Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.@mdashThe present appeal has been filed by Joga Singh son of Bishamber Dass, aged 24 years, Swaran Kaur alias Swarni wife of Bishamber Dass, aged 60 years and Manjit Kaur daughter of Bishamber Dass, aged 20 years. They were nominated as accused in case FIR No. 58 dated 5.5.1996 registered at Police Station Garhshankar under Sections 304B & 404 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide his judgment and order dated 20.9.1997 found them guilty u/s 304B IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
2. FIR in the present case was lodged at the instance of Chanan Ram who has stated that he is resident of village Dansiwala. He was doing work of labourer and having two sons and two daughters. His youngest daughter Kamaljit Kaur was married in February 1995 with Joga Singh son of Bishamber Dass according to religious rites. He had given dowry according to his capacity. It was further stated that after three-four months of the marriage, husband Joga Singh, mother-in-law Swarni and sister-in-law Manjit Kaur were giving taunts for bringing less dowry and after beating she was also sent to her parental house. Thereafter, girl was made to understand and she was sent to her in-laws house. Two months thereafter she was given beating and was sent to her parental house. AT that time, the girl disclosed that in-laws were demanding colour Television. The complainant along with mediator Gurmeet Singh approached her in-laws and made entreaties that he is not in good financial position to satisfy their demands. After some time, a son was born to the daughter of complainant and at that time according to his capacity he gave gifts and clothes to the family of her in-laws. After 20-25 days, girl, after beating, was sent to her parental house with a demand that she should bring Rs. 10,000/- from her parents as their daughter Manjit Kaur remain sick and the money is required for her treatment. After borrowing Rs. 6,000/- same was given to Joga Singh and a request was made that the same be accepted as complainant is unable to pay more. It was further stated that two-three days ago, a message was sent by daughter Kamaljit Kaur through Teetu that the accuse are ill-treating her and are demanding more dowry and taunts were also being extended to Kamaljit Kaur. Then the complainant has sent his son Sarabjit Singh and Teetu and when they reached there, in their presence, daughter of complainant was given taunts for bringing less dowry in the marriage and at the time of birth of her child. It is stated that on day of occurrence at about 11.00 A.M. a message was received by him that Kamaljit Kaur is not feeling well and has been taken to hospital at Ludhiana. He along with other villagers reached at D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, where he could not get any information and returned back to Hoshiarpur. Since no information was available at Hoshiarpur they reached at the village of accused and found that dead body of Kamaljit Kaur was lying in the house of Joga Singh and froth was coming from her mouth and her body had turned bluish. He has stated that due to the behaviour of the accused under compulsion his daughter had consumed some poisonous substance and, therefore, she had died and action should be taken against the accused. He has further stated that accused also removed gold rings and ear rings from the dead body.
3. The above said FIR was investigated. Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and the appellants were charged by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.
4. Prosecution examined PW.1 Dr. Rajan Kumar who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kamaljit Kaur, aged 22 years. He had sent viscera to Chemical Examiner and upon receipt of report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PA he opined that cause of death of in the case was due to poisoning of aluminum phosphide.
5. PW.2 Chanan Ram is a complainant. He has reiterated the allegations leveled in the FIR.
6. Gian Chand appeared as PW.3. He has stated that the deceased was his cousin and the accused were making demands of dowry.
PW.4 Sarabjit Singh is the brother of deceased Kamaljit Kaur. He also corroborated PW.2 Chanan Ram regarding the allegations of demand of dowry.
PW.5 Manohar Singh is co-villager of complainant. He stated that the complainant had come to him and had revealed that accused were harassing the deceased on account of dowry.
PW.6 Mehanga Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, recorded statement of PW.2 Chanan Ram Ex.PF on the basis of which FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded.
PW.7 Gurmit Singh is the mediator. He also supported the allegations of demand of dowry on the part of the accused.
PW.8 Gurvinder Kumar, Moharrir Head Constable gave detail regarding sending of special report and viscera to the laboratory.
PW.9 Gurdev Singh, Constable, has tendered his evidence Ex.PH.
PW.10 Nirmaljit Singh, Sub Inspector, is the Investigating Officer.
PW.11 Dr. Ashok Guru gave details regarding admission of Kamaljit Kaur in Civil Hospital, Garhshankar and fact that she was referred to D.M.C. Ludhiana.
PW.12 Paramjit Singh is Draftsman who prepared the site plan.
PW.13 Jaswant Rai is Gold Smith. He identified gold ear rings Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and silver Pajeb Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.
Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. All incriminating evidence was put to them.
8. Appellant Joga Singh stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has admitted that he was married with Kamaljit Kaur in February 1995 and the following statement was made by him :-
"....I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I was married with Kamaljit Kaur in February 1995. It was ordinary marriage. I have not demanded any dowry or money. My sister Manjit Kaur was never fell ill. I never harassed Kamaljit Kaur. I have good relation with my wife and in-laws. I was on visiting terms and my in-laws were on visiting terms with us. Two months before the alleged occurrence I took my in-laws, wife and others to Anandpur Sahib to pay holy prayer.
A son was born to me. Kamaljit Kaur was taken by her mother to village Dansiwal two months prior to the delivery. Son was born at Dansiwal. I used to visit my in-laws. On 4.5.95, brother-in-law of mine, Sarabjit Singh and Teetu visited my house. We have 4/5 killas of land. We all thrashed wheat crop jointly. In the morning, I come to know that Sarabjit and Teetu consumed liquor at night. I reprimanded both of them strongly. My wife sheltered them and flared up in rage. He felt very offended. She was hot tempered and sensitive lady. I then went to look passengers who had gone to mourn the death of their relative at village Jadla. I used to drive Tempo and also owner of it. At about 10.00 A.M., on 5.5.96, I was present at Adda Garhshankar, I came to know that my wife took insecticide and she is in hospital. I went to hospital where Dr. referred to her to DMC Ludhiana. I sent Pirthi to inform my in-laws at village Dansiwal. I along with Bholi, Bishamber etc. was going in van to DMC on the way near Railway Phatak Nawanshahar, my wife died. I came to P.S. Garshankar and informed the police. Police asked me to go and reach the village. I went to my village. Police reached my village at 2.30 PMN on 5.5.96. There was big congregation at my house. I have two small rooms so dead body was placed on a cot and put under the shade of Dek tree, adjoining to my house in the plot of Kabal Ram who is my uncle. Police got us involved falsely into this case in connivance with complainant party on suspicion. I did not get any money Rs. 6000/-. I never demanded dowry before and after nor we harassed her".
9. Similar statements have been made by other co-accused namely Swarni and Manjit Kaur.
In defence five witnesses were examined.
DW.1 Mohan Singh stated that on 5.5.1996 at about 9.00 A.M. Joga Singh was present at Tempo Adda where he received information that his wife had consumed poison.
DW.2 Pirthi Chand stated that Joga Singh is his cousin. His house adjoins the house of Joga Singh. He supported the version given by Joga Singh regarding consumption of insecticide by Kamaljit Kaur.
DW.3 Gurbax Singh is Member of Panchayat of village Mehtabpur. He has also supported the version of Joga Singh.
DW.4 Mehnga Singh is Lamberdar of village. He has stated that Kamaljit Kaur was not maltreated.
DW.5 Didar Singh who is also co-villager of Joga Singh and stated that no demand of dowry was made by the accused.
In the present case, whether the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are made out or not, is to be examined by this Court.
10. Kamaljit Kaur died within seven years of her marriage. Joga Singh has himself stated in his statement recorded under Sector 313 Cr.P.C. that he was married with Kamaljit Kaur in February 1995. Kamaljit Kaur had died on 5.5.1996. It is also not disputed that her death was unnatural as she had died due to consumption of aluminum phosphide. The complaint filed by PW.2 Chanan Singh, statements of his nephew PW.3 Gian Chand, his son PW.4 Sarabjit Singh, PW.5 Manohar Singh, his co-villager and PW.7 Gurmit Singh, have stated regarding demand of dowry on the part of all the accused. There is oral evidence of these witnesses regarding allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and taunts given by the accused.
