Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 Date of decision : 1.7.2008 State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Satish Kumar and others ...Respondents **** 2. Criminal Revision No. 892 of 2000 Ramesh Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. P.S. Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 and for the respondent No.1 in Criminal Revision No. 892 of 2000. Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 and for respondent No.2 to 5 in Criminal Revision No. 892 of 2000 S. D. ANAND, J. Respondents-accused (Satish Kumar, Tarun Kumar, Ramesh Kumari and Punita Rani) were tried but acquitted by the learned Trial Judge on a charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the verdict of acquittal; while Criminal Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -2- *** Revision No. 892 of 2000 has been filed by the complainant against that very finding. Mst. Shobha, youngest daughter of Hukam Chand, was married to respondent-accused Tarun Kumar on 21.6.1994. Respondents-accused Satish Kumar and Ramesh Kumari are parents of respondent-accused Tarun Kumar; while respondent-accused Punita Rani is a sister of respondent- accused Tarun Kumar. She was unmarried at the relevant point of time. Respondents were not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by Mst. Shobha, inspite of the fact that she did bring along sufficient dowry articles at the time of her marriage. The dissatisfied in-laws of Mst. Shobha i.e. Respondents made no bones about their grievance with regard to inadequacy of the dowry brought by her. They would, at every available opportunity, also announce that the dowry articles brought by Mst. Shobha in her marriage were of a quality which was less than those given at the marriage of people belonging to low caste. When the lady brought facts to the notice of her natal family, her father Hukam Chand, Uncle Des Raj PW- 14 and few others visited the matrimonial house of Mst. Shobha and impressed upon the respondents desirability of refraining from unnecessarily harassing the bride on account of what the latter viewed to be inadequate dowry. In response thereto, the respondents refrained from causing any dowry-related harassment to Mst. Shobha for about two months but resumed their rancour-full attitude thereafter. They would even belabour her at times. On one particular occasion, her elder brother Suresh went over the house of respondents and handed over a cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- to them. However, things did not improve for the bride. Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -3- *** Ultimately on 22.8.1996, she set herself afire. The prosecution levelled a precise allegation that the respondents had subjected Mst. Shobha to dowry related torture and it is a case of dowry death for which all the respondents/accused are accountable. Learned Trial Judge recorded a finding of exoneration on the ground that :- a) Dr. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra (PW-8), who was the first to arrive at the spot and to whom the deceased had allegedly made a dying declaration, did not own the attributed role and was declared hostile by the prosecution at the trial; b) Suresh, an elder brother of the deceased, who was alleged to have handed over a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in response to a demand made by the respondents-accused, has not been examined at the trial. c) There is no “definite evidence qua date, month and year upon which Shobha was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand from the side of accused persons.” We have been taken through the records by the learned counsel for the parties in relatability to their respective contentions. We have examined the file in totality otherwise as well. The appreciation of evidence in a dowry-related offence, is an uphill task by any standard. We don't have to strain much to find reasons therefor. The matrimonial offences of this category take place within four walls of the house. Those living in the vicinity would normally not get the Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -4- *** wind of whatever transpires within the precincts of the matrimonial house. Even when there is a flare up, the neighbour would, either on account of fear of reprisal and causing annoyance to a long life neighbourer or may be on account of plain indifference, refrain from allowing themselves to be privy to any such occurrence. In that view of the unenviable societal scenario, the Court is under a basic handicap in the matter of adjudicating upon the controversy on point of fixture of accountability if the matrimonial flare up happens to end in the death of bride. Thus, the appreciation of evidence in a such like matter is hedged by the above mentioned in-built handicap. None-the-less, the adjudicatory exercise has to proceed in accordance with law. It is in view of the above handicap that law makers thought it appropriate to legislate and bring the presumptive provisions on the statute Book. Those provisions enable the raising of an inference indicting the members of in- laws family of the bride, if certain pre-conditions exist. At the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the members of the natal family of the deceased bride would like to take it out on all those residing in the matrimonial house. Their accusatory finger would paint each and every member of the matrimonial family black. There might well be cases in which the deceased lady either makes dying declaration or there is evidence available to indicate the precise role played by each member of the in-laws family in the dowry related torture. Likewise, cases are equally conceivable in which there is complete want of evidence to prove the legal accountability of the residents of the matrimonial house (other than the husband) in the episode and they are at Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -5- *** the receiving end on account of ire at the hands of members of parental family of the deceased bride. In the present case, it is the own prosecution version that Satish Kumar (father-in-law) of the deceased girl was available at the house and it is he only who had put a blanket upon his daughter-in-law in a bid to extinguish the fire. His availability at the house is beyond the pale of controversy because he is running a shop in the house itself. It is also in evidence that Ramesh Kumari and Punita Rani, mother-in-law and sister-in- law (unmarried at that point of time) of the deceased respectively, were not available at the house at the time of impugned occurrence. The deceased did not leave any dying declaration. There is no corroborative evidence to prove the inculpatory character of role of the parents-in-law and sister-in- law of the deceased girl. They are entitled to the benefit of doubt. We find that the line of reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge in exonerating them is within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158. The appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of Satish Kumar, Ramesh Kumari and Punita Rani, and also the criminal revision filed by petitioner by Ramesh Kumar against the exoneration of those very accused persons, shall stand dismissed. However, respondent-accused Tarun Kumar stands on an entirely different footing in view of the fact that being the husband of the deceased lady, he is assumed to be the person accountable for her well being whilst at the matrimonial house. Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -6- *** As apparent from the record, the marriage between respondent- accused Tarun Kumar and deceased Mst. Shobha was solemnised on 21.6.1994 and the latter set herself afire on 22.8.1996. Thus, the death had taken place within seven years of marriage. There is substantive and precise evidence on record in the statements of PW-11 Ramesh Kumar and his wife Mst. Neelam to nail respondent-accused Tarun Kumar. Both of them detailed the manner in which the deceased lady was subjected to dowry-related harassment by that respondent/accused. Learned State counsel argues that the impugned finding of exoneration proceeds on an incorrect premise and was based upon incorrect appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused resisted the plea by arguing entirely in favour of the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge. Insofar as the 'hostility' of Dr. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra (PW- 8) is concerned, it does not at all enable the respondent/accused Tarun Kumar to validly reiterate a plea for continued exoneration. As per the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. ( Ex. PF), Dr. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra (PW-8) informed the Court as under:- “It is stated that on 22.8.96 Satish Kumar came to me in the noon at 2.30-3.00 O' Clock. It was a rainy season. He told me that my daughter-in-law has been burnt. I went along with him immediately. We reached there after 5 minutes. The house was in Geeta Nagri. On reaching there I saw that his daughter-in- law lying almost burnt. She was on the bed and covered with a Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -7- *** kambal (Blanket). At that time she was in conscious and she was speaking well. She said to me ' Doctor Shaib do no try to save me because my father and brother have not sufficient money to give to these hungry persons.' She also said that on the day of 19th of the month my brother Ramesh had given Rs. ten thousand to them, but their greed could not be fulfilled. You please do not save me. After giving first aid I came back by instructing to her family members (in-laws) to take her at PGI or in Civil. Thereafter what happened I do not know. On 23.8.96 I came to know that girl has been died. This fact told me by the persons of the locality.” In the course of that statement, which had been recorded by PW-9 Ms. Ritu Behl, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, Dr. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra testified to the effect that deceased Mst. Shobha categorically held her in-laws responsible for her death. She further told Dr. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra that her father and mother did not have sufficient money to satiate dowry hunger of the accused. She also told Dr. Malhotra that on 19.8.1996, her brother Ramesh had given Rs. 10,000/- to her in-laws but that too had not satisfied them. Dr. Malhotra did not own the attributed role and averred that “I stated before the Magistrate whatever the police tutored me. That statement was not made by me, voluntarily.” After he had been declared hostile by the prosecution, the contents of Ex. PF were put to him with a view to enable him to explain how that statement of his came to be recorded by the Magistrate. He did not deny having made that statement before the Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -8- *** Magistrate but averred that he made it “before the Magistrate under pressure and coercion of police.” He would want the Court to believe that “I was threatened by the police if I did not make statement as tutored, they would implicate me falsely in some case.” We are not prepared to accept the presentation made by Dr. Malhotra. On his own showing, he belongs to medical profession. He had been called by Satish Kumar to treat Mst. Shobha, who had sustained burn injuries. There is no understandable reason whatsoever on account of which this member of the medical profession would have been so scared of the police as to be persuaded to make a statement as per the tutoring of the police or under the pressure of the police. He told the trial Court that he did not inform the Magistrate(who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) that the police had tutored him. It is also in his statement that he did not file any private complaint before the Magistrate to the effect that he was under continuous threat. He also did not file any complaint before the Police Chief of District Ambala. It defies comprehension that this responsible member of the society was under so much awe of the police that he refrained from making a grievance of the alleged police pressure to the Police Chief of the District or to the Court. The world has opened up a lot for the past decade or so. People have become vigilant about their rights. It is a matter of common observation that people go to the law either in the form of an action launched by the police or by themselves launching proceedings in a Court of law to ventilate even their smallest grievance. We decline to accept that Dr. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra made statement Ex. PF before the Magistrate under police pressure. Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -9- *** There is yet another particular reason on account whereof, we believe that this witness was out to aid the defence plea. At the trial, he quoted deceased Mst. Shobha having told him that “Meri Bhabhi Le Dhubi”. In the course of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he did not at all quote the deceased having indicated that fact. The above quotation was averred by Dr. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra at the trial in line with the defence plea. All this buttresses our view that he did make statement Ex. PF before the Magistrate and that he has presently fallen in line with the defence presentation with a view to help respondents/accused to get exoneration from liability. Having said that, we find from the Ex. PF that deceased had made a categorical averment accusing the respondent/accused of the dowry related torture which, ultimately, led to the impugned occurrence which can certainly be described as 'dowry death'. Apart therefrom, there is no reason why we should disbelieve the testimony of PW-11 Ramesh Kumar and PW-12 Mst. Neelam with regard to averments made by them qua dowry-related harassment suffered by the deceased lady at the hands of respondent/accused Tarun Kumar. In that context, learned Amicus Curiae argues that the prosecution plea deserves to be discarded because Suresh Kumar, an elder brother of deceased lady who had allegedly provided a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to respondent/accused, had not been examined at the trial. He also argues that absence of evidence qua exact date, month and year in which the deceased was subjected to cruelty, would also show the prosecution presentation in doubtful light. It is also argued that though PW-12 Ms. Neelam claimed to have received certain letters from deceased lady, those letters have been Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -10- *** withheld at the trial. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to find any force in the criticism. Though the production of Suresh Kumar would have been an ideal proposition because he was the best circumstanced to own the role attributed to him. At the same time, the mere non-production of Suresh Kumar at the trial does not justify the throwing out of the prosecution plea, particularly when it is supported by the contents of Ex. PF and the testimony on oath of PW-11 Ramesh Kumar and PW-12 Ms. Neelam. The plea, with regard to withholding of letters, is false on the face of it. PW-12 Ms. Neelam had categorically testified that two letters addressed by the deceased lady to her “were silent about any demand of dowry from the side of accused persons. ......... The aforesaid letters are about welfare of family”. In that view of things, the averred non retention/presentation of those letters by Ms. Neelam and also consequent non production thereof is of no significance in the context of validity of the prosecution plea. Mst. Shobha had studied upto 8th standard. In the Indian societal scenario, a daughter-in-law is not normally expected to write any thing against her in-laws in the letters addressed to any member of her natal family. She would always fear reprisal/annoyance at the hands of her in- laws if any such letter, containing derogatory averments regarding her in- laws, falls into their hands. Obviously, she was not a highly educated girl. She also did not come from an economically affluent family. As is a matter of common observation, the girl side people would like to keep the indicated estrangement or creases in relationship under wraps. The disclosure or exposure of such like facts affects the social standing of the Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -11- *** family and it is also likely to affect the matrimonial prospects of the younger siblings of the lady. Nothing sinister can, thus, be read into the fact that two letters by Mst. Shobha did not contain an averment with regard to the dowry-related torture she was under going at her matrimonial house. The same observation applies to the refrain on the part of the members of the natal family of the deceased from making a presentation before the police. Learned Amicus Curiae, then, advocates the defence plea that Mst. Shobha committed suicide by setting herself afire because it is PW-12 Neelam, sister-in-law of the deceased, who used to taunt her for having taken along all the dowry articles received by her ( sister-in-law) at the time of her marriage. The plea is illogical on the face of it. If there was an iota of truth in the relevant plea, Mst. Shobha would just not have allowed her sister-in-law (PW-12 Neelam) to visit former's matrimonial house. Even otherwise, even if it is assumed (for the sake of arguments) that PW-12 Neelam had any such grievance, she was not required to ventilate that by paying a visit to the matrimonial house of the deceased. She could surely make a grievance to that effect whenever Mst. Shobha visited her natal house. There is yet another circumstance which points the accusatory finger at respondent-accused. In order to prove that he had no malafide intention in the context, the defence averred that respondent-husband had intimated the death of Mst. Shobha to her natal family at the earliest. That plea is proved to be false. DW-1 Ram Avtar, living in the immediate Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -12- *** vicinity of matrimonial house of deceased, testified that it was Tarun Kumar (respondent/accused) who was sent to give information to the parents of Mst. Shobha qua her death, due to fire. As against it, DW-2 Narender Kumar ( brother-in-law of acquitted accused Satish Kumar) testified that it was he who intimated the impugned occurrence to members of natal family of the deceased at about 7.00 A.M. on that very day. The contradiction, as between the statement of DW-1 Ram Avtar and DW-2 Narender Kumar, is apparent enough and gives rise to a valid inference that the defence has not been able to prove that the death of Mst. Shobha was intimated to members of her natal family. In normal circumstances, demise of a daughter-in-law would be immediately brought to the notice of members of her natal family. The in-laws of the deceased lady would cause delay in intimation only if they have something to hide. In such an unfortunate eventuality, the contradictory evidence in the context gives rise to a valid inference that there was malafide intention on the part of the respondents/accused in refraining from immediately furnishing information qua the death of Mst. Shobha. The delay obviously enabled the respondents/accused to gain time and it further disabled the deceased lady from inter-acting, in the form of a dying declaration with members of her natal family. She is, otherwise, proved to have made a dying declaration to Dr. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra as we have noticed in an earlier part of this judgment. We further decree that criticism with regard to want of “definite evidence qua date, month and year upon which Shobha was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand from the side of accused Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 -13- *** persons” is plainly misconceived. The exactitude suggested by the plea, would be too much to expect from a daughter-in-law who finds the environment at the matrimonial house hostile. The plea shall stand negatived. Learned Trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence available on the record in the correct perspective and proceeded to record a verdict of exoneration on flimsy grounds, thereby hurting the interest of justice. In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the criminal appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 filed by the State of Haryana against Tarun Kumar respondent/accused. The finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge qua respondent/accused Tarun Kumar shall stand reversed. Tarun Kumar shall stand convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. For the offence under Section 498-A IPC, respondent – accused Tarun Kumar shall undergo RI for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo further RI for two months. He shall stand sentenced to undergo RI for a period of Seven years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The State appeal qua the acquittal of other accused shall stand dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE July 01, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE