Subhash and Others vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Than Singh resident of village Doomarkhan married his daughter Sant Kala (now deceased) to Subhash son of Chhaju Ram a Jat of Khanpur in the year 1982. The deceased went to her matrimonial home in later part of the year 1985. Subhash, his mother''s sister Bhartho and her son from the loins of Bhupa named Shamsher Singh all the three arrayed as accused, are alleged to have harassed the Bride for bringing more dowry. Subhash brought Rs. 2100/-from his father-in-law on 15th June, 1986 on the pretext of purchasing a bullock. Nearly two weeks before the occurrence in the beginning of April, 1987 Subhash again contacted his father-in-law in village Boomarkhan and demanded Rs. 10,000/-on the pretext of purchasing land therewith. Father of Subhash when contacted told Than Singh that they did not intend or propose purchasing any land. Than Singh, therefore, dropped the idea of parting with Rs. 10,000/-which he had actually brought with him to the matrimonial home of his daughter on 13th April, 1987; inspite of his being repeatedly told by the deceased therein that in case he did not give the money to Subhash, all the three accused aforesaid would kill her. All the three accused are also alleged to have told Sant Kala tauntingly in the very presence of her father Than Singh, "Your father has given sufficient dowry. Therefore, he loves you much." Sant Kala died an unnatural death on the night intervening 16th and 17th April, 1987 and was hurriedly cremated by the accused on 17th April, 1987 without informing her parents.

On being charged with the commission of offences u/s 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code all the three accused pleaded ''not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Bhal Singh, Zile, Kitab Singh and Lal Chand who allegedly attended the cremation of Smt. Sant Kala were also charged u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code for destruction of evidence of crime attributed to the three accused aforesaid but were all acquitted by the learned trial court on 12th January, 1988. Vide its impugned judgment dated 12th January, 1988 aforesaid learned trial court, however, convicted all the three accused named Subhash, Smt. Bhartho and her son Shamsher Singh of the commission of the offence u/s 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced everyone of them three to undergo individually imprisonment for life for their conviction. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, all the three convicted accused-appellants have jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 45-DB of 1988 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Baldev Singh, Advocate, for the appellants, Shri Ram Avtar Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the State and have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

P.W. 10 Than Singh, father of the deceased and author of the First Information Report states :--

"Deceased Sant Kala was one of my daughters. Sant Kala was about 20/21 years old when her marriage was solemnised with accused Subhash about 4/5 years ago. I had performed the marriage and gave everything as is customary in our brotherhood. After about three or three and a half years of her marriage, she started going to her matrimonial home and her Muklawa was performed. When she came to our village for the first time, Sant Kala told that Subhash, Shamsher and Bhartho, today present in the court were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. Bhartho is the real sister of the mother of Subhash and accused Shamsher is son of that Bhartho. I told Sant Kala that I would persuade her in-laws not to harass her and that I would be giving them articles as per our custom.

About 7/8 months before her death, accused Subhash came to me in my village and he demanded Rs. 2100/- from me for purchasing a bullock. The money was not ready with me. I, therefore, borrowed that amount from P.W. Satpal, regarding which I executed an entry in Bahi which is Ex. P. 2 I had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.50% per month. I gave that sum of Rs. 2100/- to Subhash.

About 20 days before her death, accused Subhash and Shamsher brought my daughter Sant Kala from my village and took her to Khanpur. That time, she had stayed in my house for about a month.

Ten days after Sant Kala had been taken by Subhash and Shamsher, accused Subhash came to me and he asked me to give him Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing land. I told him that the money was not ready with me and that I would arrange for the money in one or two days and thereafter I would come to their village I took a sum of Rs. 6000/- from my uncle Ganga and took the sum of Rs. 4000/- lying in my house. Regarding the money taken from Ganga, no writing was made. I took that sum of Rs. 10,000/-with me and came to Khanpur. I met Chhaju Ram, father of accused Subhash. I talked to him about the purchase of land and he told me that they were not going to purchase any land. Subhash and my daughter Sant Kala were away to the fields for cutting wheat crop. At about 12 noon / 1 P.M. Sant Kala returned from the fields and came to me. She told me to give the money if I had brought and that Subhash was harassing her for money I told her that I would persuade Subhash and he would not torture her. In the evening, Subhash returned from the fields and I talked to him also. He demanded money from me. I told him that I had not brought the money and that he should get it from his father. I stayed for the night in village Khanpur. The next morning when I was leaving for Doomarkhan I talked to my daughter Sant Kala. She again asked me to give money, otherwise they would kill her. I told her that I had persuaded everybody in her matrimonial home and that she would not be harassed.

She, however, told that accused Subhash, Shamsher and Bhartho would murder her. When I was going to leave for . Doomarkhan Bhartho, Subhash and Shamsher accused taunted me that in case I had loved my daughter, I should have given enough dowry. I came to my village.

3/4 days after my return from Khanpur, Dharampal P.W. who had gone to Gurana with Rajbir in a marriage, informed me on 21-4-87 that he had heard in Gurana about Sant Kala having been murdered in Khanpur. Therefore, I, Rajpal and Balraj came to Khanpur and made enquiries in the village regarding the death of Sant Kala. We learnt that Sant Kala had been murdered about 3/4 days ago in the night. We had also gone to the house of the accused Subhash etc., but they were not available.

I had spent about Rs. 40,000/- on the marriage of Sant Kala. I had given her gold ornaments weighing about five and a half tolas. The Accused had not given us any information about the death of Sant Kala and when we reached Khanpur, she had already been cremated."

In cross-examination the witness states :--

"Sant Kala had told about her harassment before her mother and not before me. Only Subhash alone had come to me when he asked for Rs. 10,000/-. Rajpal, Balraj and I remained together so long as we were in Khanpur. None from the accused met us there. I have told the police that my daughter Sant Kala came to me at about 12 noon/1 P.M. and that I had gone to her matrimonial home. (Confronted with Ex. PE where the time of arrival of Sant Kala is not mentioned.) I had told the police that on my enquiry, Sant Kala had told that Subhash, Shamsher and Bhartho would murder her. (Confronted with Ex. PE where the names of Subhash, Bhartho and Shamsher are not mentioned.) I had also told the police that on the next day when I talked to Sant Kala, she asked me to give money, otherwise they would murder her. (Confronted with Ex. PE where it is not so recorded in that sequence)."

Two out of the three accused, namely, Smt. Bhartho and her son Shamsher both asserted in the course of their statements u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, "I am living separately from accused Subhash. Our ration card is separate and our house is separate. We pay Chula tax separately. We have no concern with Subhash. We have never demanded any dowry nor did we ever harass Sant Kala." Explanation aforesaid when read along with the following admissions made by Than; Singh P.W. 10 in cross examination, "Only Subhash alone had come to me when he asked for Rs. 10,000/- Rajpal, Balraj and I remained together so long as we were in Khanpur. None from the accused met us there" wholly exculpates the two accused aforesaid. Taunting attributed by Than Singh to both of them in court as P.W. 10 is qua himself; addressed by the two accused to the witness aforesaid and not against the deceased. In order to attract culpability in terms of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code the alleged harassment and cruelty ought to have been against the bride (deceased) and not qua her father. In result both of them two co-accused named Bhartho and her son Shamsher get exonerated from the charges framed against them by the learned trial court and both of them are consequently acquitted through acceptance of, their appeal jointly filed by them with the third accused-appellant Subhash, husband of the deceased.

In order to absolve himself of the charges framed against him by the learned trial court Subhash accused in the course of his statement u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code stated as follows:--

"I have been falsely implicated in this case. My wife Sant Kala had been ailing since long and was under the treatment of Dr. Inderpal Pawar of our village. Her condition deteriorated. She died and intimation was sent by us to her parents on 17-4-87 through Manphool Singh Dung. She had died a natural death after protracted illness. We waited for her parents to come. Her father Than Singh and her brother came and only thereafter her body was cremated. From 18-4-87 to 21-4-87 the complainant party had been pressurising us in various Panchayats for returning the articles of dowry. The dispute could not be resolved and therefore, Than Singh threatened that he would take the articles of dowry through the police. We never demanded any dowry from her and we were satisfied with whatever she had brought, I never asked for Rs. 2100/- nor was any such amount given to me for purchasing the bullock. I never demanded Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing the land."

In order to substantiate his explanation aforesaid the accused examined five defence witnesses. D.W. 1 Chhaju Ram is his own father who asserts that he did not-require any money either for the purchase of bullock or for purchasing land and that both the co-accused in Smt. Bhartho and her son Shamsher Singh are living separately from them. Deposition of his own father being self-serving made only to exculpate his own son and being of an interested witness does not operate to exculpate Subhash accused. Dr. Inderpal R.M.P. D.W, 3 also contradicts the accused by asserting that Smt. Sant Kala did not breath her last in his presence. The name of the patient also does not find mention in the register of treated patients maintained by the witness. Besides it, learned trial court observed the witness trembling in court while making the statement. Manphool Singh D.W. 2 also negatives the assertion of his having been sent to the house of Than Singh P.W. 10 for informing him of the death of his daughter Smt. Sant Kala by admitting in cross-examination, "I do not know, where the house of Than Singh is situated." Had the witness actually gone there, as is now asserted, he would certainly have been able to state the situation and location of the house of Than Singh in the village in the course of his cross-examination.

Explanation offered by accused Subhash having remained unsubstantiated, presumption envisaged in Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act renders the unnatural death of Smt. Sant Kala in her matrimonial home on the night intervening between 16th and 17th April, 1987 as dowry death envisaged in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant presumption reads:--

"113B. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such women had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation :--For the purpose of this section "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code."

Conviction of accused appellant Subhash recorded by the learned trial court vide its impugned judgment of January 12, 1988 is, therefore, affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to accused-appellant Subhash by the learned trial Court on this score also seems appropriate. The appeal filed by him is, therefore, dismissed. Ordered accordingly.