Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1997 Date of Decision: February 11,2010 Narain Singh and others ...........Appellants Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Y.P.Malik, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ** Sabina, J. Appellants were committed to Sessions Court by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh for an offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). Vide judgment dated 5.4.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak, appellants were convicted for aan offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and vide order dated 7.4.1997, all the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. Hence, the present appeal by the accused-appellants. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment, are as under:- “2.Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution may be narrated as under: Rajwanti since deceased resident of village Mitrau (Delhi), was married with accused Balwant, resident of Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1997 2 Bahadurgarh on 4.3.1994. After 2-3 days of the marriage when Rajwanti alongwith her husband went to her parental home, she told her family members that all the three accused Narain Singh, Smt. Santra Devi and Balwant taunted her saying that she had not brought anything in dowry and she was also given beatings. She was advised that the matters would settle down slowly. However, even thereafter whenever Rajwanti came to her parental home, she would complain of dowry demands being made by all the three accused asking her to bring Refrigerator or Rs.10,000/- from her parents. Richhpal Singh, father of the deceased is retired employee of DTC and is patient of Asthma and usually remains sick. So, once complainant Ishwar Singh, who is younger brother of Richhpal Singh came to Bahadurgarh and counselled Narain Singh accused that their demand would be met whenever they would be in a position to meet it and that Rajwanti should not be harassed. In June, 1994, Rajwanti was brought to her parental home on the occasion of birth of a son to her brother Hari Om. Even then Rajwanti told her parents and uncle Ishwar Singh that the accused would not spare her and would demand the amount of Refrigerator immediately on her return. However, Rajwanti was counselled and sent with her husband to Bahadurgarh in first week of July,1994. Thereafter, at mid-night between 25/26.7.94, 3-4 persons from Bahadurgarh came to the house of complainant and told that Rajwanti had consumed tablet used for preservation of wheat (Poisonous pill), Ishwar Singh along with his other brother Jagdish Singh came to MCH Rohtak, next morning and Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1997 3 found that Rajwanti had died. She either consumed poison herself due to harassment by the three accused over dowry or she was administered poison by them. Complainant made statement Ex.PD to HC Baljit Singh, who made his own endorsement Ex.PD/1 on it and sent it to Police Station City Bahadurgarh, where FI R Ex.PD/2 was recorded on its basis. 3.Earlier, deceased Rajwanti had been taken to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh from ruqqa Ex.PA was sent by Dr. A.K.Mundra at 3.00 a.m. on 26.7.94, to Police station City Bahadurgarh that she was brought in serious condition as a suspected case of poisoning and she had been referred to MCH Rohtak. From MCH Rohtak ruqqa was sent to Police Post MCH Rohtak that Rajwanti was brought dead. Accordingly, VT message Ex. PF was sent from the said Police Post to Police Station City Bahadurgarh that Rajwanti was brought dead in MCH Rohtak. Thereupon, HC Baljit Singh went to MCH Rohtak and recorded statement Ex.PD of the complainant and then conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body of Rajwanti and prepared the inquest report Ex.PG and sent the dead body for autopsy with application Ex.PH. Dr.Poonam Malhotra and Dr.A.P.Sharma conducted post mortem examination on the dead body and found the organs to be healthy and congested. Sealed parcels of viscera i.e. stomach, small and large intestines, liver spleen and kidneys were given to the police. On chemical examination the aforesaid viscera gave positive test for Aluminum Phosphide poison as per report Ex.PK . So cause of death was poison. Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1997 4 4. On 28.7.1994 accused Balwant and Narain Singh were arrested and on 29.7.94, acused Santra Devi was arrested. On 30.7.94, accused Balwant gave dowry articles to ASI Ishwar Singh vide memo Ex.PL/1. On 19.8.94 Hari Om brother of the deceased gave marriage card of the deceased Ex.P1 to ASI Ishwar Singh vide memo Ex.Pl/2. On completion of investigation, city Bahadurgarh police presented this challan for trial of all the three accused as above. 5. On the basis of the material on record, charge under Section 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the three accused. They pleaded not guilty to charge and claimed trial” Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that no case was made out against the appellants. They had been falsely involved in this case. In fact, the deceased was having love affairs with Parmod and since the said Parmod had committed suicide on 13.7.1994, the deceased had also committed suicide. Complaint had not been filed by the parents of the deceased but had been moved by uncle of the deceased. The prosecution had failed to establish that there had been any demand of dowry by the appellants. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the deceased Rajwanti had died within a few months of her marriage due to harassment meted out to her on account of insufficient dowry brought by her. Admittedly, in the present case, Rajwanti was married with appellant Balwant on 4.3.1994. Rajwanti died an unnatural death in July 1994 on account of consumption of poison. Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1997 5 Section 304-B IPC reads as under:- “Dowry death: (1) 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 for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- “Presumption as to dowry death: 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 has 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. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1997 6 To constitute an offence of dowry death, the prosecution is required to establish that the deceased had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and there had been harassment meted out to her on account of insufficient dowry. Soon before her death, the women must have been subjected to cruelty or harassed by her husband or by relative of her husband and such cruelty must be for or in connection with demand of dowry. Let us examine as to whether the prosecution has been successful in proving the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC In the present case, the prosecution ,in order to prove its case, examined PW3 Ricchpal, father of the deceased. The said witness has categorically deposed that his daughter had told him after a few days of marriage that the appellants had been taunting her on account of inadequate dowry. Deceased had also complained to the said witness regarding harassment meted out to her by her in-laws. A demand was also raised of Rs.10,000/- on the day the appellant Balwant (husband of Rajwanti) had came to the house of the said witness at the time of birth of his grand son. PW2 Ishwar Singh has corroborated the statement of PW3 with regard to harassment meted out to the deceased on account of insufficient dowry and demand of dowry raised by the appellants. The deceased had died unnatural death within a few months of her marriage and she had been subjected to harassment on account of demand for dowry. A presumption arises that the appellants had caused the dowry death. The appellants have failed to rebut the said presumption. The defence taken by the appellants that, in fact, the deceased was having love affairs with Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1997 7 Parmod and he had committed suicide a few days prior to the death of Rajwanti does not inspire confidence. A perusal of the inquest proceedings with regard to suicide committed by Parmod reveals that he was 30 years old and was a married man having a son. A perusal of the statement of father of Parmod during inquest proceedings reveals that Parmod was unemployed and because of this, he might have committed suicide. The said inquest proceedings were got produced on record by the appellants themselves. The fact that the complaint was lodged by the uncle of the deceased does not lead to an inference that no offence as alleged had been committed by the appellants. The father of the deceased had also been examined as a witness by the prosecution and he has also duly supported the prosecution case regarding harassment meted out to the deceased qua demand of dowry. In these circumstances, learned trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants under Section 304-B/34 IPC. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is directed to be reduced from ten years rigorous imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment so far as appellants- Narain Singh and Santra are concerned keeping in view their age. So far as the sentence of imprisonment qua appellant-Balwant is concerned, the same calls for no interference. With this modification, the appeal stands dismissed. (Sabina) Judge February 11, 2010 arya