conduct of harassment in terms of Section 498A Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record while recording the finding of conviction under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence on the record that because of not mothering a child, any of accused uttered any word to insult, or of annoyance to the indignation and harassment to the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence, the approach of the trial Court is nothing but presumptive one which is not tenable in law. Much emphasis need not to be laid on this aspect of the matter as no appeal has been filed by the accused respondent for conviction under Section 498A Indian Penal Code but the fact remains that the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 498A Indian Penal Code did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence as envisaged under the said section.

As already observed, this appeal by the State is against the order of acquittal for offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code only. The facts and circumstances of the case and the prosecution evidence placed on the record has been correctly read and appreciated by the trial Court. No fault whatsoever can be found with the approach of the trial Court. The finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and earned by the respondent is hereby endorsed.

Being devoid of merit the appeal is dismissed.