Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 Date of decision : October 31, 2011 Puneet and others ....Appellants versus The State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anju Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. R.S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Convicts Puneet, his maternal grand-mother Sarla and mother Shashi Malhotra have filed the instant criminal appeal to challenge their conviction and sentence ordered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and order dated 26.5.2000 thereby convicting accused-appellants under section 304-B Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs 2000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -2- rigorous imprisonment for six months. Prosecution case in brief may be stated as under:- Marriage of Mamta since deceased with appellant no. 1 Puneet was solemnized in July, 1997. Manohar Lal complainant, who is father of the deceased, gave sufficient dowry in the marriage. However, immediately after the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased for more dowry. The deceased had been telling her parental family about it. On 23.4.1998, the deceased came to her parental home. Complainant Manohar Lal was away to Delhi. He returned on 24.4.1998. The deceased told that all the three accused were demanding colour television, motorcycle and refrigerator and if the demand was not met, she would not be allowed to enter the matrimonial home. Subhash Chander, maternal uncle of the deceased, was also present at that time. Earlier also, on many occasions, the deceased had been telling her parents that the accused had been coercing her to bring more dowry. On 24.4.1998, the complainant sent his daughter to the matrimonial home assuring that he would come and talk to the accused. On 25.4.1998, the deceased told the complainant on telephone that her in-laws were not talking to her. However, complainant's wife pacified the deceased telling that the complainant would visit her on the next day. Accordingly, on 26.4.1998 at about 11.30 AM, the complainant accompanied by Ram Dass (brother of his wife) was proceeding towards the house of the accused when on the way, one Mukesh Kumar told them that Mamta had committed suicide by hanging. The complainant Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -3- accompanied by Ram Dass and Mukesh Kumar went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of Mamta lying in the house. There were injury marks on the neck, ears, arms and back. The complainant reported the matter to the police by making statement Ex. PA. On the basis thereof, FIR was registered and investigated. Statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation. The spot was got photographed. Inquest report of the dead body was prepared. Post mortem was got conducted. There was ligature mark 19 cm long. Cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging leading to cardio respiratory arrest which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Hanging was ante-mortem. All the three accused were arrested on 28.4.1998. On completion of investigation, police presented report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of all the three accused under section 304-B read with section 34 IPC. Charge under section 304-B IPC was framed against all the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Complainant Manohar Lal, PW1, his wife's brothers Ram Dass, PW5 and Subhash Sharma, PW7 broadly stated according to the prosecution version. Rajeshwar Singh, PW4 was Lecturer in the same college where the complainant was Principal. He also broadly stated according to the prosecution version. Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -4- Tilak Raj, PW2 stated about marriage of deceased with Puneet in July, 1997. This witness, running a Printing Press also stated that wedding cards for the marriage were printed at his shop. He also attended the shagun ceremony of accused Puneet but did not attend his marriage being out of station. He also stated that the complainant had been telling him that in-laws of the deceased were harassing her over some demand. Dr. Ashok Kumar, PW3 stated about post mortem examination conducted by Board of doctors including him on the dead body. Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman, PW6 stated that he prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence. Constable Harish Kumar, PW8 stated that he delivered special report of the case to Illaqa Magistrate and other officers. SI Gurdial Singh, PW9 stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. Surinder Kumar, Photographer, PW10 stated that he had photographed the spot. The accused in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., while admitting the marriage of the deceased with Puneet accused, denied all other incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They alleged that the deceased was obstinate and used to get irritated on trifles. About three days prior to the occurrence, Puneet had to go to Shimla for a day in connection with his business. The deceased insisted to accompany him but he refused. The deceased created Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -5- scene whereupon Sarla accused told that they could