-1- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001. Date of Decision: April 19, 2010. Raghbir Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. --- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal has been filed by appellant Raghbir Singh against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 10.02.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge , Gurdaspur, vide which he was convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) and sentenced -2- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Kamlesh Devi alias Kali, Prem Devi and Balbir Singh co- accused of the appellant, were found innocent by the trial Court and acquitted of the charge framed against them. The application dated 05.07.1996 made by Jagdish Lal, brother of Bewi alias Devi (deceased) before the police led to the registration of the instant case against the appellant and the acquitted accused Kamlesh Devi alias Kali, Prem Devi and Balbir Singh. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that Bewi alias Devi, sister of complainant Jagdish Lal, was married to appellant Raghbir Singh about three years back. Out of the wed-lock, a son was born, who was about 1-1/2 years old at the time of occurrence. After her marriage, Bewi alias Devi started residing in her matrimonial house at Taragarh. Relations of appellant Raghbir Singh and the acquitted accused with Bewi alias Devi had remained cordial just for about 2/3 months after the marriage. The father of Bewi had died about three months after her marriage with appellant Raghbir Singh. After the death of the father of Bewi alias Devi, the accused had started maltreating her (Bewi alias Devi) on the ground of having brought inadequate dowry. Bewi alias Devi had come to the house of complainant Jagdish Lal on one or two occasions and told him that her in-laws were maltreating her for want of inadequate dowry. However, the complainant being a poor person, was not in -3- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 a position to provide her more dowry. He used to give her new clothes and used to send her back to her in-laws house. About 7/8 days prior to her death which took place on 4.7.1996 at about 12.40 A.M, Bewi alias Devi had again come to the house of the complainant and told him that she had been turned out of the matrimonial house for having brought inadequate dowry and that the accused wanted television and cooler. The complainant provided one table fan to his sister but had shown his inability to supply the television and cooler. On 04.07.1996, somebody had given a message at the house of the complainant that his sister (Bewi alias Devi) was admitted in Civil Hospital, Pathankot. Thereafter, he along with some labourer had gone on a scooter to Civil Hospital, Pathankot but did not find Bewi alias Devi admitted there and returned from there. Later on, he came to know that Bewi alias Devi (deceased) had died in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur where his mother was already found present and the dead-body of Bewi alias Devi (deceased) was lying in the Mortuary and the police did not allow them to see the dead-body. On the next day, after the post mortem examination, he had seen the dead-body. He further stated that Bewi alias Devi might have consumed poison having fed up with the accused. Dr. Rana Verma (P.W.5), had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bewi alias Devi and observed that there was no ligature mark on the neck. The body was moderately built, moderately nourished, wearing purple colour shirt and salwar -4- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 with pinkish red chunni. Post mortem staining was present on the dependent parts. The mouth was open. Eyes were semi closed. Rigor mortis was present in the lower extremities only, but absent in the upper extremities. There was no wound or bruise on the body. He had opined after seeing the report of Chemical Examiner (Exhibit P.G) that the cause of death in this case was alimnium phosphide poisoning vide Exhibit P.G/1 After completion of investigation and due formalities, challan against the present accused and other accused (since acquitted) was presented in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Pathankot who committed the case to the Court of session vide his order dated 23.10.1996. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur after hearing the accused, their counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor had charged the accused for the aforesaid offence. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses i.e. Jagdish Lal (P.W.1), Ajit Raj (P.W.2), Head Constable Taru Singh (P.W.3), Constable Surinder Kumar (P.W.4), Dr. Rana Verma (P.W.5), Jagir Singh, Draftsman (P.W.6), Om Prakash (P.W.7), Constable Mangal Singh (P.W.8) and Sub Inspector Satnam Singh (P.W.9) In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Raghbir Singh (husband of the deceased) denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. The -5- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 version unfolded by the accused was that deceased Bewi alias Devi had taken some medicine by mistake due to darkness and had died because of that and no demand of dowry was ever made and she was never maltreated. No evidence, oral or documentary, was led by the accused in his defence. After scrutinizing the evidence led on record by the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore-mentioned. I have heard Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the records of the case. The question arises as to whether the accused- appellant is liable under Section 304-B of the Code for which offence he has been found guilty by the learned trial Judge. Section 304-B of the Code, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:- “ 304-B. 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 -6- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 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”. As per the provisions of Section 304-B of the Code, the offence of “dowry death” consists of three ingredients i.e death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; that the death occurs within seven years of her marriage; and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for or in connection with any demand for dowry. If these three ingredients are there, the offence of “dowry death” can be said to be complete and proved. In this case, it is not disputed that the marriage of Bewi alias Devi(deceased) with appellant Raghbir Singh had taken place within seven years of his marriage . This fact is admitted by accused-appellant Raghbir Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Death of Bewi alias Devi took place on 4.7.1996. Dr. Rana Verma (P.W.5), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bewi alias Devi, on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exhibit P.G), vide Exhibit P.G/1 opined that the cause of death in this case was -7- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 alimnium phosphide poisoning. The facts and circumstances of this case point out that the deceased had ended her life n account of mal- treatment meted out to her at the hands of the accused- appellant. However, the allegation that soon before her death Bewi alias Devi was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant in connection with any demand of dowry, is not proved. P.W 1 Jagdish Lal stated that 7/8 days prior to her death which took place on 4.7.1996 at about 12.40 A.M, his sister had again come to his house and told him that she had been turned out of the matrimonial home for having brought inadequate dowry and that the accused wanted television and cooler. He further stated that he provided one table fan to his sister and had shown his inability to supply the television and cooler. As noticed above, Bewi alias Devi died 04.07.1996. Ajit Raj (P.W.2), brother of the deceased, stated that her sister Bewi alias Devi was being harassed by the accused on account of insufficiency of dowry. He also stated that her sister used to tell him about this demand and harassment whenever she (Bewi alias Devi) used to come to his home. P.W.2 Ajit Raj did not say anything regarding particular items alleged to have been demanded by the accused. He simply stated about the dowry having been demanded by the accused. The death in this case is because of poisoning. No doubt, Jagdish Lal (P.W.1), complainant, while deposing in Court stated that about 7/8 days prior to her death which took place on 4.7.1996 at about 12.40 A.M, Bewi alias Devi had -8- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 come to his house and told him that she had been turned out of the matrimonial house for having brought inadequate dowry and that the accused wanted television and cooler. The complainant allegedly provided one table fan to his sister but had shown his inability to supply the television and cooler. Ajit Raj (P.W.2), another brother of the deceased also stated that about eight days before her death, Bewi alias Devi had come to them and told them that the accused had been maltreating her and demanding more dowry. It appears that complainant Jagdish Lal (P.W.1) and Ajit Raj (P.W.2) have come up with the statement of demand of dowry by the accused 7/8 days prior to the death of Bewi alias Devi i.e soon before the death, just to bring the offence within the purview of the stringent provisions of Section 304-B of the Code. It deserves mentioning here that on 04.7.1996, when Assistant Sub Inspector Balkar Singh along with other officials after receiving information, had reached the hospital, Kaushalya Devi mother of the deceased was found present there. Kaushalya Devi had made statement before the police at that time that her daughter Bewi alias Devi who was married with Raghbir Singh about three years back, had fallen ill 2/3 days back. On 03.07.1996, Bewi alias Devi had taken overdose of some medicine in the darkness of the night and had starting vomiting. She further submitted that she was then taken to the hospital by her husband Raghbir Singh where she had died during the night. She further stated that nobody was to be blamed for the death of her daughter and she did not doubt any -9- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 foul play in that connection. If the deceased had been subjected to cruelty on account of insufficiency of dowry just before her death, her (deceased's) mother would not have failed to point it out to the police. The circumstances on record indicate clearly that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry just before her death. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the offence of “dowry death” has not been proved in this case. The accused is, thus, not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Code. However, the facts and circumstances of the case, disclose that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Code. Section 306 of the Code, for facility of reference, is reproduced as under:- “ 306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Accused Raghbir Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, stated that her wife (Bewi alias Devi) had taken some medicine by mistake due to darkness and had died because of that and no demand of dowry was ever made and she was never maltreated. -10- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 Complainant Jagdish Lal (P.W.1), brother of Bewi alias Devi(deceased) in his cross-examination stated that the deceased had come to his house on one or two occasions alone and told him that her in-laws were maltreating her. Accused-appellant Raghbir Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that his wife had taken some medicine by mistake due to darkness and had died. This statement, on the face of it, is not acceptable. Aluminium Phosphide, a poisonous substance, will never be kept along with the routine medicines. Jagdish Lal (P.W.1) and Ajit Raj (P.W.2), brothers of deceased Bewi alias Devi, have stated that the deceased was being harassed on account of insufficiency of dowry. In the instant case, it is nowhere the case of the accused even that the deceased was having any psychological disorder or other mental agony which could possibly drive her to consume poison. Nobody wants to end his/her life unless he/she is compelled to do so. Jagdish Lal (P.W.1) has deposed that “we being poor persons were not in a position to provide her sufficient dowry but we used to give her some new clothes and send back to her in-laws house.” It shows that the deceased used to come to her maternal house after being harassed by the accused on account of demand of dowry. The facts and circumstances, discussed above, suggest that there was no harmony between the appellant and the deceased, which led the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. -11- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 In view of the above, the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 306 of the Code and not under Section 304-B of the Code, as has been held by the trial Court. The conviction of the appellant is, accordingly, converted from Section 304-B to Section 306 of the Code. The impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order, insofar as convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 304-B of the Code are set aside and he is acquitted qua the said charge. However, the appellant is convicted under Section 306 of the Code. So far as the sentence to be awarded to the appellant under Section 306 of the Code is concerned, appellant Raghbir Singh has undergone imprisonment for about two years and two months. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be adequately met with if sentence of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellant is awarded to him for the offence under Section 306 of the Code while imposing a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- upon him, which will be payable to the mother of the deceased as compensation. I order accordingly. The appellant will deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the fine is deposited, the same will be paid to the mother of deceased Bewi alias Devi as compensation. If the appellant fails to comply -12- Criminal Appeal No.285-SB of 2001 with the direction of depositing the amount of fine of Rs.100,000/- in the trial Court within the period stipulated above, the appellant will undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years (including the period already undergone by him) under Section 306 of the Code. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. April, 19,2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) G. Arora JUDGE