State of Punjab vs Parveen Kumar

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Accused Parveen Kumar (2) Shamsher Singh and (3) Smt. Lajya Devi were tried in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1989 for offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code regarding the death of Rita Rani, the wife of firstaccused Parveen Kumar, Second accused Shamsher Singh and third accused Lajya Devi are father and mother respectively of first accusedParveen Kumar. After trial these accused were acquitted by the Learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide his judgment dated 18.8.1990. Hence the State of Punjab has come forward with this appeal.

Baljit Singh (PW2) father of deceased Rita Rani lodged a complaint at the Police Station Garhshanker on 3.1.1989 wherein he had reported that he got married his daughter Rita with accused Parveen Kumar in June, 1988, and that on the date of the complaint i.e. 3.1.1989 at about 7 a.m. he was informed by Sagli Ram, a resident of Garhshankar that Rita Rani had expired, upon which he along with members of his family and others went to the house of the accused and found his daughter dead in her inlaws'' house. Baljit Singh suspected that Rita Rani had been administered poison by the accused. This complaint was given by Baljit Singh at Police Station Garhshankar, on the basis of which Head Constable Sangat Singh (PW5) of that police station recorded DDR No. 20 (Ex.PD). A copy of this DDR entry was received by Joga Singh ASI, who immediately reached village Binewal, found the dead body of Rita Rani, conducted inquest and sent the body for postmortem. Dr. Varinder Kumar (PW 1) Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Garhshankar, conducted the postmortem examination of Rita Rani, on 4.1.1989 at 10.30 a.m. and sent a piece of brain, heart, lungs, liver, whole of spleen and one kidney, a piece of small intestine and a piece of large intestine, whole of stomach, and the blood for chemical examination. After the receipt of the chemical examination, he gave the cause of death as aluminium phosphide poisoning, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ASI Manjit Singh (PW4) had after receipt of the report of the chemical examiner and on the basis of the DDR entry registered the formal F.I.R. Baljit Singh (PW2) the father of deceased Rita Rani and Jagjiwan Singh (PW3) sister''s husband of Rita Rani deposed about illtreatment and cruelty meted out to Rita Rani by the accused.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the first accusedParveen Kumar stated that he is innocent and that he along with his wife was living separately from his parents. According to him while his parents were doing agricultural works, he was running a shop in the village. He also denied any maltreatment to Rita Rani. According to him his wife was suffering from various diseases. The other accused denied the allegations against them and claimed to be innocent.

The accused also examined Achhru Ram (DW1) who stated that accused Parveen Kumar was living with his wife separately from his parents and was running a shop while, Shamsher Singh, father of Parveen Kumar, was cultivating the lands. He also stated that accused never illtreated Rita Rani. DW2 Ram Parkash also deposed similarly.

As pointed out already the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence and the materials placed before him acquitted the accused.

We have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

Although Baljit Singh (PW2) the complainant has stated in his complaint that he suspected that the accused had poisoned his daughter, he has not stated either that the accused demanded dowry or that they illtreated Rita Rani as the demand was not met, or that she was poisoned as a result. Of course, it is not necessary that the complaint should contain all the details of either the demand or the refusal or the illtreatment, but, there should certainly be a mention that there was demand and illtreatment by the accused on the ground that Rita Rani had not brought sufficient dowry or the demand made by the accused was not met by her or her relations. There is total absence of any such allegation in the complaint. The accused in this case have been charged under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the prosecution has to show that Rita Rani was subjected to cruelty by her husband and/or by the other accused or harassed for or in connection with any demand of dowry so as to make the accused liable for an offence punishable under Section 498A. To make the accused liable for punishment under Section 304B I.P.C. such cruelty must be shown to have been meted out to her soon before her death. Of course under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, if the accused are shown to have subjected Rita Rani to cruelty or harassment soon before her death for or in connection with the demand of dowry, then, it has to be presumed that the accused have caused the `dowry death''. Therefore, the prosecution will have to firstly establish that Rita Rani was subjected to cruelty or was harassed for or in connection with the demand of dowry. Apart from this significant omission about this in the complaint, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 namely, the father and brotherinlaw of Rita Rani is also not convincing. PW2Baljit Singh stated in his evidence that barely after 2 months of the marriage Rita Rani informed him, when she came to his house, that the accused started harassing her (Rita Rani) to bring more dowry, and that he told his daughter to inform her parentsinlaw that he would give more dowry by and by. PW2 Baljit Singh also stated that his daughter Rita Rani once again visited his house and told him that the accused were harassing, taunting her and pressing her to bring more dowry and that they told that otherwise she should leave their house. PW2 Baljit Singh also stated that three months before the death of Rita Rani he had gone to village Binowal, where, in his presence, the accused threatened Rita Rani either to leave the house or bring more dowry, and that he had treated the accused to wait stating that he would provide them with some more articles of dowry. We have already pointed out that these matters have not been mentioned in the complaint. This apart PW2Baljit Singh admitted that he did not remember the month or date when Rita Rani had come to him and told about the maltreatment at the hands of the accused, or when he went to the house of the accused, or when the accused threatened Rita Rani with consequences if she did not bring dowry. But he admitted that in his presence no threat was given to Rita Rani by the accused nor was she beaten in his presence three months prior to her death. He added that he was informed accordingly by Rita when he went to the house of the accused about three months prior to her death. So, we find that he had deliberately uttered a falsehood in the course of his examinationin chief that when he went to the house of the accused, the accused threatened Rita Rani in his presence demanding more dowry. This attempted improvement in crossexamination that he learnt about this from Rita cannot at all be accepted. Further PW2 Baljit Singh admitted that in the letters written by Rita and Sarla (the other daughter of the complainantBaljit Singh), there was no mention about the illtreatment, or demand for more dowry by the accused. Here again his attempted explanation that there was apprehension that someone else may read this letter cannot be accepted, because, it is not as if his daughterRita Rani informed him about the maltreatment secretly. Even according to him, he had even gone and met the accused and informed them that he would give more dowry by and by. So this explanation cannot stand scrutiny.

One more vital admission made by PW2 Baljit Singh is that his sons R.K. Rana and Shiv Nath Singh had visited the house of the parentsinlaw of Rita Rani, and that they (his sons) had been telling him (PW2) that Rita was happy in the house of her inlaws. After realising the effect of this admission, he changed and stated that his sons informed him that Rita used to be maltreated by her parentsinlaw, which cannot be accepted in the face what we have discussed above. PW2Baljit Singh also admitted in his evidence that he did not make any complaint about this alleged maltreatment meted out to Rita Rani to the Gram Panchayat or at any Police Station. This again is an unnatural conduct on the part of PW2 Baljit Singh if really the demand of dowry and alleged maltreatment were true.

So far as the evidence of PW3 Jagjiwan Singh is concerned, we are of the view that it is also unreliable. He is the husband of Sarla, another daughter of the complainantBaljit SinghPW2. PW3Jagjiwan Singh stated that after about one month of the marriage, accusedParveen Kumar and Rita Rani came to his house at Garhshankar and Parveen Kumar left Rita Rani in his house for two days. PW3 Jagjiwan Singh stated that Rita Rani told him and his wife Sarla, that she was being harassed and given beatings by the accused on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry. According to him he went with his wife, accompanied by Rita Rani and entreated the accused on behalf of the parents of Rita Rani telling that the parents of Rita Rani are poor persons, and they would meet their demands by and by. PW3Jagjiwan Singh stated that after one and half month Rita Rani came and told about the demand of dowry by her parentsinlaw and once again he and his wife met the accused and informed them similarly. PW3 also stated that about 20 days before the death of Rita Rani he and his wife Sarla visited the house of the accused, and when they were just at the threshold they heard all the accused harassing and threatening Rita Rani saying that since she had brought insufficient dowry they would not keep her, that she would have to either leave their house or die, and that they would get their son remarried. The statement of this witness was recorded by the police on 24.2.1989, long after the death of Rita Rani, but yet, he had not stated in his statement to the police that one month after the marriage Rita Rani was left at his house and that she stayed there for two days. He had also not stated that he told the accused that the dowry will be given to them by and by. Admittedly, he did not state to the police that he and his wife Sarla went to the house of the accused about 20 days prior to the death of Rita and they heard the accused harassing and threatening her. He could not mention the date or month when Rita was left by her husband in his house for 2 days or the date or month when he and his wife went to the house of the accused. One important fact is that PW3Jagjiwan Singh admitted that his wife Sarla has been writing letters to her parents. PW2 Baljit Singh stated that in the letters written by Rita or Sarla, wife of PW3Jagjiwan Singh, there was no mention about the ill treatment or demand for more dowry by the accused. Therefore, if really Rita Rani had complained about the demand for dowry or illtreatment by the accused on that account to Sarla and her husband (PW3) and if PW3 and his wife Sarla had gone to the house of the accused and had even seen Rita Rani being maltreated and harassed on account of insufficient dowry, Sarla would have certainly mentioned about the same in her letters to her father (PW2). Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, we are convinced that the evidence of PW3 Jagjiwan Singh is also unreliable as that of the Baljit Singh (PW2).

The firstaccused Parveen Kumar, the husband of deceased Rita Rani mentioned in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had been living separately and running a shop, while his parents have been living separately and doing agriculture work. PW2 Baljit Singh did not admit that Parveen Kumar and Rita Rani were living separately from the other accused, but, he admitted that Parveen Kumar is running a shop while, his father accused Shamsher Singh is doing cultivation. PW3 Jagjiwan Singh merely stated that he did not know if Parveen Kumar and Rita used to reside separately from the other members of the family. The Investigating OfficerJoga Singh (PW6) admitted in his evidence that Parveen Kumar and his wife Rita used to live seperately in the same house in which the other accused used to live. So, it is evident that Parveen Kumar and Rita Rani were living separately, though in the same house, from the other accused. When the other accused have been living separately from the firstaccused Parveen Kumar and Rita Rani it is also improbable that they demanded dowry from Rita Rani and illtreated her on that account.

As pointed out already the accused have been charging under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. There is no eyewitness for the occurrence. In the absence of any evidence the accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 I.P.C.

Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused giving benefit of doubt.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.