Crl. A. No. 648-SB of 1998 v. State of Punjab

Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. AG Punjab ARVIND KUMAR, J: This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated

30.7.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Amritsar, whereby in case FIR No. 73 dated 18.6.1995 at Police Station Chheharta under Section 304-B/498-A,302/34 IPC, the accused appellants, Tarlochan Singh and Hari Singh, have been convicted under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC. Under Section 304-B IPC, both of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of fine, to further undergo RI for one month each, and under Section 498-A IPC they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of fine, to further undergo RI for one month each. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. In brief, the facts are that on 18.6.1995, Smt. Kanso, complainant, made statement to the police that her daughter Sukhjinder Kaur was married to accused Tarlochan Singh about 1½ year back. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born. Complainant alleged that during this period of 1½ year, the accused used to give beatings to her daughter and Crl. A. No. 648-SB of 1998 2 send her to her parents house for bringing more dowry. Her parents used to send her to the matrimonial house by requesting the accused not to torture her. On 18.6.1995, the complainant received a message that her daughter Sukhjinder Kaur had committed suicide after being tortured by the accused or that she might have been murdered by them. On receipt of this information, she along with her son-in-law Mohinder Singh and brother-in- law(Devar) Joginder Singh went to the house of accused where she found her daughter dead. Upon such statement, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused. Upon completion of certain formalities, the accused were arrested. Thereafter, challan was presented before the Court against the accused for an offence under Section 304-B, 498-A and alternatively for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC, whereby charge under the said sections was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and thereafter, closed its evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting them incriminating evidence qua the accused to which they pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence evidence, they examined DW-1 Tarsem Singh, DW-2 Harbans Kaur, DW-3 Gurdial Singh, DW-4 Dr.Ravinder Kumar, DW-5 ASI Beant Singh and DW-6 Raj Kumar and closed their evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide the above-stated impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced both the accused- appellants, Tarlochan Singh and Hari Singh, i.e. husband and father-in-law of the deceased Sukhjinder Kaur. Hence, the present appeal by them. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code lays down that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death” and such husband or the relative shall be deemed to have caused her Crl. A. No. 648-SB of 1998 3 death. Section 113-B has also been inserted in the Evidence Act. It deals with the presumption of “dowry death” and proclaims that when the question is whether a person has committed a dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to demand of dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused “dowry death”. It can, therefore, be seen that irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connection with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have committed the “dowry death”provided the other requirements mentioned above are satisfied. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the statements of PW.1 Smt. Kanso and PW3 Swarn Singh, the mother and maternal uncle respectively of deceased Sukhjinder Kaur and has contended that both the witnesses have improved their version to the larger extent just to show that there was demand and harassment being meted out to the deceased soon before her death whereas infact there is no evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, hence such evidence falls short of the requirement to establish the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The contention is meritless. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC show that there must be material to show that soon before death, victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Expression “soon before”is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. But at the same time, “soon before”is relative terms which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between time of making the demand and the death. It contemplates reasonable time which as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In other words, demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough. The deceased Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur had a married life of just one and a half year at the time of her death. The tenor of evidence of PW1 and PW3 suggests that right from the beginning she was harassed and subjected to beating on Crl. A. No. 648-SB of 1998 4 account of bringing less dowry. During this short period, Sukhjinder Kaur was taken back to her parental home on four occasions, but after due settlement, she was sent back to her matrimonial home on the assurance given by the accused not to harass her in future. Therefore, the chain of events suggests that she was not living in congenial atmosphere in the matrimonial home, obviously on account of mal-treatment for demand of dowry. Thus, her death cannot be said to be too remote and stale enough which could not attract the ingredients of “soon before”her death. The word “soon” embrace the series of incidents forming part of the same transaction which culminated in the death of the concerned woman and the word “soon” cannot be interpreted to mean that cruelty or harassment should be just before death. In other words, if the bride is given disrespect from time to time and being tortured or harassed on account of the demand, no hard and fast rule can be fixed by the court of law while interpreting the words “soon before the death”. The sequence of events, discussed above, suggests that cruelty and harassment on account of said demand was alive till her death. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to contradiction in the statements of witnesses to the effect that as per initial version given to the police complainant (PW1 Kanso) has stated that there was demand of refrigerator while as per her statement given in the Court she added the demand of scooter as well; whereas PW3 Swarn Singh nowhere specified the demand raised by the accused. According to PW1 her daughter was taken back on four occasions while PW3 has referred to only two occasions. I have gone through the statements of both the witnesses. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Apart from minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the case, their statements are corroborated on material particulars so far the demands and harassment to Sukhjinder Kaur is concerned. It has also not be forgotten that due to minor discrepancies in the statements of simpleton and illiterate witnesses, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Their statements indict the series of incidents forming part of the same transaction which culminated in the death of Sukhjinder Kaur. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress that there is no independent corroboration to the statements of both the witnesses, who are closely related to the deceased. The contention is again meritless. The statements of PW.1 Smt. Kanso and PW.3 Swarn Singh Crl. A. No. 648-SB of 1998 5 cannot be rejected merely on the ground of relations of deceased. It is, but natural, that instance of cruelty, harassment or demand of dowry would remain within the personal knowledge of near relations and they would be the best persons to depose about the same. Therefore, the evidence of physical and mental torture of the deceased coming from the mother and maternal uncle of the deceased need not to be discarded simply on the score of absence of independent corroboration. The case of Hari Singh, so far demand, cruelty and harassment is concerned, is distinguishable as that of appellant Tarlochan Singh. He is father-in-law of the deceased. The statements of PW.1 Kanso and PW3 Swarn Singh are omnibus in relation to the harassment and mal-treatment by him. There are no specific instances attributed against him. He has nothing to do with the demand of scooter, which is primarily for the use of accused Tarlochan Singh. There is also no instance indicating that he specifically demanded the fridge. The statement of the investigating officer PW6 Gajinder Singh also indicated that in-laws had a separate kitchen. In Salamat Ali & Another. Vs. State of Bihar, 1997 SCC (Crl.) 842, it has been held that demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use and acquitted the father-in-law and mother-in-law and convicted the husband. Thus, following the ratio laid down in Salamat Ali's case (supra), Hari Singh deserves acquittal. So far as appellant Tarlochan Singh is concerned, the case of the prosecution is consistent coming from the mouth of PW.1 Kanso and PW3 Swarn Singh. Their statements corroborates the cruelty and demand of dowry. He, being the husband, is directly beneficiary to the said demand of dowry. The death of Sukhjinder Kaur has occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances in the matrimonial home. Admittedly, the death has occurred within 7 years of the marriage. It is duly proved that soon before her death she was treated with cruelty in connection with aforesaid demands of dowry and all the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are satisfied. The counsel for the accused-appellant Tarlochan Singh has argued that sentence of imprisonment for seven years is excessive. The contention is meritless. The deceased has died in the matrimonial home at the very thresh-hold of her Crl. A. No. 648-SB of 1998 6 married life. Therefore, the appellant Tarlochan Singh deserves no leniency in the matter of sentence awarded to him by the trial court. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant appeal to the extent of appellant Hari Singh is allowed, thereby acquitting him of the charges framed against him. He is discharge of his bonds for appearance. The appeal qua appellant Tarlochan Singh is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 16,2010 Jiten