Suraj Mal & Ors. v. State of Haryana

which FIR No. 296 dated 9.11.1995 was registered. He stated therein that he had two sons and a daughter, namely, Poonam Devi, who was married to appellant Subhash on Criminal Appeal No.1013-SB of 1999 -2-

21.6.1995. An amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was spent by him in the marriage. However, appellants Subhash and Suraj Mal, husband and father-in-law, respectively of his daughter Poonam Devi were not satisfied with the dowry given. After 20 days of the marriage, Poonam Devi came to his house and told him that the marriage of Satbir was to be solemnized and, therefore, she was asked by her father-in-law Suraj Mal, brother-in-law Satbir, husband Subhash and sister-in- law Sunita to bring an amount of Rs.25,000/- from her parents or else she would be killed. The complainant counselled Suraj Mal and others and sent Poonam Devi to her in-laws house. On 7.11.1995, the complainant sent his son Munish Kumar to the matrimonial home of Poonam Devi so as to bring her. Said Munish returned in the evening and told the complainant that Suraj Mal, Satbir, Subhash and Sunita were saying that Poonam Devi would be sent only if the amount of Rs.25,000/- was given by her father. On

8.11.1995 at about 2.00 p.m., the complainant learnt that his daughter Poonam Devi was ill. The complainant, along with Jai Singh and Ram Kishan, went there and saw Poonam Devi lying dead on a Diwan. According to the complainant, his daughter had been harassed and treated with cruelty by the accused on account of dowry and as a result thereof, either she committed suicide or she was done to death. During the course of investigation, ASI Kitab Singh took into possession the articles of the deceased, prepared rough site plan and sent the dead-body for post- mortem. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of the investigation, the police presented challan against the appellants, whereas the name of Sunita was mentioned in coloumn No.2 of the challan. Vide order Criminal Appeal No.1013-SB of 1999 -3- dated 29.3.1996, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat framed charge under Section 304-B IPC against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. K.L. Chopra, PW2 ASI Ram Kishan, PW3 Prem Singh, PW4 SI Krishan Pal, PW5 Ram Kishan, PW6 Hari Om Sharma, PW7 ASI Kitab Singh, PW8 Munish Kumar and PW9 Inspector Hari Singh. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the appellants denied the prosecution allegations and set up the plea of alibi. In defence, they examined Jai Narain DW1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance. From the testimonies of PW3 Prem Singh, father of the deceased, PW8 Munish Kumar, brother of the deceased and PW5 Ram Kishan, who was neighbour of PW3 Prem Singh, it is made out that an amount of Rs.1,60,000/1,70,000 was spent by the father of Poonam Devi at the time of her marriage.

He had also given a scooter, television, fridge, washing machine, sewing machine, furniture, etc. in the marriage. However, the accused were not satisfied with the dowry. After about 20 days of the marriage, when Poonam Devi came to meet them, she stated that the appellants were Criminal Appeal No.1013-SB of 1999 -4- not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding a sum of Rs.25,000/- so as to solemnize the marriage of Satbir. So much so, that when Munish Kumar went to the matrimonial home of his sister Poonam Devi to bring her back to her parents’ house, the appellants had told him that in case the amount of Rs.25,000/- was not given, she would not be allowed to go, rather, she would be done to death. On the following day, i.e. on 8.11.1995, an intimation was received by them that Poonam Devi was lying ill. The complainant immediately left for the matrimonial home of Poonam Devi and found that she was lying dead on a Diwan.

From the testimony of PW1 Dr. K.L. Chopra, who had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Poonam Devi, it is made out that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging which was ante-mortem and also sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the death of Poonam Devi had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and, that too, within seven years of her marriage. Further, the deceased used to be harassed and maltreated on account of dowry which was also soon before her death. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC are made out. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant regarding harassment and maltreatment of the deceased on account of dowry have been coined by the complainant party. On the other hand, it was a case of commission of suicide by Poonam Devi as she was not satisfied with the status and educational qualification of her husband Subhash.

Reference in this regard is made to the testimony of PW3 Criminal Appeal No.1013-SB of 1999 -5- Prem Singh, who admitted that accused were comparatively lower in status than that of his family. However, he also stated that the house of the appellants consisted of a big room on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor. They also had room for storing fodder, which adjoined the big room. In addition there were two Baras at a distance of one killa from their house, which were used for tethering their cattle. Merely because there was some disparity in the economic condition of both the families, it cannot be said that Poonam Devi would have taken the extreme step of ending her life. It has also come on the record that when the mother of Poonam Devi was receiving treatment for Asthma, she used to look-after the household and other miscellaneous work. As regards the evidence that appellant Subhash was matriculate, whereas Poonam Devi was graduate, nothing has come on the record from which it could be made out that Poonam Devi had any grievance or grudge in that connection.

Coming to the demand for dowry, though PW3 Prem Singh testified that the appellants had not directly raised any demand of Rs.25,000/- from him but keeping in view the fact that Poonam Devi had told him about the said demand when she had come to her parents’ house after 20 days of the marriage and PW8 Munish Kumar testifying that when he visited the matrimonial home of his sister Poonam Devi on 7.11.1995, he was apprised by the appellants of sending a sum of Rs.25,000/- so as to solemnize the marriage of Satbir or else the deceased was not to be sent to her parents’ house, it can safely be concluded that the appellants had been raising unlawful demands and when the same were not met she used to be harassed and treated Criminal Appeal No.1013-SB of 1999 -6- with cruelty. Further, the appellants had also warned that she would be done to death if the demand for dowry was not met. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellants that none of them had contacted PW3 Prem Singh in person and made demand of Rs.25,000/-. The death of Poonam Devi occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances on 8.11.1995.

A day before the incident, PW8 Munish Kumar had gone to the village of the appellants to meet his sister and take her with him to his house. However, the appellants stated that she would be sent with him only if Rs.25,000/- was paid. At this, his sister started weeping. He returned back alone and told about the incident to his parents and others. Therefore, it stands established that the harassment and maltreatment of the deceased on account of dowry started soon after her marriage and continued till 7.11.1995, i.e. soon before her death which occurred on 8.11.1996. Coming to the stand of the appellants that they never demanded any dowry either from deceased Poonam Devi or her parents and in this regard referred to the testimony of DW1 Jai Narain, who had known both the parties and was the one to act as go-between in the marriage of Subhash with Poonam Devi, it may be worthwhile to refer to the testimony of PW3 Prem Singh when he stated that Jai Singh of his village and also DW Jai Narain had helped him in finding the match for his daughter Poonam Devi.

He also deposed that DW Jai Narain was present at the instance of the appellants at the time of engagement and the marriage. Even DW1 Jai Narain admitted in his cross-examination that Poonam Devi never Criminal Appeal No.1013-SB of 1999 -7- raised any objection either at the time of her engagement or marriage. Coming to the quantum of sentence it may be noticed that appellant Suraj Mal and Satbir are father-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively of deceased Poonam Devi. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of ten years imposed upon them is on the higher side. No case is, however, made out for interference in the sentence of imprisonment of appellant Subhash, who is husband of the deceased as death of Poonam Devi occurred within five months of her marriage. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC is maintained. The sentences of imprisonment of appellants Suraj Mal and Satbir are reduced from ten years to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. The sentence of imprisonment of appellant Subhash is maintained. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. September 17, 2010 satish ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE Satish Kumar 2014.04.22 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh