IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.583-SB of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 03, 2010 Sohan Lal and others ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. The appellants, alongwith their co-accused Pardip Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Shashi Bala, were tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 304-B/34 IPC. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.7.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, appellant-Vinod Kumar was convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years whereas appellants Sohan Lal and Santosh Rani were convicted under Sections 304-B/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. However, the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Co-accused of the appellants, namely, Pardip Kumar, Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -2- Ramesh Kumar and Shashi Bala were acquitted of all the charges against them. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellants was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed. According to the prosecution, on 27.8.1994, ASI Dalgeer Singh, alongwith other police officials, went to PGI Chandigarh after a telephonic message was received from Police Post PGI, Chandigarh regarding the death of Neetu Bala and recorded the statement of her father Jai Dayal Mehandiratta to the effect that he was having six children. Neetu Bala was the youngest. She was married on 25.11.1993 with appellant Vinod Kumar. After about 2/3 months of her marriage, Vinod Kumar told her that she should bring a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents for the purpose of purchasing a shop. Neetu Bala came to her parents' house and stated that her in-laws were harassing and pressurising her to bring money. Her father expressed his helplessness and told her that he was unable to pay such a huge amount. Neetu Bala was sent to her in- laws' house. After some days, she informed her father that the appellants and their co-accused were maltreating and harassing her and telling her to leave the house. On 14.7.1994, the complainant brought back his daughter to Yamuna Nagar. On 29.7.1994 appellant Vinod Kumar came to his house and took back Neetu Bala. On 26.8.1994, appellant Vinod Kumar telephoned complainant’s older son-in-law that Neetu Bala had swallowed tablets meant for Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -3- preserving wheat grains and he should come immediately. Said son-in-law then informed the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant reached PGI and found that his daughter Neetu Bala had died. His daughter had consumed poisonous substance on account of harassment by the family of her in-laws and demand of money from her. On the basis of this statement, ASI Dalgeer Singh sent a ruqa to the Police Station for registration of the case. During the course of investigation, the appellants, alongwith their co-accused Pardip Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Shashi Bala, were arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation and presentation of the challan, followed by its commitment to the Court of Sessions, the appellants, alongwith their co-accused, were charged under Sections 302 and 304-B/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Anand Parshad, Technical Assistant, PW2 Dr. Munish Goel, PW3 complainant Jai Dayal Mehandiratta, PW4 Kaushalya Rani, PW5 Dr. K.Subramanium, PW6 Swaran Singh, Draftsman, PW7 Constable Mahesh Kumar and PW8 ASI Dalbir (Dalgeer) Singh. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the allegations levelled against them. Accused Vinod Kumar admitted his marriage with Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -4- deceased Neetu Bala on 25.9.1993. He stated that Neetu Bala was admitted in the PGI as soon as he came to know that she had taken poison by mistake. He never demanded money in any form from his in-laws. His relations with his in-laws remained cordial throughout. He had been receiving letters from his in-laws and he produced the same in the Court. The deceased used to take the medicines for irregular menses and she told that she had taken some tablets lying in the niche. Faquir Chand and Prem Singh neighbours also accompanied him to the PGI. The other accused also took the same plea and claimed to be innocent. In defence, the accused examined DW1 Prem Singh, DW2 Faquir Chand, DW3 Om Parkash and DW4 Manohar Lal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants whereas their co-accused Pardip Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Shashi Bala were acquitted, as mentioned above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the relations between deceased Neetu Bala and her husband Vinod Kumar were always cordial and, therefore, none of the accused had any reason to cause the death of Neetu Bala. Reference in this regard is made to the various Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -5- letters written by complainant Jai Dayal Mehandiratta and his wife Kaushalya Rani. At no stage any dowry was ever demanded. The parents of the deceased also did not lodge any complainant against the alleged maltreatment of Neetu Bala on account of demand of dowry. If the accused were having any hand in the killing of Neetu Bala, they would not have rushed her to PGI or informed her relatives. It is also submitted that there was unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR. In fact, that delay occurred on account of deliberations amongst the family members of the deceased in coining a false version so as to implicate the appellants and their co-accused. From the testimonies of PW3 Jai Dayal Mehandiratta and PW4 Kaushalya Rani, father and mother, respectively, of deceased Neetu Bala, it is made out that after about 2/3 months of the marriage of Neetu Bala, there was a demand for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- so as to enable appellant Vinod Kumar to start a business after purchasing a shop. This demand was conveyed through deceased Neetu Bala. However, the parents sent Neetu Bala back to her matrimonial home by telling him that they had no money which could be given to Vinod Kumar. Some time later, the deceased informed her father by writing a letter that accused were beating and harassing her for not bringing the aforementioned amount. The father of the deceased visited the house of the accused on 14.7.1994. During the said visit, appellant-Vinod Kumar expressed Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -6- apology for demanding the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and harassing the deceased. He also expressed apology through letter Ex.PC which Neetu Bala wrote to her father. Vinod Kumar, once again, expressed apology in letter Ex.PD. This was followed by Vinod Kumar coming to the house of the parents of the deceased on 29.7.1994 and apologizing, besides requesting that Neetu Bala be sent with him as some religious ceremony was to be performed at his house. The father of the deceased acceded to his request and sent Neetu Bala with her husband. Vinod Kumar also promised that he would send Neetu Bala back to her parents’ house on the coming Rakhri festival. However, on 26.8.1994, the parents of Neetu Bala learnt on telephone that Neetu Bala had consumed some poisonous substance and was lying admitted in PGI. On receiving the information, the parents as well as Raman Kumar, brother of the deceased, reached PGI, Chandigarh, where they learnt that Neetu Bala had died. Merely because there are some minor discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW3 Jai Dayal Mehandiratta and PW4 Kaushalya Rani, the prosecution case cannot be rejected. In such like cases, it is quite natural that the parents of the deceased girl would be under agony and sad and, therefore, could not decipher and collect necessary material facts constituting the offence. Further, both the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination and it was, therefore, natural for Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -7- the two star witnesses of the prosecution making some insignificant contradictions in their respective testimonies. Soon after the incident, which occurred on 26.8.1994, Neetu Bala was brought to PGI Hospital and was treated in the Emergency OPD. PW5 Dr. K. Subramanium sent ruqa Ex.PN to the police. Pursuant to the same, the police official submitted request Ex.PO regarding the fitness of Neetu Bala. Vide endorsement Ex.PO/1, PW5 Dr. K. Subramanium declared Neetu Bala unfit to make statement. On 26.8.1994 at about 1.40 p.m., Neetu Bala died. In the meantime, the parents of the deceased on learning about the incident and admission of Neetu Bala had also reached PGI. Statement Ex.PE was then suffered by Jai Dayal Mehandiratta before ASI Dalgeer Singh in PGI Hospital, Chandigarh on 27.8.1994 and on its basis, FIR Ex.PE/2 was registered at Police Station Dera Bassi on 27.8.1994 at 9.10 a.m. under Section 304-B IPC. The dead- body was sent to the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh for post-mortem examination. PW2 Dr. Munish Goel conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of Neetu Bala 27.8.1994 at 3.50 p.m. During the examination, he noticed that there was no external injury on the body. In the trachea, few drops of brown coloured fluid were found. In the stomach 200 cc of dirty yellow fluid was found. Petechial haemorrhage was found on the mucosa of the stomach. Small and large intestines were congested. Bladder was empty and so was uterus. On receipt of the Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -8- report of the Chemical Examiner, Dr. Munish Goel opined that the cause of death was poisoning due to aluminum phosphide. In cross-examination, he stated that he had suspected death due to poisoning and that was why he sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner. To a specific question as to what clinical test did he perform for arriving at the conclusion that it was a case of poisoning, he stated that he had observed pin-point haemorrhage in mucosa of the stomach and congestion of small and large intestines and, these findings were consistent with the aluminum phosphide poisoning. The defence has tried to challenge the veracity of the prosecution case by referring to the testimonies of DW1 Prem Singh, DW2 Faquir Chand and DW3 Om Parkash. All these witnesses are the neighbours of the accused party. Further, at no stage of the case did they ever approach the authorities regarding the false implication of the accused persons. Similarly, DW4 Manohar Lal is none-else but the father of accused Shashi Bala and, thus, an interested witness. As regards the various letters brought on record by the defence, it may be noticed that there was no occasion for the accused to preserve those letters, especially when there was nothing startling mentioned therein about the relations of deceased Neetu Bala and her husband Vinod Kumar. On the other hand, there is letter Ex.PC written by Neetu Bala and addressed to her father Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -9- wherein she did refer about her husband Vinod Kumar writing a separate letter in regard to the development at the time when complainant Jai Dayal Mehandiratta came to her matrimonial home to take her. The apology tendered by Vinod Kumar appellant is clearly stated in letter Ex.PD written by him on 4.7.1994. Apparently, the apology was expressed by Vinod Kumar on account of unnecessary scene created by him and his family members when complainant Jai Dayal Mehandiratta had visited his house to take his daughter with him. During the trial of the case when Vinod Kumar appellant filed an application for bail, he relied upon the writings of deceased Neetu Bala contained in a diary, namely, Kathuria Note Book No.60. which, according to him, was maintained by Neetu Bala, who had been writing the same off and on. According to Vinod Kumar appellant, from the writings of deceased Neetu Bala it can not be said that he had ever harassed or maltreated Neetu Bala. Rather, their relations were cordial throughout. This Court while deciding the bail application filed by Vinod Kumar sent the diary in question to the SHO for seeking opinion from the Handwriting Expert about comparing the handwriting of the deceased appearing in the diary with her admitted handwriting. After taking the diary into possession, the SHO vide letter dated 22.5.1995 sent the diary as well as the two letters containing the admitted handwriting of Neetu Bala to Prasad Forensic Science Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -10- Consultants, Chandigarh, who after examining the questioned as well as the admitted documents, came to the conclusion that they were in the handwriting of one and the same person. According to counsel for the appellants, the report of the Handwriting Expert and the contents of the diary were placed on the file before the trial Court but the same could not be exhibited due to inadvertence. Accordingly, during the pendency of the appeal, Criminal Misc. No.7751 of 2010 was filed by the appellants under Section 391 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to produce and prove the report dated 25.5.1995 of Prasad Forensic Science Consultants, Chandigarh as additional evidence for just decision of the appeal. Notice of the said application was issued and reply duly filed by the State. Vide order dated 24.5.2010, this Court directed that the said application would be taken up for consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the application filed by the appellants under Section 391 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed as the diary in question was taken into possession by the police and subsequently sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparing the handwriting contained therein with the admitted handwriting of deceased Neetu Bala. After examining the questioned and the admitted handwriting, the Handwriting Expert came to the conclusion that they were of one and the same person. Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -11- However, even if the contents of the diary in question are considered that would not absolve the appellants of the charges against them. This Court has gone through the contents of the diary and finds that the feeling expressed by deceased Neetu Bala are natural as they expressed her love towards her husband Vinod Kumar, immediately after her marriage and in the days which followed. Merely because Neetu Bala did not mention about her harassment at the hands of the appellants would not be sufficient to hold that she was never harassed or treated with cruelty by her in-laws subsequently. However, this Court, after going through the evidence on the record, is of the view that the essential ingredient of dowry death, i.e. harassment and maltreatment of the woman by her husband and his relatives on account of dowry is not proved. There is no allegation that any dowry was ever demanded. Rather, the demand was for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which Vinod Kumar required to start business after buying a shop. The financial help sought by Vinod Kumar from his wife and her parents cannot be termed as a demand for dowry. Therefore, the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not made out. At the same time, it is held that the deceased used to be harassed and treated with cruelty on account of not fulfilling the demand of her husband and relatives. The said harassment was to such an extent that Neetu Bala was left with no other option but to end her life by committing Crl. Appeal No. 583-SB of 1997 (O&M) -12- suicide. Therefore, the accused would be liable for the offence under Section 306 IPC, instead of Section 304-B IPC. Further, the allegations of harassment and maltreatment are specific in so far as Vinod Kumar appellant is concerned, whereas there are general and non-specific allegations against Sohan Lal and Santosh Rani appellants. Thus, only Vinod Kumar appellant can be held guilty under Section 306 IPC, whereas appellants Sohan Lal and Santosh Rani are liable to be absolved of criminal liability altogether. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants Sohan Lal and Santosh Rani under Sections 304-B/34 IPC and their sentence of imprisonment for seven years are set aside. Appellant Vinod Kumar is also acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B IPC, instead he is held guilty under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 03, 2010 JUDGE satish Satish Kumar 2014.04.24 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh