Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 Date of decision : 10.12.2008 Rajinder Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State of Punjab. S. D. ANAND, J. Appellant Rajinder Singh (husband of the deceased lady) was tried (alongwith his mother and brother) on charges under Section 306 and 304-B IPC. The accused (other than appellant) were exonerated from the charge; while the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, appellant was ordered to undergo further RI for a period of two months. The prosecution allegations, at the trial, were as under:- First informant/PW-2 Karnail Singh had a progeny consisting of three daughters ( Paramjit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Salwinder Kaur) and two sons. Out of them, Salwinder Kaur was married to appellant Rajinder Singh four years prior to of the impugned episode. After about one year of Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 -2- **** the marriage, Salwinder Kaur came over to her parental house and informed her father (in the presence of her father's elder brother Gulzar Singh_PW-3-) that the appellant (and the acquitted accused) were demanding money in order to be able to raise construction of a house. She further informed them that the appellant used to quarrel with her over the non fulfillment of the demand. PW-2 Karnail Singh had, at the time of marriage, given sufficient dowry which was in accord with his financial status. Inspite thereof, Karnail Singh informed her that he was not possessed adequate funds. He gave one she-buffalo to her for being taken to her in-laws house. After about 7-8 months thereof, Salwinder Kaur was again mal-treated by the appellant in the context of the non -fulfillment of the dowry demand. She came over to her natal house and made a grievance thereof, but she was again sent back with a promise that Karnail Singh would visit her in-laws. Karnail Singh went over the house of the appellant in the company of his brother PW-3 Gulzar Singh and two others (the then Sarpanch and also an Ex-Sarpanch). Vir Singh, father of the appellant Rajinder Singh was individually requested by Karnail Singh (and others accompanying him) to restrain his son etc. from mal-treating Salwinder Kaur but he excused himself by telling them that even he was not being looked after by his children. He advised them to talk directly to the appellant (and the acquitted accused) and it was thereafter that Karnail Singh had talked face-to-face with the appellant (and the acquitted accused). While requesting the appellant to desist from mal-treating Salwinder Kaur, Karnail Singh informed him that he would try to provide the requisite amount after the harvesting of crop. However, this did not satisfy the appellant. Karnail Singh and members of the party returned. About a fortnight prior to her death, Salwinder Kaur again came over to Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 -3- **** her parental house. Karnail Singh assured her that dowry demand would be met after the harvesting of the crops. After some days, however, a Panch of village Bathwala (alongwith acquitted accused Davinder Singh) came over to the house of the Karnail Singh and informed that Salwinder Kaur had died. PW-1 Dr. H.S.Bajwa had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Salwinder Kaur on 31.8.1993. After going through the report of the Chemical Examiner, he opined that “the cause of death in this case is asphyxia which is due to poisoning by aluminum phosphide pesticide which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.” PW-2 Karnail Singh is first informant/father of the deceased lady. PW-3 Gulzar Singh is elder brother of Karnail Singn. PW-4 Balwinder Singh is Sarpanch of the village who had accompanied Karnail Singh and party to the house of the appellant to request him to refrain from causing dowry-related harassment to Salwinder Kaur. PW-5 SI Ram Nath had investigated this case. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations and alleged false implication in the case. He raised a plea that deceased Salwinder Kaur had never been mal-treated by him. DW-1 Gulzar Singh, Inspector , Food and Supplies, Gurdaspur, made a record-based statement to buttress the plea raised by acquitted accused that they were separate in mess and residence from appellant Rajinder Singh. DW-2 Harbhajan Singh also gave testimony to that effect. Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 -4- **** DW-3 Kimiti Lal made a record-based statement to the effect that acquitted accused Devinder singh was on duty on 30.8.1993 from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the testimony of Dws, that evidence given by those witnesses pertained to the plea of only the acquitted accused. Learned Trial Court placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW-2 Karnail Singh, PW-3 Gulzar Singh and PW-4 Balwinder Singh which was found to be fully supported by the medical testimony of PW-1 Dr.H.S.Bajwa. I have heard Ms. G.K.Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have carefully gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant argues, at the very that outset, that it was only on account of the complete want of evidence to prove the dowry-related harassment that the Trial Court opined to convict the appellant for an offence under Section 306 IPC. In the context of the conviction, it is argued that the prosecution had not been able to prove any conduct on the part of the appellant which could give rise to the allegation that he abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Learned counsel is not on firmer factual footing when she argues that appellant has not been convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Infact, the appellant suffered conviction only under that charge. Insofar as the other facet of argument is concerned, there also the learned counsel for the appellant is not on a firmer footing. However, before proceeding to undertake the adjudicatory exercise qua appreciation of evidence, it requires to be noticed in particular that evidence on point of Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 -5- **** dowry-related torture is fairly hard to come by. A bride is totally stranger to her husband and members of her in-laws family. Those living in the vicinity of her matrimonial house are also not expected to be interested in coming to her aid for fear of reprisal or causing annoyance to a life long village mate living in the neighbourhood of their residential houses. Even otherwise, a bride would hardly have an opportunity to inter-act with the out side world. Even when she gets an opportunity, she would always be cognizant of the presumption that an outsider would not be interested in lending a receptive ear to whatever grievance she has regarding the mal- treatment being meted out to her within the four walls of the matrimonial house. Apart therefrom, the girl side would be reluctant to give vent to any such feeling to the out side world. In the Indian societal scenario, the estrangement of a bride with her in-laws and husband is, by and large,looked down upon by the society. Even otherwise, the sharing of any such information could be expected to affect the matrimonial prospects of other siblings of the bride. We must keep the facts in view while appreciating evidence obtaining on the file. It is consistent testimony of father and uncle of the deceased lady that she made a grievance of the dowry-related torture which she was suffering at the hands of the appellant on account of her inability to obtain funds from her parental family to enable appellant Rajinder Singh to raise the construction of a house. Her father could not meet the dowry demand on account of financial incapacity. It was very natural for him to provide a she-buffalo to her for being taken to her matrimonial house in the hope that it would satisfy the greedy in-laws atleast for some time. It was equally natural for him to assure her that he would try to meet the dowry demand after harvesting of crops. It is apparent from the record that father of the Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 -6- **** prosecutrix had no other source of income except the agricultural holding. He could, thus, have been in a position to raise funds only after the harvesting of crops. It is sale proceeds of the crops which could enable him to meet the dowry demand raised by the appellant. However, when the taking along of the she-buffalo also did not satisfy the appellant, she came over to her parental hosue and told her father that she was still being subjected to dowry-related torture. Even at that point of time, it was natural for her father and Uncle to take along two responsible persons of the village (Sarpanch and Ex-Sarpanch) to the house of the appellant with a view to persuade him to refrain from harassing the deceased. Out of those two independent witnesses, PW-4 Balwinder Singh, Sarpanch was examined at the trial and his testimony is fully supportive of the prosecution presentation made at the trial by father and uncle of the deceased lady. By any stretch of interpretation, the Sarpanch of the village can be termed as an independent witness who would not be inclined to falsely depose in favour of the complainant party. Insofar as non examination of the Ex-Sarpanch is concerned, it does not affect the validity of the prosecution presentation, for the simple reason that there is no law which provides that the prosecution must examine all the witnesses. Even otherwise, Hazura Singh PW was given up as having been won over by the appellant. The phenomenon of winning over of a witness is common to the Indian legal scenario. Luckily for the complainant party in this case, the Sarpanch of the village did not change his loyality and opted to testify the truthful version at the trial. It is in the evidence of PW-2 Karnail Singh (father) and PW-3 Gulzar Singh (uncle) that the deceased had been to her parental house about 15 days prior to her death. Even on that visit, she told members of Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 -7- **** her parental family that she was still being subjected to mal-treatment on account of non fulfillment of the dowry demand. It is, thus, apparent that she had been subjected to dowry-related torture immediately before her death. There is, otherwise, ample material on the file to prove that the death of deceased had taken place within four years of her marriage. As she committed suicide, she obviously died an unnatural death. Thus, all the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC are proved. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, learned counsel for the appellant argues that Salwinder Kaur committed suicide as she could not conceive all along. She, however, concedes that this part of the plea never ever came to be put to the witnesses who came to be examined at the trial. If there was even an iota of truth in the averred version, there is no reason why the appellant would not have made a suggestion in that behalf to the father and the uncle of the deceased lady. If a married couple is childless and the wife is under depression on account thereof, the husband is the best person to be in the know of it and it would be very natural for him to share that information with the members of his in-laws family. It is then only that he could get some emotional and psychological support for himself and also for his wife, who may be under depression on account of inability to conceive. In view, thus, of the fact that no such suggestion ever came to be put to the PWs and even the appellant had not raised any such plea in the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this Court has no hesitation in repelling it. The averred plea is open to the vice of being an after thought. The following can, thus, be safely culled out from the above discussion:- a) The deceased died unnatural death; Criminal Appeal No.84-SB of 1998 -8- **** b) The deceased committed suicide within four years of her marriage; c) The deceased died at her matrimonial house; d) The deceased is proved to have been subjected to dowry-related harassment immediately before her death. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded an elaborate order. The finding recorded therein is relatable to the material obtaining on the file. I myself in complete agreement with the finding and also the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court in support thereof. The appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. December 10, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE