Surinder Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a criminal appeal filed by Surinder Singh, Hardip Singh and Smt. Swaran Kaur, who are husband, Dewar (husband''s brother) and mother-in-law of deceased Smt. Baljinder Kaur and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 8th July, 1997 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, who convicted the appellants under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine each one of them was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. It has further been ordered by the learned Trial Court that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

The story of the prosecution can be described in the following manner :

Smt. Baljinder Kaur deceased was the wife of Surinder Singh. Her marriage with him took place on 22nd March, 1995 in Village Adharman. After the marriage she lived with him in Village Awan Khalsa. According to the prosecution, neither he nor his mother Swaran Kaur and his brother Hardip Singh were satisfied with the dowry brought by her in the marriage. They allegedly raised a demand for more dowry and wanted the deceased to bring a scooter from her parents. It is further case of the prosecution that all the three appellants allegedly treated the deceased with cruelty as the deceased could not bring scooter. Having been fed up with the ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the appellants, Smt. Baljinder Kaur thought of ending her life. She consumed Aluminium Phosphide on 23rd August, 1995 and thereafter she died in the hospital on the next date, i.e., 24th August, 1995.

Post-mortem of her dead body was conducted by the Medical Board constituted by the S.M.O. Dr. J.S. Kumra. The Medical Board opined that her death was on account of consumption of Aluminium Phosphide. The doctor of the Board also found following four injuries on her person :

Multiple abrasions corresponding to upper teeth were present over the mucosa of cyanosed lower lip. Clotted blood was present.

Lacerated wound 3 cms. x 1.5 cm. was present on the buccal mucosa of the right side of the mouth involving outer l/3rd of upper and lower lips of angle of the mouth. Clotted blood was present.

Lacerated wound 2.5 cms. x 1 cm. present on the bucoal mucosa of left side of mouth involving outer 1/4 th of upper and lower lips and angle of mouth Clotted blood was present.

Right lower lateral incised tooth was dislocated and surrounding alvoclar bone was fractured. Clotted blood was present. Upper jaw contained 16 teeth and lower contained 14 teeth Ordental hygiene was satisfactory.

Report regarding the death of his daughter Smt. Baljinder Kaur was lodged by her father Santokh Singh by making statement Ex. PE at Police Station Mehatpur. On the basis of his statement (Ex. PE) formal FIR was registered. During investigation inquest report (Ex. PD) was prepared and the accused were arrested. On completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied copies of the documents to the accused. As the offence u/s 304B was triable by the Court of Sessions, resultantly all the accused were committed to the Court to Sessions and vide order dated 7th December, 1995 the Trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses besides tendering in evidence the reports of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PAA and Ex. PBB and the report of the doctor Ex. PCC.

On the completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. The accused denied all the circumstances and stated that they had been falsely implicated. Surinder Singh appellant stated that after his marriage with Smt. Baljinder Kaur, they lived happily for five months and they had very cordial and amicable relation with each other. He stated that neither he nor anybody else demanded any dowry from the parents of Smt. Baljinder Kaur. In the month of August, 1995 deceased Smt. Baljinder Kaur was taken by the mother to village Adharman and 3 days prior to Rakhi festival, i.e., after about 20 days he and his sister Surinder Kaur went to see his in-laws as well as his wife Smt. Baljinder Kaur in Village Adharman and they both stayed for the night there. This appellant also averred that during the night there was some altercation between his father-in-law and his mother-in-law. On the next morning he and his sister Surinder Kaur were ready to come back when his wife Smt. Baljinder Kaur told him that she would not remain there and prevailed upon him that she should also be taken along with them to his Willage Awan Khalsa, and they returned to their Village Awan Khalsa. On 23rd August, 1995 he was not present at his house and his father and mother had also gone to see his grandmother in Village Tandahur as she was suffering from cancer and her condition was serious. He had gone to his tubewell in order to irrigate the fields. He came back to his house at about noon. His wife Smt. Baljinder Kaur was ironing the clothes with automatic press. He was served meals by his wife Smt. Baljinder Kaur after ironing the clothes. Thereafter he went to the fields for watering. At about 6 p.m. when he came back, his wife was lying in an unconscious state on the ground. He raised hue and cry. Some ladies from neighbourhood, including Smt. Gindi wife of Danshan Singh collected there and tried to open the mouth of the deceased in order to put water in her mouth, as a result of which some injuries were also caused to her on the lips and teeth. When the condition of the deceased became very critical, she was taken to Cheema Hospital run by Dr. Amarjit Singh of Village Adharman in a vehicle where the doctor declared her dead. He further stated that his mother and his brother have been falsely implicated by the father of the deceased. The plea of Smt. Swaran Kaur and Hardip Singh is also to the same effect as that of their co-accused Surinder Singh. Further plea taken by Smt. Swaran Kaur before the Trial Court was that the recovery of insecticides at her instance had been planted by the Police. The insecticide, in fact, was purchased by her and Darshan Singh for spraying in the fields. The plea taken by Hardip Singh was that he never talked with his relations or with the parents of the deceased with regard to dowry and he had been falsely implicated. His plea is of complete innocence. In defence the accused examined DW1 Shangara Singh, DW 2 Gurdev Singh, DW 3 Charan Singh. Surinder Singh appellant also appears as his own witness as DW 4 and he placed on record a copy of the death certificate of his grandmother Smt. Dalip Kaur, who died on 20th December, 1995 in Village Awan Khalsa.

Learned Trial Court relied upon the story of the prosecution and rejected the defence version and convicted and sentenced all the three appellants in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, present appeal has been filed by the appellants, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Mr. P.S. Mann Senior Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. J.S. Brar, learned D.A.G., Punjab, who appeared on behalf of the State, and with their assistance I have also gone through the records of this case.

Assailing the findings of the learned Trial Court and making an endeavour for acquittal of all the three appellants, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that it is not proved on the record that there was no alleged demand of dowry soon before the death of Smt. Baljinder Kaur. According to the learned Counsel, Smt. Baljinder Kaur died in different circumstances. Until or unless the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are complied with by the prosecution, the appellants cannot be convicted u/s 304B, Indian Penal Code. In the alternative it was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that if entire concession is given to the prosecution of the evidence, even then the case with regard to Hardip Singh and Smt. Swaran Kaur becomes doubtful. The Counsel submitted that the alleged demand of dowry was for a scooter. Though the family of the appellant was already having a scooter, this demand was improper. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was a demand for scooter, it is not believable that such a demand would be made by Smt. Swaran Kaur, mother-in-law, or Hardip Singh, Dewar of the deceased. It has been submitted by the Counsel that it has been seen in experience that after the death of the girl, the parents of the deceased invariably become jealous and they try to implicate all the members of the family of the husband. It was also one of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants that desire on the part of an individual cannot be equated with a demand of dowry until or unless it is established that death of the deceased had taken place on account of the alleged demand of dowry.

On the contrary, Mr. J.S. Brar, learned D.A.G., Punjab, submitted that from the unassailable statements of Shri Santokh Singh (PW2) and Shri Kulbir Singh (PW 3) it stands proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of the alleged demand of dowry. The deceased was compelled to bring a scooter by the appellants. In these circumstances all the three accused have been rightly convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against Hardip Singh appellant and Smt. Swaran Kaur appellant. Broad human probabilities are the best yardstick in order to assess the story of the prosecution. It is true that in such like matters, relations are the best witnesses. If a woman in the house of her-in-laws is unnecessarily coerced, she would be the first person to make a complaint to her parents, brothers, relations and sympathisers. It is not the rule of law as it was argued by Mr. Mann that when a girl is harassed in connection with the demand of dowry, she should have made a complaint to the police. It differs from individual to individual because the first anxiety of the parents of the deceased would be to patch up the matter amicably, The first and foremost anxiety of every parent is that their daughter must remain happy in the house of her-in-laws. In very rare cases a person reports the matter to the Pandwyat or to the Police by making a complaint in writing against his son-in-law and his parents as well as other members of the family because by doing such an act one can easily purchase Enmity for all times to come. We have also seen in experience that after the death of the girl, the parents of the deceased go to any extent because the unifying link between the two families was no more. The parents of the deceased will have no love qua the family of the husband of the deceased and in this view of the matter, they would try to implicate every respectable member of the family, so that they may also face the same humiliation, torture and harassment as was allegedly given to the deceased. In this view of the matter I have to scrutinise the evidence of Shri Santokh Singh and his brother Kulbir Singh, appearing as PW 2 and PW 3, respectively, in the light of the allegations levelled at the trial.

To proceed further, I would like to make a mention that in order to prove the charges u/s 304B, Indian Penal Code, the following ingredients are necessary to be proved :

Death of the woman has taken place under unnatural circumstances.

The death has taken place within seven years of the marriage.

Soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or there was a demand of dowry.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code again defines cruelty. The Legislature has also introduced two salutary provisions for the benefit of the prosecution, i.e., Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. For our purposes, the provisions of Section 113B of the said Act would be relevant, in which it has been laid down that 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 woman 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. In the present case admittedly, the marriage of the deceased had taken place on 22nd March, 1995. She died on 24th August, 1995, just after four months of her marriage. The cause of death has been determined by the Board of Doctors, who opined that her death was on account of consumption of Aluminium Phosphide.

Now I proceed to discuss the evidence which would show that benefit of doubt can be extended to Shri Hardip Singh and Smt. Swaran Kaur appellants. Shri Santokh Singh (PW 2) in his examination-in-chief has deposed as follows :

"...Whenever my daughter Baljinder Kaur used to come to our house after the marriage, she used to tell me and my wife Harbhajan Kaur that she was maltreated, nagged by Surinde.r Singh, her husband, Swaran Kaur, her mother-in-law, and Hardip Singh, brother of Surinder Singh, accused for bringing insufficient dowry. The accused used to demand a scooter. A month prior to the occurrence, I and my brother Kulbir Singh went to the house of the accused at Village Awan Khalsa to see my daughter Baljinder Kaur. We met the accused there and we told the accused that we will try to meet their demand after lifting the Swani crop. The accused misbehaved with us and did not agree to our proposal..."

A reading of the above lines would show that the scooter was the root cause of the entire problem, if any. In these circumstances, who would be the direct beneficiary; if a scooter is provided in the in-laws'' house of the deceased. Though we have advanced, our civilization has advanced, but it has been seen in experience that in our village side, our ladies do not ride or drive a scooter. It may be true that Smt. Swaran Kaur and her son Hardip Singh may be desirous to acquire a scooter in the family as with the acquisition of the scooter, the status of the family may be enhanced. The family may become little more prestigious in the village, but desire cannot be equated with demand. Desire must have direct nexus with the cause of death. I have already stated above that after the death of Smt. Baljinder Kaur, Santokh Singh would be the first person to ensure that every person of the family of his son-in-law must be roped in. In these circumstances it cannot be ruled out that Shri Santokh Singh in order to teach a lesson to his son-in-law, might implicate Smt. Swaran Kaur and Hardip Singh, who had not much to do with the alleged demand of scooter. Otherwise also the allegations of Shri Santokh Singh with regard to the alleged cruelty are vague that all the three appellants were not happy with the alleged insufficient dowry.

So far as the position of Kulbir Singh is concerned/he has stated as follows:

"Baljit Kaur used to tell us that she was being maltreated by the accused after the marriage for bringing insufficient dowry. She was maltreated by Surinder Singh, his mother Swaran Kaur and his brother Hardip Singh all the accused are present in the Court. She also told us that the accused demanded a scooter to make up deficiency in dowry. A month prior to the occurrence I accompanied by my brother Santokh Singh went to Village Awan Khalsa to see Baljinder Kaur at the house of the accused. We requested the accused not to maltreat Baljinder Kaur and that we would try to meet their demand after lifting Swani crop."

This statement of Shri Kulbir Singh is at par with that of his brother Santokh Singh (PW 2). There is no other alleged demand which can directly benefit Smt. Swaran Kaur and Hardip Singh.

In this view of the matter, I would like to extend benefit of doubt to Hardip Singh and Smt. Swaran Kaur and their appeal stands accepted. They are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Falsus in one particular, need not be falsus in every particular. Though I have disbelieved the statements of Santokh Singh and his brother Kulbir Singh qua Hardip Singh and his mother Smt. Swaran Kaur, law of our land is still helpful to the prosecution. It is common case of the parties that Smt. Baljinder Kaur was married with Surinder Singh appellant on 22nd March, 1995. She died approximately five months after her marriage. She was having a foetus in her womb at the time of her death. When a woman marries, she goes to the house of her in-laws with some aspirations as she would get some financial and physical security there. She goes with high hopes. It is highly unlikely that the deceased would try to commit suicide or would try to take her own life, especially when a child is in her womb. She must have been coerced to such an extent that she had to take an extreme step of taking her own life. In these circumstances, with the aid of the provisions of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, it can be safely inferred that it might be Surinder Singh who had made the life of the deceased miserable and compelled her to finish herself with the help of insecticide, which is a very common poisonous substance available in the families of agriculturists because such insecticides are used by the farmers for spraying on their crops. All these ingredients are fully proved from the statements of Santokh Singh and Kulbir Singh qua Surinder Singh, whose appeal is hereby dismissed in toto.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Hardip Singh and Smt. Swaran Kaur are acquitted of the charges, while the appeal of Surinder Singh is hereby dismissed.