IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal S- 987-SB of 1998 Date of Decision : November 17, 2010 Balwan and another ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. D.S.Bishnoi, Advocate Mr. Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. Vide judgment and order dated 15/16.10.1998 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, convicted the appellants under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They were also convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. According to the prosecution, complainant Chhotu Ram went to P.S.Bhuna and made statement before the police on 19.7.1996 at 2 PM to the effect that marriage of Parwati alias Pari, aged 22/23 years, daughter of his brother Ramji Lal, was solemnized about 1-1/4 Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -2- years with Balwan in accordance with Hindu rites. Ramji Lal gave dowry beyond his capacity. After the marriage she went to the house of her husband and when she returned to the house of her father, she told her family members while weeping bitterly that her husband Balwan and mother-in-law Tulsi taunted her that she had brought a ramshackle bed with small sized mattress and her father did not give scooter in the dowry and the articles given in dowry were inadequate. They also threatened her that if she did not bring scooter from her father, it would not be safe for her to live in their house. After about one and a half month when appellant Balwan came to their house for taking Parwati back, the parents of Parwati told him that at that moment they did not have enough money for purchasing a scooter but promised to give him a scooter at the next harvest. Parwati was persuaded to go with her husband to his house where she was kept nicely for sometime but the appellants again started harassing her in connection with their demand for scooter. When her brother Hanuman went to the house of appellant Balwan, Parwati told him that her life was in danger and she would not be allowed to live until a scooter was given to Balwan. Thereafter, Hanuman brought Parwati to his house, where Parwati told her parents and relatives about her harassment. The parents of Parwati did not send Parwati back to the house of her husband for a considerable time. Thereafter, Balwan accompanied by a few of his relatives, came to the house of parents of Parwati and under the pressure and assurance of the relatives of Balwan that she would not be harassed by anybody, she was Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -3- sent by her parents with Balwan to his house. On 18.7.1996, Hanuman, alongwith Suraj Bhan, husband of Parwati's sister, went to the house of Balwan, where Parwati told them that the appellants were in the habit of giving beatings to her daily and she was not even given food in time. The appellants had made her life very difficult. When Hanuman offered to take Parwati with him to his house, the appellants picked a quarrel with him and did not allow her to accompany Hanuman. Hanuman and Suraj Bhan narrated the incident to their relatives. On 19.7.1996, the complainant, alongwith Hanuman, Jagdish, Ran Singh, Ram Singh and Dewan, went to the village of the appellants for enquiring about the safety of Parwati and when they reached the farm house of appellant Balwan, they found dead body of Parwati hanging from the ceiling of a room with the help of a plastic rope. After leaving Ran Singh and Ram Singh near the dead body, the complainant went to Police Station Bhuna for giving information to the police. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR No. 141 dated 19.7.1996 under Sections 498-A/304-B read with Section 34 IPC was registered by ASI Om Parkash. During the course of investigation, ASI Om Parkash alongwith other police officials and one photographer went to the house of the appellants, where the dead body of Parwati @ Pari was hanging. After taking photographs of the dead body, it was sent to Civil Hospital, Fatehabad, where Dr. P.L.Verma and Dr. D.M.Bansal conducted the post-mortem and in their opinion, the death occurred owing to asphyxia as a result of hanging and the hanging was ante-mortem. The death had Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -4- occurred 12 to 14 hours before post mortem. On 20.7.1996, the appellants were produced before ASI Om Parkash by Sadhu Ram, Sarpanch and they were arrested. Dowry articles were also taken into possession by ASI Om Parkash and deposited with the MHC. Upon completion of investigation, presentation of challan, followed by its commitment to the Court of Sessions, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Constable Mahavir Singh, PW2 Dr. P.L.Verma, PW3 Sanjeev Kumar, photographer, PW4 Kulbhushan, Patwari, PW5 Nihal Singh, SI/SHO, PW6 complainant-Chhotu Ram, PW7 Hanuman, PW8 ASI Om Parkash and PW9 Constable Vijender Singh. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both the appellants stated that they had been implicated falsely in the case. Marriage of Parwati with Balwan was simple. At the time of marriage, Balwan was living with his parents in their house situated within the abadi of village Dhani Sanchla. After the marriage, Balwan and his parents constructed a small farm house in their fields. Balwan was the only son of his parents. He had four sisters, out of whom two were married. Parwati wanted Balwan to live separately from his parents and sisters. Initially, Balwan agreed to this proposal. Parwati used to pick up quarrels on that account. Balwan then shifted to the residential house Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -5- situated in the village abadi alongwith the dowry articles. He, however, insisted for a joint mess with his parents and sisters. Parwati did not like it and she frequently quarrelled with him on this score. She committed suicide out of rage and anger when Balwan insisted in maintaining his relations with his parents. The relatives of Parwati were informed about her death. They came to their house and gave beating to his father and thereafter, one of the relatives of Parwati lodged a report with the police against them. In defence, the appellants examined DW1 Suraj Bhan and DW2 Munshi Ram. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant-Tulsi died. Information in this regard was supplied by learned counsel for the appellants on 18.8.2010, who sought time for placing on record her death certificate. While adjourning the proceedings, learned State counsel was directed to verify the aforementioned fact. On 17.9.2010, learned State counsel placed on record an attested copy of death certificate as well as report made by SHO Police Station, Bhuna, which were taken on record. In view of the same, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appeal of appellant-Tulsi stood abated. Her appeal was, accordingly, disposed of. Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -6- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, scanned the evidence. Learned counsel for appellant-Balwan has submitted that neither any dowry was ever demanded from the deceased or her parents or any of her relatives, nor the deceased was ever harassed by the appellant in connection with any such demand for dowry. According to PW-6 Chhotu Ram, an amount of Rs.1.50,000/- was spent at the time of marriage of Parwati with the appellant and at that time, no demand was made by the appellant from the parents and relatives of the deceased. In such a situation, it was highly improbable that later-on, the appellant and his mother would start taunting the deceased for bringing inferior quality of dowry articles, besides not bringing a scooter for the appellant. Further, Chhotu Ram's son-in-law Surjit Singh, who was the go-between in the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was resident of village of the appellant, but despite the same, neither Chhotu Ram nor his relatives ever complained to said Surjit Singh about the harassment of the deceased at the hands of the appellant and his mother on account of inferior quality of dowry articles. It is submitted that no such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had taken place on 18.7.1996 but the same was introduced only with the sole purpose of establishing the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that the reason for the deceased to commit suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling of the house was not on account of any demand for dowry or harassment in connection thereof, but it was for Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -7- the reason that the appellant, being the only son of his parents, had been insisting upon the deceased to maintain joint mess with his parents but it was the deceased herself, who had been insisting upon shifting from the fields so that she might have residence and mess separate from the close relatives of her husband. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was married to the appellant about an year and four months before the unfortunate incident took place. On 19.7.1996, when the close relatives of the deceased went to the house of the appellant in order to enquire about the welfare of the deceased that they noticed the dead body of the deceased hanging from the ceiling of the room. The dead body was, thereafter, subjected to post-mortem by PW-2 Dr P.L. Verma, who found a fracture and dislocation of one of the cervical vertebrae and the cause of death as asphyxia on account of hanging, which was ante-mortem in nature. It is also not denied that the death of the deceased had taken place in the house of the appellant. As regards the circumstances leading to her death, PW-7 Hanuman, brother of the deceased, had deposed that when he, alongwith his another sister's husband-Suraj Bhan went to the house of the appellant on 18.7.1996, the deceased complained that no food was given to her and she apprehended that she might be killed. She also stated that the appellant and his mother were harassing her in order to obtain more dowry and a scooter for the appellant. Merely, because PW-7 Hanuman had not stated about the incident of 18.7.1996 at the time of inquest is no ground to hold that no such incident had taken Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -8- place on 18.7.1996. While conducting the inquest, the Investigating Officer is required to collect material so as to find the cause of death. He is not required to incorporate the minute details of the occurrence. After recording the FIR, PW-8 ASI Om Parkash had left the Police Station for the spot and had taken the photographer with him. PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar, photographer, has deposed that after going to the spot, he had taken two photographs of the dead body which was hanging from the roof. Those photographs were taken by him on 19.7.1996 at about 3.30 PM. While filling the columns of the inquest report, ASI Om Parkash noted that there was a ligature mark, which was almost complete, around the neck of the deceased and the apparent cause of death was hanging. The statement made by complainant Chhotu Ram on the basis