Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Ram Avtar APPELLANT VERSUS State RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present:- Shri R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Shri Aman Pal and Shri Pritam Saini, Advocates for the appellant. Shri S.S.Randhawa, Additional A.G. Haryana. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No.419-DB of 1999, Criminal Revision No.1611 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.469-DBA of 2000 filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of Sunita alias Kavita by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment/order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri dated 12.7.1999/14.7.1999. The learned trial Court convicted Ram Avtar son of Dharam Pal under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -2- payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year. His co-accused Sunita alias Kavita was acquitted by the learned trial Court. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Mandhat given in the police station. Mandhat stated that he is an agriculturist. He has three brothers and six sisters. His two brothers and four sisters are married. One brother and two sisters are unmarried. His sister Mohindro Devi alias Mamta was married with Ram Avtar alias Pawan according to Hindu rites and ceremonies about 4 years back. Out of their wedlock no child was born. After about two years of the marriage his brother-in-law Ram Avtar and his sister Kavita started harassing Mohindro, saying that she could not give birth to a child. She was asked to arrange the marriage of her sister with Ram Avtar, otherwise Ram Avtar threatened that he would go in for a second marriage. About two years before the occurrence Mandhat and Ram Avtar had come to complainant's house. His parents and his uncle Ram Sarup and others persuaded that Ram Avtar should not marry the second time, as much had time had not elapsed and he should get Mohindro checked from a doctor. Ram Avtar went back with Mohindro. Mandhat went to see his sister at her matrimonial home. There Mohindro complained that her sister- in-law Kavita used to taunt her that she was Banjh (barren lady). She further told him that her husband Ram Avtar also used to quarrel with her and tell her that she should arrange his marriage with her younger sister, or he would get himself married for the second time somewhere else. On 1.6.1995 his father expired. Mandhat and Ram Avtar, her husband came to their house. Ram Avtar after ceremonies told the complainant that he should arrange the marriage of his sister with him, otherwise he would not keep Mohindro. They persuaded Ram Avtar not Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -3- to do so, as the death of the complainant's father had just taken place. About six months prior to the occurrence, Mohindro came to the house of the complainant and stated that her husband Ram Avtar and her sister-in-law Kavita have started harassing her and that she should arrange the marriage of her younger sister with Ram Avtar. Complainant Mandhat along with his Chacha (father's younger brother) took Mohindro to Village Mustafabad and persuaded Ram Avtar and Kavita and Mohindro's mother-in-law that they would talk about the engaging of their younger sister with Ram Avtar after the death anniversary of his father. In the meanwhile, they should get his sister checked from a doctor. Roopa mother-in- law of Mandhat gave an assurance to this effect, that she would try to persuade her son and daughter. About 4/5 days prior to the occurrence, Mandhat and Ram Avtar came to the house of the complainant. Ram Avtar asked complainant's mother whether she wanted to engage her daughter to him or not. If she did not engage the other daughter with Ram Avtar, the result would be bad, because otherwise he would go in for a second marriage. Complainant and his mother told Ram Avtar, that it was not the occasion to talk such things and let the death anniversary of the complainant's father pass and then the matter could be discussed. Thereafter both Ram Avtar and his sister Mohindro left for their house. At about 9.30/10.00 p.m. Krishan Chander who is the husband of the sister of Ram Avtar came to their house and informed the complainant that his sister Mohindro was ill. Complainant along with his uncle went to Mustafabad. On reaching there he found that a lot of people had gathered in the house of his brother-in-law. Sunita alias Kavita and Ram Avtar were not present. When they entered the room, they saw Mohindro lying dead on the bed in burnt condition. They suspected that Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -4- Ram Avtar along with his sister Kavita had put kerosene oil on Mohindro and set her on fire, for the reason that she could not bear a child and a second marriage was not contracted. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ex.PG was recorded on 8.4.1996 at 5 a.m. and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 9 a.m. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Constable Balwan Singh PW-1, Sumesh Pal PW-2, Constable Ram Kumar PW-3, Dr.M.R.Passi PW-4, Mandhat PW-5, Ram Sarup PW-6, Joginder Singh PW-7 and SI Rajesh Kumar PW-8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. Photographer Joginder Singh PW-7 has stated, that Ram Avtar was present on the morning on 8.4.1996 at 8 a.m., when he was taking the photographs. The Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Rajesh Kumar PW-8 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that police came to the spot at 3 a.m. Nothing has come on record to show that there was any dowry demand. The issue was only infertility of Mohindro deceased. The dispute was between both complainant and the appellant, regarding the second marriage of appellant as Mohindro deceased, was not in a position to bear a child. Dr.M.R.Passi PW-4 conducted post-mortem examination and prepared the report Ex.PE. He noted that Mohindro was wearing two white metallic Payal, one metallic ring in the left ring finger, white metalic ring in right ring finger, yellow metalic ear rings in both ears, yellow metalic koka in left nostril, white metalic kara in right wrist, glass bangles in right wrist and white metalic chain around the neck. The wearing of these ornaments before death Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -5- shows that she was not put to death but Mohindro being under intense stress and strain as she could not bear a child, she committed suicide. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that as per the F.I.R. Ex.PG, appellant Ram Avtar was threatening, that he will go in for a second marriage. He also stated that future will not be good for Mohindro if the younger sister of Mohindro was not married to him. Appellant wanted to get married to the younger sister of the deceased. He has argued that the acquitted accused Sunita alias Kavita at 8 p.m. would naturally be at her home and has participated in the commission of the offence. Appellant was insisting continuously to either marry the younger sister of Mohindro to him, or he would go in for a second marriage, somewhere else. Half burnt bed-sheet and mattress have been recovered, which clearly show that when deceased Mohindro laid down on the bed, it is at that time that kerosene oil was poured over her by both appellant Ram Avtar and Sunita, and thereafter she was set on fire. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Mohindro could not bear a child and Ram Avtar was very keen to get married to the younger sister of Mohindro, so that he could become a father. This was being resisted by Mohindro and her brother Mandhat PW-5. In his testimony before the Court, Mandhat PW-5 reiterated what he has stated in the F.I.R. Ex.PG. It clearly comes out from the evidence on record that appellant Ram Avtar was insisting on his marriage with the younger sister of the deceased, as deceased Mohindro was not physically fit for the purpose of bearing a child. Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -6- Mandhat PW-5 has reiterated this again and again in his testimony before the Court, that appellant Ram Avtar not once, but several times came to his house and threatened that if the younger sister of Mohindro was not married to him, he would go in for a second marriage somewhere else. There is no demand of dowry. There is nothing in the statements of Mandhat PW-5 and Ram Sarup PW-6 that Mohindro was physically assaulted or beaten. In fact, Mohindro was under tremendous stress for the reason that appellant was insisting on the marriage of her younger sister, to which it seems, the family of Mohindro was not agreeable to. Never did Ram Avtar threaten to physically eliminate Mohindro, if his demand was not met with, nor did he threaten that he would divorce her, but all he has stated, as per the prosecution witnesses Mandhat PW-5 and Ram Sarup PW-6 is that, he would go in for a second marriage if the younger sister of Mohindro is not married to him. Appellant seemed to be desperate to be a father and this emotional passion was pushing him again and again that the younger sister of Mohindro be married to him. Deceased Mohindro must have been under tremendous stress due to she not being in a position Medically to bear a child. The occurrence had taken place on 7.4.1996 at 8 p.m. As per the post-mortem report Ex.PE, Dr.M.R.Passi PW-4 has opined that deceased Mohindro was wearing two white metallic Payal, one metallic ring in the left ring finger, white metalic ring in right ring finger, yellow metalic ear rings in both ears, yellow metalic koka in left nostril, white metalic kara in right wrist, glass bangles in right wrist and white metalic chain around the neck. If she was going to be tortured to death by the appellant at 8 p.m., she would not have had these ornaments on her body, but as she was committing suicide she dressed up like a Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -7- bride. The ornaments on the dead-body of the deceased indicate that she wanted to extinguish her life like a bride. The occurrence had taken place at 8 p.m. No woman who has got to do the household work, will put on ornaments in the night before going to sleep. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Stated as under :- “I am innocent. I had all love and affection for my wife Mohindro. Inspite of best medical treatment given to her by me and her parents from various doctors she could not conceive a child for about for years after the marriage. She used to remain depressed on this count. After that my in-laws suggested that I being the only son of my parents they will marry their younger daughter with me. In the meantime my father-in-law expired. My brother-in-law and his other relations agreed to marry me with his younger sister after the performance of the first Barsi of my father-in-law. This was not liked by my wife Mohindro. She used to remain depressed. Two months before the first death anniversary she found that marriage will take place with her younger sister, she committed suicide in my house when myself and my sister were away to fields. On coming to know from the neighbours that my wife was lying burnt and then I informed my parents in-laws. Subsequently the false case was registered against me and my sister co-accused. I have got eight sisters and all Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -8- are married.” Going through the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the statements of Mandhat PW-5 and Ram Sarup PW-6 and the appellant they corroborate each other, to point, that appellant wanted to get married to the younger sister of Mohindro. Mohindro was under stress and was depressed due to the reason that she could not bear a child and further, that her husband Ram Avtar may go in for a second marriage. This shows that the basic quarrel was over the second marriage of Ram Avtar. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a case of suicide. Mohindro was under tremendous pressure, firstly for not bearing a child and secondly that her husband Ram Avtar was threatening her and her family members that either they marry Mohindro's younger sister to him, or he is going to marry somewhere else. Mohindro must have come under a depression and decided to end her life by burning herself. Appellant at the most, can be held guilty of abetting Mohindro to commit suicide. Conviction of the appellant is modified from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 306 I.P.C. Sentence of the appellant is also modified from life imprisonment to RI for six years. Appellant is directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two years. With the above modification of conviction and sentence of the appellant, Criminal Appeal No.419-DB of 1999 is dismissed. We find no merit in Criminal Revision No.1611 of 1999. It is dismissed. The State could not make out a case for acceptance of Cr.A. Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -9- No.469-DBA of 2000 for the conviction and sentence of Sunita alias Kavita. Criminal Appeal No.469-DBA of 2000 filed by the State is also dismissed. ( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE ( JORA SINGH ) August 14, 2008 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO Criminal AppealNo.419-DB of 1999 -10-