live separately if they were not to behave properly. Sarla also talked to parents of the deceased on telephone. On 25.4.1998, Puneet accused parked his car at the house of the complainant at about 9.00 PM and then returned to his house on motorcycle and found door of his room shut from inside. On braking open the same, it was found that the deceased had committed suicide. Parents of the deceased were informed immediately. In defence, the accused have examined ten witnesses. Prem Singh, DW1 brought telephone call record but call record of April, 1998 was not available. Ram Ludhaya Wasesi, DW2, Architect proved valuation report of six properties allegedly belonging to Rattan Chand, husband of Sarla accused. Jugal Kishore Khosla, DW3, Chartered Accountant is son-in- law of Sarla accused and her husband Rattan Lal. He proved the income tax returns etc. of Rattan Lal and his wife. He also stated about marriage of Puneet accused with Mamta deceased. He had also reached the spot on night of 25.4.1998 on being informed about suicide by Mamta. Shashi Malhotra accused residing at Jagraon was informed telephonically after midnight. Prem Nath, DW4 stated that he had not produced the accused persons before the police. Jagdish Raj, Head Constable, DW5 proved copy of FIR dated Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -6- 7.9.1999. Gobinder Kumar, DW6 from Municipal Council, Jagraon proved from record that Shashi Malhotra accused was registered as voter at Jagraon. Ashok Kumar, DW7 from Food and Supplies Department proved ration card of Rattan Chand, his wife Sarla accused and Puneet Malhotra accused. Vinay Sharma, DW8 from Improvement Trust, Pathankot stated that Puneet Malhotra accused had purchased shop in auction from Imprisonment Trust, Pathankot on 22.8.1991 for Rs 4,00,700/- and the sale price was paid as per payment chart brought by the witness. Kewal Krishan Sharma, DW9 from Income Tax Office stated about income tax returns of Rattan Lal, accused Sarla and accused Puneet Malhotra. Ranjit Singh, DW10 stated that in the third week of April, 1998, he accompanied accused Puneet Malhotra to Shimla from Pathankot in connection with business. At the house of Puneet Malhotra accused, his wife was insisting to accompany them to Shimla but accused Puneet and Sarla scolded her. She was not taken along. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2000 convicted and sentenced all the three accused as already noticed hereinbefore. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts have preferred the instant criminal appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -7- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. At the outset it has to be noticed that on the preceding date of hearing, counsel for the appellants stated that appellant no. 2 Sarla had since died on 13.1.2007 and appellant no. 3 Shashi Malhotra had since died on 14.11.2009. Counsel for the appellants has today filed in Court their death certificates which are taken on record. State counsel has also filed affidavit of Station House Officer affirming the death of appellants no. 2 and 3 along with their death certificates. It is, thus, apparent that appellants no. 2 and 3 have since died. No body has come forward to pursue the appeal on their behalf. Accordingly, appeal on behalf of appellants no. 2 and 3 namely Sarla and Shashi Malhotra respectively is dismissed as having abated on account of their death. It is also worth mentioning that accused Puneet was admittedly residing with his maternal grand parents i.e. Sarla accused and Rattan Chand at Pathankot. According to prosecution version, accused Shashi Malhotra mother-in-law of the deceased was also residing with her parents at Pathankot whereas according to defence version, Shashi Malhotra was residing separately at Jagraon. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that it was inter-caste love marriage of Puneet appellant no. 1 with deceased Mamta and therefore, there was no probability of making demand of dowry. Reference in this regard was made to statement of complainant Manohar Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -8- Lal, PW1 who admitted that it was inter-caste marriage which was being opposed by his family members. However, he denied that it was love marriage. He stated that it was arranged marriage. Ram Dass, PW5 also made similar statement. Subhash Sharma, PW7, however, stated that it was love marriage. He also, however, stated that initially complainant was not agreeing to the marriage but on persuasion of his friends, he also agreed to the same saying that he would not object if the couple wanted to marry. Thereafter marriage was celebrated. Counsel for the appellants also referred to income and properties of accused Puneet and Sarla and also of Rattan Chand husband of Sarla. It was also pointed out that admittedly Puneet appellant was having car as well as motorcycle. The complainant also admitted that there was also refrigerator at the house of Puneet. It was argued that in these circumstances, there was no probability of making dowry demand. On the other hand, it was contended that probability of defence version that deceased committed suicide on being scolded for insisting to accompany Puneet to Shimla is there and therefore, the offence would fall under section 306 IPC and not under section 304-B IPC. It was also contended that Rajeshwar Singh, PW4 was introduced as witness later on as his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation was recorded on 14.5.1998 i.e. 18 days after the occurrence. It was also pointed out that even statement of Subhash Sharma, PW7 was recorded on 3.5.1998 i.e. a week after the lodging of the FIR. Reference was also made to testimony of Ranjit Singh, DW10 to canvass support for the defence Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -9- version. Counsel for the appellants also prayed for reduction in sentence submitting that appellant no. 1 has already suffered a lot along with appellants no. 2 and 3 since deceased. It was also pointed out that the occurrence took place more than 13 years ago. It was also submitted that appellant no. 1 has since remarried and also has a child from his remarriage. On the other hand, State counsel contended that Mamta committed suicide just nine months after her marriage with appellant no. 1 Puneet and there was no other reason for her to commit suicide except that the accused were demanding more dowry from her and were harassing her for the same. It was also submitted that unlike such other cases, all family members of husband of the deceased have not been implicated in this case and only the real culprits have been named. In this context, it was submitted that husbands of the appellants no. 2 and 3 i.e. maternal grand- father-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were not named as accused. Prayer for reduction in sentence awarded to appellant no. 1 has also been opposed by learned State counsel. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. As already noticed hereinbefore, the appeal survives qua appellant no. 1 Puneet only. He is husband of the deceased. It is undisputed that marriage of the deceased with appellant no. 1 had taken place in July, 1997. The deceased undisputedly committed suicide on 25.4.1998 i.e. just nine months after her marriage with appellant no. 1. Accordingly first two ingredients of the Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -10- offence of dowry death i.e. death of woman within seven years of her marriage and death otherwise than under normal circumstances are not disputed. The only ingredient that remains to be determined is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. To prove the aforesaid ingredient, the prosecution has led overwhelming evidence. There are statements of complainant Manohar Lal Sharma, PW1, father of the deceased, Rajeshwar Singh, PW4 colleague of the complainant, Ram Dass, PW5 and Subhash Sharma, PW7, both maternal uncles of the deceased. All of them have categorically stated that the accused had been demanding more dowry from the deceased and had been harassing her for the same. The demand and harassment continued till soon before her death because the deceased went to her parental home on 23.4.1998 and came back to the matrimonial home on 24.4.1998 and committed suicide on the very next day i.e. on the night of 25.4.1998. Even otherwise, the deceased committed suicide in matrimonial home just nine months after her marriage. The defence version that the deceased committed suicide because on her insistence, she was not taken along by appellant no. 1 to Shimla, cannot be accepted. Merely on this ground, the deceased would not have committed suicide. There is also no reason why all the aforesaid material witnesses would depose falsely against the accused without any rhyme or reason. It is also significant to notice that usually in such cases, all family members of husband of the deceased are Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -11- implicated. but in the instant case, even father-in-law of the deceased was not implicated nor maternal grand-father-in-law of the deceased has been implicated although husband of the deceased was admittedly residing with his maternal grand-parents. In these circumstances, statements of the aforesaid material witnesses of the prosecution inspire confidence and there is no reason to discard or disbelieve the same. The contention that it was inter-caste love marriage and the accused are affluent persons and therefore, there was no probability of demand of dowry cannot be accepted. This contention is completely hypothetical and based on conjectures and surmises. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses referred to by learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that it was love-cum-arranged marriage. It appears that the deceased and appellant no. 1 had love affair which was not liked by family members of the deceased but ultimately they were persuaded to solemnize the marriage of the deceased, with appellant no. 1. This conclusion is apparent from the statements of complainant Manohar Lal Sharma, PW1, Ram Dass, PW5 and Subhash Sharma, PW7 read as a whole. Even otherwise, it cannot be ruled as a matter of principle (without there being any other material on record) that there is no probability of demand of dowry in the case of love marriage or in the case of affluent in-laws of the deceased. It may be added that in the instant case, although it stands admitted that appellant no. 1 had a car as well as motorcycle and had also purchased a shop in the year 1991, but income of appellant no. 1, as evident Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -12- from the defence evidence, was not very high. Gross income of appellant no. 1 for assessment year 1997-98 was Rs 1,011,10/- only as stated by Kewal Krishan Sharma, DW9 from record. However, appellant no. 1 has not produced evidence of his net income. Consequently, it cannot be said that appellant no. 1 had very high income. Moreover, there are cases of affluent persons also demanding dowry. It cannot be laid down as a principle of law that affluent persons would not demand dowry. Statement of Ranjit Singh, DW10 would not be sufficient to prove the defence version that the deceased insisted to accompany appellant no. 1 to Shimla but appellant no. 1 refused to take her along. Moreover, Ranjit Singh has made improvement in the version stated by the accused themselves in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. According to statements of the accused, it was the deceased who had used filthy language on being refused to be taken by appellant no. 1 with him, but according to Ranjit Singh DW10, it was the accused-appellant nos. 1 and 2 who scolded the deceased for insisting to accompany appellant no. 1 to Shimla. This improvement was made to make out a case of offence under section 306 IPC instead of section 304-B IPC. Even otherwise, as already noticed hereinbefore, the deceased would not have committed suicide merely because she was not taken by appellant no. 1 with him to Shimla. It cannot be said that Rajeshwar Singh, PW4 and Subhash Sharma, PW7 were introduced as witnesses later on merely because their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. were not recorded promptly during Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -13- investigation. Role of Subhash Sharma had even been mentioned in the FIR itself, but in spite thereof, the Investigating Officer took one week to record his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. However, merely on this ground, it cannot be said that Subhash Sharma was introduced as witness later on. On the other hand, Subhash Sharma was mentioned in the FIR itself being in the know of the things i.e. demand of dowry by the accused and harassment of the deceased for the same. There was also no necessity of introducing Rajeshwar Singh, PW4 as a false witness if he had no knowledge of the relevant facts. Statements of complainant i.e. father of the deceased and her two maternal uncles i.e. Ram Dass and Subhash Sharma would also have been sufficient if found to be credible. Rajeshwar Singh has categorically stated that the complainant had been telling him about demand of dowry by the in-laws of the deceased and her harassment for the same. Merely because his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded belatedly, it cannot be said that he is a made up witness. There was no necessity for the prosecution to introduce him as a false witness. Counsel for the appellants also contended that appellant no. 1 was not even present in the house when the deceased committed suicide. However, there is not even an iota of material on record to substantiate this contention. Even if appellant no. 1 had left his car at the house of the complainant at about 9.00 PM on 25.4.1998 and then went to his house on motorcycle, it cannot be said that he was not present at his house when the deceased committed suicide allegedly at 10.30 PM as per defence version. Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -14- There is in fact no evidence to pin-point the time at which the deceased committed suicide. On the other hand, the complainant party came to know of the suicide on 26.4.1998 at about 11.30 AM. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant no. 1 was not present at home when the deceased committed suicide. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument only that appellant no. 1 was not present at home when the deceased committed suicide, even then appellant no. 1 cannot be absolved merely on this ground, when all necessary ingredients of the offence of dowry death are established by the prosecution. For the reasons aforesaid, I conclude that prosecution has led credible and overwhelming evidence to bring home the charge against appellant no.1 for offence of dowry death punishable under section 304-B IPC. Accordingly, conviction of appellant no. 1 for the said offence is affirmed. As regards quantum of sentence, the occurrence took place more than 13 years ago. This is mitigating circumstance in favour of appellant no. 1. However, the deceased had to commit suicide just nine months after her marriage with appellant no. 1. This is strong aggravating circumstance against appellant no. 1. Balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if appellant no. 1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. It is ordered accordingly. Criminal Appeal No. 514-SB of 2000 -15- With modification in sentence as aforesaid, the instant appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appellant no. 1 who is on bail shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 31, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'