Crl.A. No.373-SB of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A. No.373-SB of 1997 DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2011 RAJINDER AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL. 1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. R.S. RAI, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR. VIKRAM SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. G.S. BAKSHI, ADDL.A.G., HARYANA. M.JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL) 1. Accused Rajinder, Ram Kishan and Brahmi were convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. All the above three accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court preferred Crl.A. No.373-SB of 1997. Complainant Devi Singh has preferred Crl.R. No.778 of 1997, aggrieved by the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused. He has also sought for compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that deceased Sushila, grand-daughter of PW5 Devi Singh and daughter of PW7 Santosh was given in marriage to accused Rajinder on 6.11.1992. Ram Kishan and Brahmi, the other two accused, are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sushila. Sushila stayed for about 3-4 days at the matrimonial house alongwith accused Rajinder and thereafter she returned to the parental Crl.A. No.373-SB of 1997 -2- home and narrated the fact that accused made a demand of dowry. The accused had been constantly harassing deceased Sushila. PW5 Devi Singh visited the matrimonial house of his grand-daughter to enquire about the ill- treatment meted out to Sushila. There was a complaint from the accused side that Sushila did not discharge her duty properly. PW5 advised Sushila to behave properly with the accused in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, Sushila came down to the parental home in the month of February, 1993 for appearing in M.Com examination. She complained of harassment by the accused due to demand of dowry. She went back to the matrimonial home thereafter. The accused Rajinder brought Sushila in a car and dropped her at the parental house. She was not prepared to go back to the matrimonial home. She was not provided with meals for about 3 days. Raj Kumar, grandson of PW5 proceeded to house of the accused. The accused made a demand of scooter and television set. On 13.4.1993, at about 2.30 p.m. Sushila committed suicide at her matrimonial home. 3. Post mortem examination was conducted by PW4 Dr.H.R. Singhal. He opined that Sushila died due to asphyxia. PW8 S.I. Bhojraj and PW9 ASI Puran Singh investigated the matter and laid final report as against all these accused. 4. On the side of the accused two witnesses were examined. DW1 H.C. Balbir Singh has spoken to the fact that there was no indication of departure of S.I. Raj Kumar from Police Lines, Kurukshetra to Sonepat on 11.4.1993. 5. The trial Court having adverted to the material testimony of PW5 Devi Singh and PW6 Virender Kumar, PW7 Santosh in the Crl.A. No.373-SB of 1997 -3- background of the medical testimony recorded conviction as against the accused. 6. Mr.R.S.Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the matter was compromised between the parties. He has also produced a compromise deed entered into between the complainant party and the accused party. It is his submission that the testimony of PW7 would go to show that there was no demand of dowry either prior to the marriage or at the time of marriage. Even when PW5 visited the matrimonial house to enquire about the complaint of harassment, no demand of dowry made by the accused party. ASI Raj Kumar who allegedly visited the matrimonial home was not examined before the trial Court. His visit to the matrimonial home on 11.4.1993 was completely belied by the testimony of DW1. The fact that Sushila stayed at the parental home right from 4.4.1993 to 13.4.1993 would go to show that there was no role for the accused in the suicide committed by Sushila. At any rate, he would submit that the offence under Section 304-B IPC was not made out, inasmuch as, there was no demand of dowry. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant who filed criminal revision would submit that the matter was compromised between the complainant party and the accused party. It is his submission that the appeal and the criminal revision may be decided based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General for the State would vehemently submit that the testimony of PW5, PW6 and PW7 would to go establish that there had been a consistent demand of dowry followed Crl.A. No.373-SB of 1997 -4- by cruelty. It is his submission that the trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon the aforesaid material evidence and recorded conviction under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. 9. As righty pointed out by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, PW7 Santosh, mother of deceased Sushila has categorically deposed before the trial Court that no demand was made by the accused party either at the time of marriage or prior thereto. If, at all, the accused had been avarice, they would have definitely made a demand if not prior to the marriage, but at least at the time of marriage. PW5 Devi Singh would depose before the Court that he went to the matrimonial home of Sushila to enquire about the harassment meted out to her. The accused complained to him that Sushila failed to discharge the household work properly and that she did not serve them as expected of her. Her husband Rajinder had complained that Sushila had not rendered any service to accused Brahmi. It is to be noted that there was no demand of dowry made by the accused at the time when PW5 visited to enquire about the harassment. If, at all, the accused had persisted their demand of dowry, they would have definitely made known PW5 of their avaricious demand of dowry. It is the case of the prosecution that Raj Kumar who was brother of the deceased and was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector was sent to the matrimonial home to enquire about the grievances of Sushila who had come to the parental house. ASI Raj Kumar, brother of the deceased was not examined before the trial Court to establish that soon before the death of Sushila, the accused committed cruelty demanding dowry. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants DW1 HC Balbir Singh attached to Police Crl.A. No.373-SB of 1997 -5- Lines, Kurukshetra has deposed based on Roznamcha that there was no indication that ASI Raj Kumar left for Sonepat on 11.4.1993. The above facts and circumstances would go to establish that ASI Raj Kumar never visited the matrimonial house of Sushila on 11.4.1993. In view of the above, it is held that the demand of dowry and cruelty allegedly committed by the accused soon before the death of Sushila was not established by the prosecution. 10. It is the admitted position that Sushila came down to the parental home on 4.4.1993. She committed suicide on 13.4.1993 in the parental home. PW7 Santosh would depose that she did not find any clue that Sushila would take such a decision to commit suicide. 11. The evidence of PW5 Devi Singh, PW6 Virender Kumar, PW7 Sushila would go to establish that Sushila was treated very cruelly. She was not even given food for about 3 days before she was dropped at her parental house on 4.4.1993. The ill-treatment meted out to her had persuaded her to take an ultimate decision to end her life by hanging at the parental house. Inasmuch as, it has been established by the prosecution that the accused had not even provided food to Sushila for about 3 days. It could be easily concluded that they intentionally aided Sushila to commit suicide. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances the judgement of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is set aside. The conviction recorded by the trial Court for offence under Section 498-A IPC is sustained. The accused are also convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC instead of offence under Section 304-B IPC. As far as the sentence is concerned, the accused have Crl.A. No.373-SB of 1997 -6- undergone 1 month and 14 days of sentence as per the custody certificate produced before the Court. It is found that the complainant party and the accused party having buried their hatchet entered into a compromise deed and filed before this Court. The compromise deed was placed on record. On account of the passage of time, both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and they have expressed their desire to live amicably and peacefully. Therefore, in the interest of justice they are sentenced for the offence under Section 498-A and 306 IPC to the period already undergone by them. 13. With the above modification in the matter of conviction and sentence, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. July 27, 2011 (M.JEYAPAUL) Gulati JUDGE