Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

Rani led her brother Tarsem Kumar to lodge a case FIR No.635 dated

22.09.1997 at Police Station City Jind under Section 306/34 IPC. On the basis of the FIR, all the family members, which included husband Surinder, his brother Ravinder Kumar, his sister Asha and parents Krishna Devi and Rikhi Kesh were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- II, Jind, who held them guilty of offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC vide its judgment dated 13th July, 2002. Surinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Criminal Appeal No.1124-SB of 2002 2 Whereas, Asha, Krishna Devi and Rikhi Kesh, sister and parents of husband of the deceased respectively, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Tarsem PW-1 had made a statement Ex.PA to Inspector Bihari Lal PW-11, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. Tarsem stated that he was a vegetable vendor in Urban Estate, Jind. His father expired six years ago. The complainant was the only brother of five sisters. The marriage of his younger sister Rani was solemnized in the year 1992 with Ashok Kumar resident of Urlana Khurd. However, the marriage was not successful and on the intervention of Panchayat, Rani had taken a divorce. Later-on, she was re-married with the appellant Surinder Kumar. At the time of marriage, the complainant party had spent according to its capacity. Rani was blessed with a son, who was ten months of age at the time of occurrence. After the marriage, Surinder husband, Ravinder Kumar brother-in-law, Asha sister-in-law, Rikhi Kesh father-in-law and Krishna Devi mother-in-law of the deceased Rani used to taunt and harass her by saying that the marriage was not according to the standard of the family. They used to demand various articles and money and had also given beatings to her. Rani after coming from Panipat to Jind used to narrate her tale of woes to her mother, her cousin Kalu Ram and to the complainant but they used to console her. About 9/10 months ago, the complainant along with Kalu Ram went to the house of in-laws of the deceased Rani to make them understand, but they told that they did not intend to keep her. On the intervention of Panchayat, Surinder and Rikhi Kesh agreed to keep the sister of the complainant. Rani, who was earlier turned out of the house, was taken back by her Criminal Appeal No.1124-SB of 2002 3 husband, who came to the house of his in-laws. Rani lived well in the house of her in-laws for 5/6 months. Thereafter, she was again turned out of the house after giving beatings. 3½ months before the occurrence, Rani was given beatings by all the accused and she was turned out of the house. She started living with the complainant, her brother. She used to complain that life is worthless for her and on the day of occurrence, she committed suicide. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused appellants. All the appellants were charged for offence under Section 306 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Before this Court could advert to the evidence and discuss the arguments raised, it is necessary to notice at first that there is an unusual factor of this case. It is stated that Surinder husband had undergone the entire sentence awarded to him and his appeal has been rendered infructuous. It is further submitted that both the in-laws of the deceased, Rikhi Kesh and Krishna Devi have expired, however, an application was filed that their appeal should not abate. Along with the case of the other accused, mainly this Court has to adjudicate upon the guilt of Ravinder Kumar brother and Asha sister of husband of the deceased Rani, who were released on bail by this Court. At the first instance, medical evidence can be noticed. Dr.V.K. Satija PW-3 stated that as per the original bed-head ticket, Rani was brought to the hospital by her mother. She had ingested two tablets of celphos as told by the attendant, her mother. At the time of admission, she was cold and calm and was gasping. Her blood pressure and pulse were unrecordable. The patient died within ten minutes of her admission. The time of death noticed in the bed-head ticket was 10.20 a.m. on 22nd September, 1997. Criminal Appeal No.1124-SB of 2002 4 Dr. Brijpal PW-12 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rani. The Viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner. After the report of Chemical Examiner, it was opined that Rani had died due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphide, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Tarsem Kumar complainant appeared as PW-1 and reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. In cross examination, this witness stated that Rani remained with Ashok Kumar, her previous husband, for the period from 1992 to 1995. The relations between Rani and Ashok Kumar remained strained. This witness further admitted that at the time of settlement with Ashok Kumar, they had received Rs.1,75,000/- from the family of Ashok Kumar. This witness further deposed that the amount so received was spent on the marriage of Rani with Surinder appellant on 2nd December, 1995. The marriage party of Rani consisted of 70/75 persons. This witness admitted that Ravinder and Suraj Parkash, brothers of Surinder, were in service prior to the marriage. Surinder used to run a photostat shop at Panipat, till Rani died. Kalu Ram appeared as PW-2. He corroborated the testimony of PW-1 Tarsem. This witness further stated that the deceased was under depression because of the maltreatment given by the accused and demand of dowry. He further stated that the deceased used to say that she will commit suicide. ASI Prem Singh PW-4, HC Dharampal PW-5 and Constable Satyawan PW-6 tendered their affidavits Ex.PC, Ex.PD and Ex.PE respectively to prove link evidence. Retired Inspector Raghbir Singh PW-7 had prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. ASI Virender Singh PW-8 proved ruqa Ex.PA, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. Criminal Appeal No.1124-SB of 2002 5 SI Darshan Singh PW-9 proved arrest of Krishna Devi. Vijay Kumar PW-10 was the mediator of the marriage. This witness stated that after about 10/11 months of the marriage of deceased with Surinder, he came armed with an axe to his shop for the reason that less dowry was given at the time of marriage. In cross examination, this witness stated that Surinder was a typist near Skylark at Panipat. He was also running a photostat machine. However, this witness agreed that younger brother of the appellant Suridner was a Government servant. Bihari Lal, Inspector, who had conducted the investigation appeared as PW-11 and proved the inquest report Ex.PF, sending of viscera to the Chemical Examiner and the post-mortem report Ex.PG. He further proved various dates of the arrest of the accused. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to them. Ravinder Kumar stated that he was residing separately and he had no concern with the family affairs of Rani and Surinder. Surinder Kumar also denied all the incriminating circumstances and gave the following version: “I am innocent. I am residing separately since marriage from my co-accused. My father, mother and sister used to reside in separate villages. Actually, it was second marriage of Rani with me, so it was a very simple marriage and no dowry was given. The deceased was a lady of hot temperament and she came to Jind after delivery of male child only for rest but due to harassment and taunts given by mother, brother and Bhabhi of deceased, she might have consumed some poisonous. Even we were not intimated by the complainant party nor they waited for our arrival to participate in last ceremony and they cremated the dead-body of Rani in our absence. The complainant party wants to grab money from us and on used refusal I and my co-accused have been falsely Criminal Appeal No.1124-SB of 2002 6 implicated in this case. I never mal-treated and harassed Rani and kept her properly.” Other accused also stated that they were residing separately. In defence, Suraj Parkash DW-1 stated that there was an altercation between Surinder and Vijay Kumar PW. Daulat Ram DW-2 stated that after the death of Rani, he had accompanied Surinder to the Police Station Jind, where there was an altercation between the complainant party and the accused. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate appearing for the appellant, has submitted that in the present case, the deceased was residing with the complainant from last 3 ½ months. There was no immediate provocation or incitement to commit suicide. It is sated that the period of 3 ½ months is more than enough for the deceased to cool down, if she had any grievance subsisting against the accused. It is further submitted that the other co-accused have nothing to gain from the matrimonial affairs of Surinder. Counsel for the State has submitted that the testimonies of Tarsem complainant PW-1 and Kalu Ram PW-2 aspire confidence and the trial Court has rightly placed reliance thereupon. I have considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties. The deceased has died within seven years of her marriage. Both, Tarsem complainant PW-1 and Kalu Ram PW-2, have stated that the deceased was harassed for not bringing adequate dowry. There is no conviction of any accused under Section 304-B IPC. The State has preferred no appeal. Even if it is held that presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted, this Court is of the opinion that omnibus, vague and general allegations have been leveled against the accused. Only Surinder can be put to corner for demand of dowry. He was working as a typist and was also running a Criminal Appeal No.1124-SB of 2002 7 photostat machine, whereas, Ravinder was employed in Government service. Therefore, unnecessarily all the members of the family of Surinder have been involved in the present case. Hon'ble the Apex Court in ‘Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others’ AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324, observed as under:- “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. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case”. There is a tendency on the part of relations of the bride to involve all the family members of her husband. Furthermore, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that this was a second marriage of the deceased Rani. Her earlier marriage had failed and the second marriage with the appellant Surinder was also in the doldrums. Therefore, this may be the cause for her to brood, rue and commit suicide. There was no immediate cause or provocation provided by the accused to the deceased to compel her to end her life. Since the appellant Surinder, husband of the deceased Rani, has already undergone the entire sentence awarded to him, this Court is of the opinion that conviction of the co-accused cannot sustain. Hence, Ravinder brother and Asha sister of husband of the deceased Rani, are Criminal Appeal No.1124-SB of 2002 8 acquitted of the charges. Their conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is set aside. The parents of husband of the deceased Rani, who were convicted and sentenced, are stated to have died during the pendency of the appeal. However, as a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt can be extended to them also. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of. March 23, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE