Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 Date of Decision: 19.01.2011 Manohar Singh .... Petitioner Versus Daljit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. A.K. Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Complainant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the judgment dated 1.10.2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar thereby acquitting the accused for an offence under Section 304-B IPC registered at Police Station G.R.P. Jalandhar. The brief facts of the present case are that on 1.2.2003 SI Gurnam Singh recorded the statement of Manohar Singh complainant that his daughter Paramjit Kaur deceased got married with Paramajit Singh on 28.2.1999. At the time of marriage dowry articles were given as per his capacity. Soon after the marriage, Baljit Kaur mother-in-law, Daljit Singh father-in-law, Paramjit Singh husband, Darshanjit Kaur @ Rosy sister-in-law and Noni sister's Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 2 husband started maltreating his daughter for bringing less dowry. They were raising demand of Rs. 50,000/- for starting some work for Paramjit Singh. He was poor, therefore, he could not satisfy their demand. His daughter was sent back in his house several times but with the intervention of respectable namely Gurmail Singh. MC and Himmat Singh, she was sent back in the matrimonial home at 2/3 occassions. Even them they did not change their behaviour. A complaint as also filed to SHO, Police Station, Model Town, Ludhiana dated 4.7.2002 and the case was referred to Women Cell, Police Lines, Ludhiana. Both the parties were called on 6.7.2002 and they were again called on 10.7.2002. Ultimately, the matter was compromised. The in-laws of Paramjit Kaur assured that his daughter would not be maltreated in future. On their assurance, she was sent to the matrimonial home from Women Cell. He visited his daughter's house 2/3 times but he was told that she was maltreated and she was not allowed to go out. On 30.1.2003 Paramajit Singh came to his house at 8.00 a.m. and told him that Parmajit Kaur had a quarrel with his mother on account of washing of clothes and thereafter she left the house. On this, he came to his house to enquire about her (Paramjit Kaur). The complainant along with Himmat Singh went to the matrimonial home of Paramjit Kaur where Daljit Singh, her father-in-law met him and told that Paramjit Kaur had left the house after quarrel with his wife. They kept on searching for Paramjit Kaur. At about 4.30 p.m. His daughter Mini called him from Jagroan and informed him that she had received telephone from Railway Police, Nakodar that one girl has died in rail accident. He along with Gurmail Singh MC, Himmant Singh and other Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 3 respectables went to Railway Police Station, Nakodar and identified the dead body of Paramjit Kaur. His daughter died because of the maltreatment given to her and the dowry demanded by the accused persons. On these allegations, the present case has been registered. From the prosecution side 11 witnesses were examined. Manohar Singh – PW-1 father of the deceased has stated on oath that accused Paramjit Singh has started raising demand for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to start his work and other family members of the husband - Paramjit Singh has started harassing her daughter Paramjit Kaur. Matter was compromised on two-three occasions with the intervention of the respectables. Paramjit Kaur was found dead on the railway track, Nakodar. It is further stated that there was demand of Rs. 50,000/- to start the business and maltreatment by the husband and his relatives to fulfill the demand of Rs, 50,000/-. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 355, has held as follows:- “21. Prosecution, in a case of offence under Section 304B IPC cannot escape from the burden of proof that the harassment or cruelty was related to the demand for dowry and also that such cruelty or harassment was caused “soon before her death.” The word “dowry” in Section 304-B has to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. That definition reads thus:- “In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 4 indirectly- a) by one party to marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mehr in case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Sharait) applies.” 22.Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is “at any time” after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are “in connection with the marriage of the said parties”. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of “dowry”. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property of valuable security given or agreed to be Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 5 given in connection with the marriage. 23.It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened “soon before her death.” The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words “son before her death” is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept “soon before her death.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Appasaheb and another v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 747, has held Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 6 that mere demand made by the husband to his wife to bring a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from her parents to meet domestic expenses would not by any stretch of imagination amount to demand of dowry. This Court also in Bhim Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 558, has held that the demand of Rs. 1, 50,000/- made by the accused from his in-laws for the purpose of construction of a house would not amount to demand of dowry. From the statement of the complainant - father of the deceased and as per the ratio and settled principle of law, I am unable to find any evidence that soon before the death of Paramjit Kaur she was harassed for the payment of dowry. Demand of Rs. 50,000/- to start work should not be construed as demand of dowry soon before the death. Moreover she was not found dead in the matrimonial home rather she was found dead on the railway track. Learned counsel for the revisionist-complainant while placing reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar, reported in 2009 (1) Recent Criminal Cases, 130 has vehemently argued that even if case does not fall within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC because of non-availability of the evidence on the point that deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry soon before the death, however, this case falls within the ambit of Section 498-A and 306 IPC because she has committed suicide because of the harassment and cruel treatment given to her by her husband and in-laws. Division Bench of this Court in the matter State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar (supra) in paragraph No. 20 has held as Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 7 under:- 20. It is well settled that in a case where offence under Section 304-B IPC was not made out, conviction under Section 306 IPC alongw with Section 498-A IPC was permissible, if there was sufficient material to convict the accused under the said provisions. Though Section 304- A IPC requires proof of demand of dowry, Section 306 IPC and Section 498-A IPC were attracted even in absence of demand of dowry if cruelty in terms of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC was established. Presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act could be invoked where death was within seven years of marriage if it was shown that the deceased was subjected to harassment even if such harassment was not related to the demand of dowry. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), AIR 2003 SC 2865, wherein it was observed:- “14. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide:- the said provision reads as follows:- 306. Abetment of suicide – if any person commits suicide, whoever abets 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. 15. It may be noted that though no charge was framed under Section 306 IPC, that is Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 8 inconsequential in view of what has been stated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in K.Prema S. Rao Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, 2003 (1) SCC 217. 16. On the facts of the case even though it is difficult to sustain the conviction under Section 304- B IPC, there are sufficient materials to convict the accused-appellants in terms of Section 306 IPC along with Section 498-A IPC.” “6........... Under Section 304-B as already noted, it is the dowry death that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A and the husband or his relative would be liable for subjecting the woman to cruelty any time after the marriage. Further it mush also be borne in mind that a person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B can be convicted under Section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A without charge being there, if such a case is made out..........” Hon'ble Apex Court Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors., 2007(11) SCC 205 in paragraph No.15 has held as under: - “15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 9 in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.” Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SCW 3202 in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 has held as under: - “10. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 10 11. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough.” Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of SS Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 66 in paragraph Nos. 27, 28 and 29 has held as under: - “27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 196 : 2009(5) R.A.J. 278: (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 11 convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.” From the perusal of dictums of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhagwan Das (supra), Sohan Raj Sharma (supra) and SS Chheena (supra), it can safely be said that neither the harassment nor cruel behaviour without element of mens rea to instigate or aid in committing suicide resulting in suicide of the deceased would amount to instigation or abetment to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC. However, it is clarified that this Court is in full agreement with the Division Bench of this Court in the case State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar (supra) that even if charges under Section 304-B IPC are not found to be proved accused can still be convicted under Section 498-A or under Section 306 IPC if ingredients of Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC are proved on the record. Crl. Rev. No. 1221 of 2006 12 In the opinion of this Court there is no material available justifying the conviction of the accused either under section 498-A or under Section 306 IPC. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 19.01.2011 JUDGE reena