of which FIR was registered, was also incorporated in the body of the inquest and a specific mention was made therein about the incident of 18.7.1996. PW-7 Hanuman had identified the dead body to be that of his sister Parwati and, accordingly, he appended his signatures on the said report. However, no statement, much less a detailed statement, was made by PW-7 Hanuman at the time of inquest proceedings. Even while appearing as PW-7, Hanuman stated that when the police came to the spot and conducted the inquest proceedings, he attested the inquest report, besides signing the same. Therefore, the testimony of PW-7 Hanuman cannot be ruled out of consideration. It was consistent case of the prosecution that soon after the marriage of the deceased with the appellant, the latter, alongwith his Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -9- mother, had been harassing the deceased for bringing inadequate dowry. When she could not meet their demand, she was even deprived of food. She had been, time and again, informing her close relatives about her harassment. This treatment continued up to the last breath of the deceased as a day before i.e. 18.7.1996, she complained to her close relatives about her being beaten. When PW-7 Hanuman wanted to take her with him to his house, the appellant and his mother picked up a quarrel and did not allow her to accompany Hanuman. After returning to their house, Hanuman and Suraj Bhan narrated about the incident to their family members and on the following day, complainant Chhotu Ram, alongwith a couple of his family members, went to the house of the appellant to enquire about the welfare of the deceased but on reaching the farm house of the appellant found the dead body of Parwati hanging from ceiling of the room. In view of the above, the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant had treated the deceased with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and the appellant was responsible for causing dowry death. In his defence, the appellant had examined two witnesses. DW-1 Suraj Bhan deposed that after he was informed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging, he went to the Dhani of the appellant in the fields, where father of the appellant asked him to inform the parents of the deceased about the incident. On receipt of information form him, the complainant, alongwith others, reached the Dhani of the Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -10- appellant. When the parents of the deceased demanded the return of the dowry, a dispute arose between them and the appellant wherein father of the appellant suffered injury. In cross-examination, he stated that father of the appellant was taken to City Hospital, which was a private hospital and the doctor did not issue any prescription slip. There is, thus, no corroboration to his testimony that the father of the appellant had suffered injury at the hands of the complainant party. Similarly, DW-2 Munshi Ram, who happened to be maternal uncle of the appellant testified that the appellant and his mother used to treat the deceased with love and affection. He also stated that the appellant used to live in the house situated in the residential area of the village at the time of solemnization of his marriage but after the marriage, he alongwith his wife and parents started living in a house situated in the fields. The deceased started insisting upon setting up a separate house. She went to her parents and lived there for six months. He himself went to the house of complainant so as to persuade the deceased to join the society of her husband. When the parents of the deceased came to the house of the appellant, the household goods were divided. The household goods belonging to the deceased were given to her, who, however, dumped the same in a separate house. Even, thereafter, the appellant and the deceased maintained common mess with the parents of the appellant and there was a promise to set up a separate kitchen after a week or so. In cross-examination, he testified that he went to the house of the appellant for persuading the deceased Crl. Appeal S-987-SB of 1998 -11- to return to the house of the appellant six months before her death and at that time, the parents of the deceased did not tell him that the appellant and his parents were treating the deceased with cruelty and even no assurance was asked from him. He denied the suggestion that the appellant and his mother had been giving beatings to the deceased and turning her out of the matrimonial home on account of non- fulfilling the demand of dowry. Apparently, DW-2 Munshi Ram had come to shield his sister Tulsi and nephew Balwan from the crime committed by them. In case, the household goods stood separated between the appellant and the deceased, on the one hand and the parents of the appellant, on the other, the deceased could have started living separately. On the other hand, the deceased and her husband continued to maintain common mess with the parents and other family members of the appellant. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellant on the basis of testimonies of DW-1 Suraj Bhan and DW-2 Munshi Ram. In view of the aforementioned, no case is made out for any interference in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court qua appellant-Balwan. His appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 17, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1/pds. Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2013.09.12 12:15 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh