Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 Date of decision : 14.5.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Beant Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae S. D. ANAND, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab to call into question the validity of judgment dated 24.8.1996 vide which the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot (hereafter referred to as “the Trial Judge”) acquitted the respondents of a charge under Sections 498- A, 304-B and 306 IPC. The prosecution allegations were as under:- Karamjit Kaur ( sister of Boota Singh first informant) was married to respondent-accused Beant Singh 1-1/4 years prior to the impugned occurrence. Respondents-accused Jagsir Singh, Amarjit Kaur and Harbans Singh are younger brother, mother and father respectively of Beant Singh; while respondent-accused Gurditta Singh is their neighbour . About about 5/6 months of the marriage, all the respondents-accused started pressurizing Karamjit Kaur to bring more dowry. About 2-3 months prior to her death, respondents-accused required her to bring a sum of Rs. 20,000/- Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -2- **** from her parents. On account of financial incapacity, only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- could be arranged, which was sent by her natal family to the respondents/accused through Teja Singh and Thekedar Darshan Kumar, both of whom belong to the village of respondents-accused. However, that amount was returned by the respondents/accused who insisted that they would accept the total demanded amount of Rs. 20,000/-. As members of natal family of Karamjit Kaur could not meet that demand, the respondents continued to harass Karamjit Kaur and to pressurise her to bring that amount. About 5-6 days prior to the impugned episode, a joint panchayat of villages (to which the parties to the present prosecution belong) brought about a compromise which was reduced into writing. Even thereafter, the respondents/accused did not stop harassing Karamjit Kaur. Some time thereafter, Boota Singh went over to visit his sister Karamjit Kaur at her matrimonial house where she informed him that respondents/accused are still harassing her on account of her inability to bring more dowry. On hearing that, PW-2 Boota Singh brought this fact to the notice of Gurdev Singh ( a resident of village Bajakhana only), who was mediator in the marriage. After about half an hour thereof, Boota Singh PW-2 again went over to the house of the accused where Karamjit Kaur told him that she has consumed a poisonous article on account of the harassment and maltreatment meted out to her by the respondents/accused. Immediately after informing him, Karamjit Kaur fell down unconscious on the ground. Boota Singh felt perplexed and went over to his village to intimate the incident to his parents. Thereafter, Boota Singh again came over there in the company of his father Teja Singh, Jarnail Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and one Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -3- **** Joginder Singh. There, it came to their notice that Karamjit Kaur had been taken and got admitted to G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital. The facts were notified to the police by Boota Singh, vide his statement Ex. PE. The prosecution, in order to buttress the charge, examined as many as eight witnesses. PW-1-Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Karamjit Kaur. On perusal of the FSL report Ex. PB, he opined that “ the cause of death in this case in my opinion was due to organo group of poison which sufficient to cause of death in the ordinary course of nature.” PW-2 Boota Singh is the real brother of the deceased Karamjit Kaur/first informant. PW-3 Gurdev Singh is the mediator. PW-4 Jarnail Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of village Sekhan Kalan and PW-5 Teja Singh had attested compromise Ex. PG. Apart there from, Teja Singh ( and one Darshan Singh given up at the trial as having been won over by the accused) had carried the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the house of the respondents/accused where which the latter declined to receive it and insisted upon the complete payment of Rs. 20,000/-. PW-6 Dr. Vinod Sharma- had (vide his endorsement Ex. PH/1 on police plea ) opined on 27.4.1993 at 1.45 P.M. that Karamjit Kaur was unfit to make a statement. PW-7 ASI Jagdish Lal had partly investigated this case, the other Investigating Officer being PW-8 SI Ranjit Singh. Ex. PB is the FSL report. Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -4- **** Respondents-accused pleaded innocence with the following averments in the course of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.:- Beant Singh “I am innocent. No demand of dowry was ever made. It was simple marriage. The deceased was well treated by us. However, she used to remain under depression particularly when she used to come back after meeting her parents. We were not present at the time of alleged occurrence in the house. Amarjit Kaur my mother had returned from fields after giving meals to us and she found deceased lying on the earth. We removed the deceased to PHC Bajakhana and thereafter Karamjit Kaur was referred to GGS Medical College and Hospital, Fairdkot. The parents of Karamjit Kaur and the witnesses cited by the prosecution reached GGS Medical College and Hospital. The parents of Karamjit Kaur and witnesses got the false case registered against us and we were taken into custody illegally. The alleged compromise has been fabricated after the death of Karamjit Kaur incollusion with the persons of my village, who have inimical relations with us because our family had cast votes against the person who have attested the fabricated compromise. The deceased was never harassed by us on any account nor Rs.2000/- were demanded by any member of our family from the parents of the deceased. Teja Singh and Darshan contractor PWs never came to us to make payment of any money and the story in this respect has Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -5- **** been fabricated by the prosecution.” The other respondents accused took up a similar plea. Jagsir Singh “I am innocent. No demand of dowry was ever made. It was simple marriage. The deceased was well treated by us. However, she used to remain under depression particularly when she used to come back after meeting her parents. We were not present at the time of alleged occurrence in the house. Amarjit Kaur my mother had returned from fields after giving meals to us and she found deceased lying on the earth. We removed the deceased to PHC Bajakhana and thereafter Karamjit Kaur was referred to GGS Medical College and Hospital, Fairdkot. The parents of Karamjit Kaur and the witnesses cited by the prosecution reached GGS Medical College and Hospital. The parents of Karamjit Kaur and witnesses got the false case registered against us and we were taken into custody illegally. The alleged compromise has been fabricated after the death of Karamjit Kaur incollusion with the persons of my village, who have inimical relations with us because our family had cast votes against the person who have attested the fabricated compromise. The deceased was never harassed by us on any account nor Rs.2000/- were demanded by any member of our family from the parents of the deceased. Teja Singh and Darshan contractor PWs never came to us to make payment of any money and the story in this respect has Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -6- **** been fabricated by the prosecution.” Harbans Singh “I am innocent. No demand of dowry was ever made. It was simple marriage. The deceased was well treated by us. However, she used to remain under depression particularly when she used to come back after meeting her parents. We were not present at the time of alleged occurrence in the house. Amarjit Kaur my wife had returned from the fields after giving meals to us and she found deceased lying on the ground. We removed the deceased to PHC Bajakhana and thereafter Karamjit Kaur was referred to GGS Medical College and Hospital, Fairdkot. The parents of Karamjit Kaur and the witnesses cited by the prosecution reached GGS Medical College and Hospital. The parents of Karamjit Kaur and witnesses got the false case registered against us and we were taken into custody illegally. The alleged compromise has been fabricated after the death of Karamjit Kaur in collusion with the persons of my village, who have inimical relations with us because our family had cast votes against the persons who have attested the fabricated compromise. The deceased was never harassed by us on any account nor Rs.2000/- were demanded by any member of our family from the parents of the deceased. Teja Singh and Darshan contractor PWs never came to us to make payment of any money and the story in this respect has been fabricated by the prosecution.” Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -7- **** Amajit Kaur “I am innocent. No demand of dowry was ever made. It was simple marriage. The deceased was well treated by us. However, she used to remain under depression particularly when she used to come back after meeting her parents. We were not present at the time of alleged occurrence in the house. I had returned from the fields after giving meals to us and she found deceased lying on the ground. We removed the deceased to PHC Bajakhana and thereafter Karamjit Kaur was referred to GGS Medical College and Hospital, Fairdkot. The parents of Karamjit Kaur and the witnesses cited by the prosecution reached GGS Medical College and Hospital. The parents of Karamjit Kaur and witnesses got the false case registered against us and we were taken into custody illegally. The alleged compromise has been fabricated after the death of Karamjit Kaur in collusion with the persons of my village, who have inimical relations with us because our family had cast votes against the persons who have attested the fabricated compromise. The deceased was never harassed by us on any account nor Rs.2000/- were demanded by any member of our family from the parents of the deceased. Teja Singh and Darshan contractor PWs never came to us to make payment of any money and the story in this respect has been fabricated by the prosecution.” Guraditta Singh Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -8- **** “I am innocent. I am not related either with the victim party or the accused. I have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Gurdev Singh mediator PW of the marriage. I have no concern with the demand of dowry and harassment., if any, made by the remaining accused.” No evidence was adduced by the respondents-accused in defence. Learned Trial Judge, on appraisal of the material obtaining on the file, did not find the prosecution presentation to be reliable. A verdict of exoneration followed. Learned State Counsel argues, at the very out set, that the finding at the hands of the learned Trial Judge deserves to be invalidated for the reasons that appreciation of evidence is completely oblivious of the provisions of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which are reproduced hereunder:- “113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman:- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -9- **** The provision afore-mentioned, the argument proceeds, justifies the drawal of a presumption that “having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband”, if the question under debate is “whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty”. It is argued that learned Trial Judge proceeded on an incorrect premise that since dowry-related allegations had not been established, respondents deserved out right exoneration. In an act of resistance, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curie on behalf of respondents-accused argues that learned Trial Judge had recorded an appropriate fining by declining to rely upon compromise Ex. PG and also the unnatural conduct exhibited by brother of the deceased lady. In crimes, other than those involving matrimonial offences, the prosecution would either rely upon ocular presentation or, at times, circumstantial evidence. The parameters for the latter category of offences have been delineated in a number of judicial pronouncements. While undertaking adjudicatory exercise in the matter of an offence of present category, the appreciation at the hands of the Court is hedged by limitations which are inherent in the crime himself. The pronouncements in the text books and also those of religious protagonists notwithstanding, the Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -10- **** 'sacrament' theory attached to a Hindu marriage is evidently under threat, if one goes by the frequent reports about young bride popping off due to dowry-related torture or even emotional/practical cruelty in the day-to-day life at the matrimonial house. As per the current practice, the bride gets transplanted in the matrimonial home, begins an altogether new life in the company of her husband and immediate members of the family who had hitherto been complete strangers to her. Having been constantly fed on the 'sacrifice' theory, an Indian bride squeezes in her sentiments and tries her best to swallow anything inconvenient over there. The various strides made on various fronts notwithstanding, ours continues to be a basically conventional society where the 'return' of married daughter to her natal house, even on account of her inability to swallow the torture at the matrimonial house, is not taken very kindly, to use a fairly conservative/charitable expression, by the society. The possibility thereby of the matrimonial chances of her other siblings being adversely affected cannot be ruled out. While at the matrimonial house, she may have no shoulder to cry on. Those living in the vicinity may not get to know of the goings-on within the matrimonial house. Even if something 'amiss' comes to the notice of the neighbours, they would like to avoid any involvement in the context, essentially for fear of annoying a life long neighbour. It could be on account of a fear of reprisal or plain disinterest “in other affairs” as well. It is obviously the realisation on the part of the law makers that the presumptive provision contained in Section 113A of the Evidence Act Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -11- **** has brought into being. We do realise that while not compromising on the principle that the onus to prove the charge in a criminal case lies upon the prosecution, we must notice the limitation inherent in the mode of appreciation of evidence in a such like offence. We would, now, proceed to analyse the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out how far the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge is sustainable. As apparent from the record, the deceased died an unnatural death at her matrimonial house and within seven years of the marriage. Thus, two essentials envisaged by the provisions of Section 113A are proved. The only aspect to be analysed by the Court is whether she had been subjected to cruelty or not. As per explanation to Section 113A of the Act, 'cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The provisions of Section 498 -A are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty :- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -12- **** the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” As would be apparent from a conjunctive perusal of Section 113A of the Act and 498A of the IPC, the cruelty envisioned in law is not necessarily connected to the dowry demand. Explanation (a) to Section 498A IPC is clearly indicative of that inference. It is only explanation (b) which is relatable to the harassment of a bride “to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” At this stage, we would like to notice that, in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, the relations of accused are not likely to be beneficiaries on account of dowry demand. Apart there from, it is widely accepted phenomenon that natal family members of deceased lady have a tendency to rope in as many as members of in-laws family of their deceased child as possible. After perusing the prosecution evidence in entirety, we find that the allegations against the respondents/accused (other than Beant Singh) are fairly vague in character and do not deserve acceptance. We have examined those allegations in the light of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158. In Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -13- **** the circumstances of the case, we have no reservation in upholding the finding of acquittal qua respondents-accused Jagsir Singh, Harbans Singh, Amarjit Kaur and Gurditta Singh, particulary when the last named is only a neighbour. In the light of that finding, the expression “respondent- accused” used hereinafter shall denote one Beant Singh, husband of deceased lady. PW-2 Boota Singh testified, in unmistakable terms, that his sister Karamjit Kaur informed him after about 5-6 months of her marriage that she was being pressurised to bring more dowry articles. He was equally forthright in testifying that about 2-3 months before her death, Karamjit Kaur informed him that the respondent-accused had desired that she should bring a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from her natal family. They were able to arrange Rs. 10,000/- which they sent to respondent/accused Beant Singh through Teja Singh and Darshan Singh of Bajakhana village. The respondent-accused returned Rs.10000/- and insisted that he would accept only a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. That part of the statement made by Boota Singh is owned by PW-5 Teja Singh. Insofar as Darshan Singh is concerned, he was given up at the trial as having been won over by the accused. It may be noticed that Teja Singh is not related to the complainant party. It was suggested to him that he had given false testimony due to party faction in the village. He denied the suggestion as incorrect. The respondent did not pursue the matter any further. If the respondent had any material to prove that PW-5 Teja Singh was actually deposing against him on account of party faction in the village, he ought to have identified the faction to which Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -14- **** he belongs and also the faction to which PW-5 Teja Singh belongs. A mere suggestion in the relevant behalf, without any proof thereof, cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that witness had any inimical inclination towards the respondent/accused. Apart there from, the testimony given by PW-2 Boota Singh and PW-5 Teja Singh on the above point is also supported by PW-3 Gurdev Singh, mediator, who also affirmed that Teja Singh and Darshan Singh had been given Rs.10,000/- for being paid to the respondent-accused as emissaries of father of the deceased but that respondent/accused declined to receive that amount and insisted that he would receive only Rs.20,000/-. That witness belongs to village of respondent-accused and is not proved to have any cause for deposing falsely against the respondent/accused. It may be noticed otherwise that it was suggested to him that he had deposed falsely due to elections to the society. He denied the suggestion as incorrect. In an earlier part of the cross-examination, he had conceded that brother of respondent-accused Gurditta had contested the election to the society. However, he was categorical in testifying that he was not a supporter of Teja Singh. He also denied, as incorrect, a suggestion that any hot words were exchanged between this witness and Gurditta Singh during the election. The respondent-accused did not take any further steps to prove the allegations in that behalf. It is a commonly notice phenomenon that co-villagers, by and large, wish to steer clear of a controversy involving a village mate. They may like to support a co-villager but would normally refrain from testifying to the detriment of a co-villager. It could be due to fear of annoying a life Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -15- **** long village mate. Plain disinterest, despicable though, could also be the cause thereof. In the present case, both (PW-3 Gurdev Singh and PW-5 Teja Singh) are co-villagers of the respondent-accused but they have opted to make a deposition which run contrary to the interest of the respondent/accused. It adds to their credibility, particularly when there is no acceptable proof on the file that they were biased either in favour of the complainant party or against the respondent/accused. Learned Trial Judge declined to rely upon the compromise deed, the terms whereof could be indicative of an 'admission' on the part of the respondent/accused about his having mal-treated the deceased lady in the context of a dowry demand. Learned Trial Judge noticed certain discrepancies in the context of the place where it was typed out. However, the learned Trial Judge would appear to have been oblivious of the fact that there is a precise averment made by PW-4 Jarnail Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of the village and PW-5 Teja Singh to the effect that compromise bears thumb impression of the respondent-accused. Though the factum of that compromise was challenged in the cross examination directed at the witnesses, it was nowhere pointed out or suggested to those witnesses that impugned compromise does not bear the thumb impression of the respondent/accused. As apparent from Ex. PG, it purports to bear the LTI/signatures of the respondent-accused. If Ex. PG is a forged affair, the respondent-accused ought to have suggested that the LTI/signatures purporting to be his are actually not his. Apart from putting the relevant suggestion to the attesting witnesses (PW-4 Jarnail Singh and PW-5 Teja Singh), the respondent-accused ought to have, in his own discretion though, Criminal Appeal No. 331-DBA of 1997 -16- **** stepped into the witness box to offer the indicated denial. Nothing of the type was, however, done in this case. The