Surender and Others vs State of Haryana

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—The Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6.12.2001 and order of sentence dated 7.12.2001 vide which they have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced in the following manner:

1.

For offence punishable imprisonment.

under section 304-B of the I.P.C.

To undergo life imprisonment.

2.

For the offence punishment

under section 498-A of the I.P.C.

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further two

months'' imprisonment

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The case set up against the Appellants by the prosecution has been as under:

Sultan Singh son of Shri Harphool Singh, resident of village Jeetpura lodged a complaint with Police Station, Badhra on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 134 dated 13.8.1998 under Sections 328, 498-A and 304-B of the I.P.C. was registered. It was stated in the complaint that he had married his daughter Nirmala, aged 18 years, a year before her death, with Appellant-Surender son of Nand Lal, resident of village Gudana, according to Hindu rites. It was further stated that the complainant had spent a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- in the marriage and gave away dowry as per his capacity.However, the Appellants, who are husband, jeth (brother-in-law) and parents-in-law of the deceased, were not happy with the dowry. They used to torture Nirmala for bringing less dowry and had been making demand of a motor-cycle upon her. Whenever Nirmala used to visit her parental home, she had been telling the complainant and his other family members in this regard. About a week prior to her death, Appellant-Nand Lal came to village Jeetpura to take away Nirmala to her matrimonial home. However, she was not willing to go as she apprehended her death at the hands of the Appellants in connection with demand of dowry. Still, she was sent with Appellant-Nand Lal.

According to the complainant, on 12.8.1998, he had sent his son Vijay Kumar to village Gudana to know about the well being of Nirmala. Vijay Kumar told the complainant at about 9.00 P.M. on that day that Nirmala had been murdered by the Appellants by administering some poison or by strangulating her with the help of a rope for bringing less dowry.

Murti daughter of Kalu Ram, a resident of village Hansawas Khurd, was married with Appellant-Ravinder. Her marriage was solemnized about three years earlier to the date of her death. She has also been murdered in the like manner by administering some poison to her or by strangulating her by putting a rope around her neck for bringing less dowry.

Receiving this information through Vijay Kumar, the complainant went to village Hansawas Khurd and taking Kalu Ram with him, reached village Gudana. They made enquiries and were satisfied about the fact that Nirmala and Murti were killed by the Appellants for bringing less dowry. They saw the dead bodies of Nirmala and Murti. While the dead body of Nirmala was lying near a Jandi tree, the dead body of Murti was hanging on that tree.

The complainant left Vijay Kumar and Kalu Ram with the dead bodies and went to Police Station, Badhra where he met Jai Singh, Sub Inspector/ S.H.O. to whom he narrated the facts and accordingly, the formal F.I.R. was recorded, a special report of which was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate. The S.H.O. then proceeded to the place of occurrence along with the complainant. He also called a photographer and got the spot photographed. He prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence and also recovered some foot-wear (chappals), a sickle and clothes from the spot after giving them the shape of parcels and putting seal `JC'' on the same. He then conducted inquest proceedings regarding the death of Nirmala and Murti and thereafter, dispatched the dead bodies for post mortem examination.

Dr. Anil Chaudhari, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Dadri conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Nirmala and Murti and had opined that the cause of death was `asphyxia'' due to hanging.

The Appellants were produced before Jai Kishan, Sub Inspector by one Dr. Basanta on Loharu-Bhiwani road in the area of Dadri and they were accordingly arrested.

The viscera from the dead bodies of Nirmala and Murti, preserved by Dr. Anil Chaudhri, was sent for chemical examination.

After completion of necessary investigation, report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by the S.H.O.

On 16.12.1998, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, upon appraisal of the entire material before him, charge sheeted the Appellants for committing offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution had examined as many as ten witnesses to support its case against the Appellants.

Thereafter, the trial court put the incriminating evidence to the Appellants in the shape of questions as per the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Besides denying the incriminating material appearing against them, they had stated that Nirmala and Murti were never harassed in connection with demand of dowry. They claimed that Appellants - Surender and Ravinder had been staying in other villages in connection with their work and Nirmala and Murti insisted on their being taken to those places. It was also claimed that Nirmala and Murti did not want to stay in the joint family and as Appellants- Surender and Ravinder could not afford to take them to the places of their work and to have separate households there, they have committed suicide.

In defence, three witnesses were examined.

As already stated, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, by the impugned judgment and order of sentence, convicted all the four Appellants for committing offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly .

Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants preferred the present appeal.

Before adverting to the merits of the case, Shri Deepinder Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, Appellant-Nand Lal has died on 30.4.2003. He has placed on record the death certificate of Nand Lal. Shri Saurabh Mohunta, learned Deputy Advocate General has got verified this fact and has found the same to be correct. He has placed on record copies of death certificate Crl. and report of the police regarding death of Nand Lal son of Het Ram, Jat, resident of Gudana on 30.4.2003 on account of cancer at P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak. In view of this, the appeal of Nand Lal stands abated.

Taking us through the evidence of the prosecution, learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the complainant while appearing as PW6, has stated about the harassment of his daughter at the hands of the Appellants and Nand Lal in connection with demand of dowry.According to him, Vijay Kumar, the son of the complainant, has appeared as PW7 and he has also repeated the version of PW6. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that there is demand of motor-cycle alone alleged to have been made upon Nirmala by the Appellants. He has pointed out that Appellant-Surender alone could be benefited if the demand of motor-cycle was fulfilled and his parents could have no reason to make any such demand upon Nirmala. It was then contended that PW8-Kalu Ram has failed even to assert that his daughter-Murti was being harassed in connection with demand of dowry. According to the learned Counsel, PW8 has, although, stated that the Appellants had been harassing his daughter for bringing less dowry, but he changed his version in the very next sentence when he expressed his ignorance about the reason of the Appellants torturing her. It was pointed out that the statement of PW8-Kalu Ram is only regarding his making payment of Rs. 13000/- for a course to be undertaken by Appellant-Ravinder. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued that this payment of Rs. 13000/- for a course cannot be related to the marriage and, therefore, it can not qualify for being a demand of dowry. He has further submitted that this payment could, at the best, be in the nature of help given by PW8 and, therefore, cannot be said to have been made against a demand of dowry. To support his submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reported in Appasaheb and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it has been laid down that a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has next contended that the parents-in-law of the deceased could have no reason to demand motor-cycle or any other item and that they have been implicated being close relations of the husband. He has submitted that the father-in-law of the deceased has since died and the case against mother-in-law would further be on a better footing than the case against the father-in-law. In this regard, he sought support from a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, wherein it has been held that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. It has further been held that in cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and by mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths.

Lastly, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 304-B of the I.P.C. awarded to the Appellants is on the higher side. According to him, the Appellants did not deserve this sentence. He has prayed for reducing the sentence in case his other submissions do not find favour with us.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, in addition to his able help rendered to us in evaluating evidence, has submitted that the trial court has fairly assessed the prosecution evidence and has committed no irregularity, much less illegality in accepting the same. He has further submitted that the offences of the like nature require to be dealt with an iron hand.

We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and have carefully examined the record.

It is a case where not one, but two women have died at their matrimonial village within seven years of their marriage. Though, there is some divergence about the date of marriage of Nirmala and Murti, yet, it is an undisputed fact that they have died within seven years of their marriage.It has rather become very clear in the evidence that their stay, after muklawa, in the case of Murti, at the matrimonial home was about one year before their death. It is further established on record that Nirmala and Murti have committed suicide by hanging themselves. They are daughters-in-law of the same family, related to each other as sisters-in-law (wives of two brothers). Learned Additional Sessions Judge has aptly dealt with the point raised before him by the defence that these deaths were not covered by Section 304-B of the I.P.C., defining `Dowry Death'' and providing penalty for the same. He has held the deaths in this case,i.e.,. suicidal deaths to be covered by Section 304-B. If there may remain a doubt about it, it would rest with the ratio of Kans Raj''s case (supra) wherein it has been held that death by a wife by suicide occurring within seven years of marriage, cannot be said to have occurred in normal circumstances.

The question before us is as to whether the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the Appellants, who are their husbands and relatives, for or in connection with any demand for dowry. In this regard, it is to be seen as to what was the demand and whether it could be said to be a demand for dowry?

In the case of Nirmala, her father, Sultan Singh (PW6) and her brother, Vijay Kumar (PW7) have stated on oath that the demand made by the Appellants on Nirmala was of a motor-cycle. PW6 has deposed in his cross-examination that fifteen days after the marriage, his daughter disclosed to him for the first time that she was being tortured on account of demand for dowry. The demand of motor-cycle cannot fall in the exceptions which are sought to be attracted towards the payment of Rs. 13000/- by PW8-Kalu Ram in the case of deceased-Murti. This demand cannot be said, in any manner, to have been made on account of any financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses. So, the demand of a motor-cycle is undoubtedly a demand for dowry.

PW8-Kalu Ram has stated that a sum of Rs. 13000/- was paid by him for a course to be undertaken by Appellant-Ravinder, his son-in-law.

It has not come in his statement that this amount was demanded by Appellant-Ravinder. One thing can be presumed if this payment is believed that the same was not made without being asked for.

Now, the question is as to whether the demand of Rs. 13000/-was made as was required for undertaking the course or it related to the marriage of Murti with Appellant-Ravinder and amounted to demand of dowry.

It has been stated by PW8-Kalu Ram that the Appellants used to torture his daughter for bringing less dowry. He is an agriculturist of the age of 60 years at the time of his appearance in the witness box. He, in the very next sentence, expressed his ignorance about the cause of torture of his daughter.

Whether the aforesaid statement of PW8-Kalu Ram would be sufficient to conclude that his daughter-Murti was not tortured by the Appellants in connection with demand for dowry, is a question which is to be decided by considering the attending circumstances. Besides, keeping in view his categoric deposition in cross-examination where he has stated that his daughter was being harassed in connection with demand for dowry, it has to be kept in mind that PW8-Kalu Ram had two daughters, namely, Prem and Murti. Prem was married some time ago with another son of Nand Lal (since deceased). It is in the cross-examination of PW8-Kalu Ram that Prem was also harassed in connection with demand of dowry and she was even turned out of her matrimonial home in that connection.

The principles for appreciation of evidence of an educated person cannot be applied while dealing with a statement of rustic and old villager. The man here had even lost his daughter. He has, although, expressed his ignorance about the reason for torture of his daughter, yet he has not denied the previous part of his statement by saying that she was never tortured for or in connection with demand for dowry. To pay for the fee of a course desired to be undertaken by the Appellant, Ravinder, there is no responsibility of the parents of his wife. If PW8-Kalu Ram had paid an amount for a course undertaken by Appellant-Ravinder, then it can definitely be said to have been demanded as dowry and not help and can be held to be a payment made against demand for dowry.

The next point which requires our attention is as to who had made the aforesaid demands and as to whether the same were there soon before the death of Nirmala and Murti.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has stressed that Appellants, Nand Lal and Parvati, were not to be benefitted by the fulfilment of the demands. According to him, they were not to use the motor-cycle if the demand for the same was met. It has been submitted that Nand Lal, who could, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have ever used the motor Crl. cycle, if given, there was no such possibility with Appellant-Parvati.

As has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Kans Raj''s case (supra), in case, the relations of husband are involved in dowry related matters, the overt acts alleged on their part are required to be specifically proved. In the case in hand, the allegations are of omnibus nature. They can be taken help to prove the demands made by the husbands of the deceased, but to establish that the parents of the husbands had also joined them in making such demands, specific evidence has to be led. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed in this case to lead such evidence.

It is clear from the prosecution evidence that shortly before their death, the two women were at their parental homes. Nand Lal is said to have gone to bring them from their parental homes to their matrimonial home. While leaving for their matrimonial home, the two had expressed their apprehension to their parents that they would be killed in connection with demand for dowry.

It is a case where the cohabitation of the deceased with Appellants, Surender and Ravinder, at their matrimonial home, is not very long. The demands for dowry once made could be presumed to continue unless there is some evidence to prove that the matter had been settled and the demands had ceased. There is no such evidence or even a plea on the part of the defence and, therefore, it can be said that the demands for dowry had been made soon before the death of Nirmala and Murti.

In the instant case, two sisters-in-law coming from different families committed suicide at the same time. There must be something very grave before them on account of which they took this unfortunate step. I this connection, we may examine what the Appellants have to say.

Appellant-Surender has stated in answer to question No. 16 in his statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on the day of occurrence, he was present at his shop in Behal where he used to work as motor mechanic. He has added that his wife, Nirmala, committed suicide because her demand for being taken to Behal for settling there was not fulfilled by him. He has further added that he could not fulfil this demand because he was unable to afford a rented house and to bear expenses of a separate household in the town of Behal. He has also denied there being any demand for dowry made on Nirmala by him or his co-Appellants. This very version is suitably repeated by other Appellants in their statements recorded under the aforesaid provision.

It is very difficult, rather impossible, to believe that the two young women would commit suicide on refusal of their husbands to take them to their places of work and provide them with separate households.

They had been staying at their parental homes till late and while Nand Lal came to take them back, they were reluctant to accompany him to their matrimonial home. It is clearly stated by PW6-Sultan Singh and PW8-Kalu Ram that the deceased apprehended their death at the hands of the Appellants at their matrimonial home in connection with demand of dowry.

In the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, it can safely be said that Appellants, Surender and Ravinder were making demands for dowry upon the deceased, Nirmala and Murti. However, we do not find the prosecution to have succeeded in proving that Nand Lal and Parvati had harassed the deceased in connection with demand of motor-cycle and Rs. 13000/- in cash. Therefore, the conviction of Appellants, Surender and Ravinder as recorded by the trial court is upheld, whereas the appeal of Appellant, Parvati, is accepted, her conviction as well as the sentence awarded to her are set aside.

Coming to the sentence part of the judgment under appeal, Section 304-B of the I.P.C. provides minimum as well as maximum punishment for the offence. The minimum punishment is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years and the maximum is imprisonment for life. The trial Court has awarded maximum sentence to the Appellants. In our opinion, it is a routine case and cannot be termed as exceptional case where the maximum sentence is deserved by Appellants, Surender and Ravinder. However, on account of the harassment they meted out to Nirmala and Murti, the two innocent girls, who had dreamt of golden days with their husbands after their marriage, had committed suicide.Therefore, it is also not a case where the minimum sentence would suffice.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the sentence awarded to the Appellants, Surender and Ravinder by learned trial court for the offence punishable u/s 304-B of the I.P.C. is reduced from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, whereas the sentence for the offence u/s 498-A of the I.P.C. as imposed upon them by learned trial court is maintained. Both these sentences will run concurrently.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and order of sentence, the appeal is disposed of.