State of H.P. vs Satya Devi and Another

Surinder Singh, J.—Respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 28-J/VII/1998, decided on 19.11.1999. The State, by means of the present appeal, has assailed their acquittal.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

Admitted facts in the instant case are as follows:

(i) Deceased Smt. Anju Bala daughter of PW2 Ranjit Singh and PW3 Smt. Santosh Kumari, was married to Gurbachan Singh, who was serving in Border Security Force (B.S.F.)

(ii) PW2 Ranjit Singh has one son Panjab Singh and five daughters out of them three were unmarried and two including deceased were married.

(iii) One of the daughter of PW2, namely, Bholi Devi, who was unmarried girl had also committed suicide in the year, 1997.

(iv) Deceased Anju Bala was married to Gurbachan Singh, in the month of May, 1996 and committed suicide by consuming aluminum Phosphide an insecticide on 6.10.1997 in her matrimonial house. At that time, her husband was not present in the house as he was posted out side.

(v) The postmortem of the dead body was performed by PW1 Dr. Sanjay Mahajan on 7.10.1997.

(vii) PW2 Sh. Ranjit Singh got recorded his statement (Ex.PE) to the police on 7.10.1997, thereafter the same cumulated into the FIR (Ex.PF).

Precisely, the allegations against the Respondents, who are brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, are that they had been passing tones to the deceased that they had married Gurbachan Singh in a good family and expected good items in dowry from the complainant party. The deceased in 2-3 visits after the marriage complained to her parents that the Respondents have been demanding Rs. 10,000/-for purchasing scooter and Rs. 3000/-for defraying the loan. An amount of Rs. 10,000/-is stated to have given by PW2 Ranjit to his daughter after taking loan from his brother-in-law, namely, Janak Singh (PW5) and Rs. 3000/-were paid later from arrears of his salary. It is also alleged that 10-15 days prior to committing suicide, Anju Bala (deceased) visited her parental home and on being asked about her welfare she stated "JO KUCH HAI THEEK HAI", thereafter left for her in-laws'' house. These are the allegations, most of these are improved version during the trial.

Challan against the Respondents was filed for the aforesaid offences and they were put on trial and they were acquitted by the learned trial Court which has been assailed in the present appeal.

We have carefully examined the evidence on record. It is admitted fact that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison after 1 1/2 year of her marriage. The defence raised is that it was a false case as there was a tendency in the family of the complainant and the deceased was also of a hypersensitive nature. Like her another sister Bholi Devi who also committed suicide on a minor tiff with her mother (PW3). As per her mother, prior to the death, Bholi Devi, sister of deceased Anju Bala, was sitting in the house of Subhash Chand, their neighbour. When she asked her as to why she was sitting there since long, they had to go for work, she took poison and finished her life. She also stated that there was no any other cause for taking poison. But she denied that Anju Bala (deceased) was also of hypersensitive nature.

In fact prosecution in the instant case is under obligation to prove that the harassment or cruelty was related to the demand of dowry and such was, "soon before her death". The word "Dowry" has to be understood as it is found in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. There are three occasions related to dowry i.e. before marriage, at the time of marriage and at an unending period. In the instant case, there is no evidence to this effect that prior to the marriage and during the marriage any demand of dowry was ever raised by the Respondents. It is only alleged after the marriage by the Respondents. The Apex Court in Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, has held that mere demand of dowry is not an offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and further in Uday Chakraborty and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court has held that there should be an evidence of torture and harassment for satisfying the demand of dowry. Unless the above ingredients are fully satisfied, no case for the offence charged could be said to be made out.

In the instant case, deceased was a literate woman. Her parents and her sister PW.4, Manju Bala, admitted this fact and even Anju Bala (deceased) used to write letters to her husband. There is absolutely no letter on record either written by the deceased to her parents or her husband with respect to the alleged torture and harassment and also for that matter demand of dowry. In the instant case there is general allegation in Ex.PF with respect to the demand of dowry that too after the death of Anju Bala by her father (PW2). But when he was examined in the Court he gave altogether different version about the demand of Rs. 10,000/-raised by the Respondents for purchase of scooter and Rs. 3000/-for defraying the loan which was not there in his initial statement statement (Ex.PE) which culminated in the FIR. In cross-examination he clearly stated that these facts were alleged by him for the first time when examined in the Court. Similarly, PW.3 mother of the deceased was confronted to this effect with her statement (Ex.DA), but these allegations also did not find mentioned therein. Further, with respect to taking loan by PW.2 Ranjit Singh from PW.5 Janak Singh, his brother-in-law, was not found mentioned in Ex.DC. He was confronted with it, but he offered no explanation. Except this, there is no other evidence to prove offence charged against the Respondents.

On critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, firstly, the evidence with respect to demand of dowry by the Respondents from the deceased or her parents is doubtful and even if it is presumed to have been proved for the sake of arguments, then evidence of torture and harassment in the instant case is lacking. Until and unless these ingredients are proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence worth inspiring confidence, the acquittal of the Respondents cannot be converted into conviction.

We have perused the judgment of the learned trial Court. The findings of acquittal recorded by it are borne out from the evidence on record. Thus, for the above said reasons the acquittal of the Respondents, in our opinion, cannot be interfered with. The State appeal sans merit, hence dismissed.

The Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the records.