11. In defence, the accused have also examined DW.1 Mohan Singh, DW.2 Pirthi Chand, cousin of Joga Singh, DW.3 Gurbax Singh, Member Panchayat of village Mehtabpur, DW.4 Mehnga Singh, Lamberdar of village Mehtabpur and DW.5 Didar Singh, co-villager, to rebut the presumptions and allegations of demand of dowry and defence witnesses have stated that there was no harassment on the part of the accused and that deceased was living happily. This Court is having oral evidence of relations of the deceased and oral evidence of co-villagers of the accused, which included Lamberdar, and Member Panchayat, therefore, has to scrutinize the evidence very carefully as there is always chances of false implication of the accused as in the present case all family members have been implicated.
12. PW.2 Chanan Ram, in his cross-examination, has categorically stated that accused Manjit Kaur used to remain ill and the money was demanded for her treatment. Therefore, soon before the death, the demand was not for dowry articles but for financial assistance so that adequate medical treatment can be extended to accused Manjit Kaur, unmarried sister of Joga Singh, husband of Kamaljit Kaur. During cross-examination PW.2 Chanan Ram admitted that two months prior to the occurrence Kamaljit Kaur, Joga Singh, he along with his wife, Gurmit Singh, his wife and children had gone to Anandpur Sahib to pay respect and to other religious places. Gurmit Singh is another son-in-law of the complainant. If the evidence of PW.2 Chanan Ram is meticulously adjudged tenor of the same will show that specific allegations have been leveled against Joga Singh. Nothing specific has been stated qua appellant Swarni and Manjit Kaur, rather in the opening lines of examination-in-chief, it has been specifically stated by PW.2 Chanan Ram that "Joga Singh had turned out my daughter after giving injuries to her". Thereafter, a general and omnibus allegations have been levelled that all the accused had turned out his daughter after giving beatings to her for bringing less dowry.
13. PW.3 Gian Chand has also levelled no specific allegation against appellants Swarni and Manjit Kaur, rather he has stated that accused were harassing Kamaljit Kaur. He has also stated that 20-25 days before the occurrence accused had beaten Kamaljit Kaur as Joga Singh had demanded Rs. 12,000/- for treatment of Manjit Kaur.
PW.4 Sarabjit Singh has also stated that about 20-25 days before the occurrence, the accused demanded money for the treatment of Manjit Kaur.
14. PW.7 Gurmit Singh who is co-brother of Joga Singh and also a mediator also stated that about 20-25 days before the occurrence Kamaljit Kaur was sent to her parental house with a demand of Rs. 10,000/- for the treatment of her sister-in-law Manjit Kaur. As stated above, defence witnesses have stated which included Lamberdar, Member Panchayat and co-villager that there was no demand of dowry on the part of accused/appellant.
15. After examining evidence, which has been read before me by Mr. H.S. Riar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, two questions arise for due consideration of this Court:
A) Whether demand of Rs. 10,000/- as financial assistant for the treatment of unmarried ailing sister of husband will constitute demand of dowry and fall within the ambit of Section 304B IPC especially when it is stated that soon before her death she was not subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand of dowry ?
B) Whether in the present case all the accused are responsible ?
16. My answers to the above two questions are as under :-
The statement made by Joga Singh that Kamaljit Kaur consumed poison under the rage and having lost control cannot be accepted. From prosecution evidence it can be safely concluded that Joga Singh who was a Tempo Driver used to beat and send his wife to her parental house but all the prosecution witnesses are unanimous that soon before the death of Kamaljit Kaur i.e. 20-25 days before the occurrence the demand was made for Rs. 10,000/- for getting treatment of Manjit Kaur appellant who as per prosecution witnesses used to remain ill. It could not be lost sight of the fact that Manjit Kaur was aged 20 years and was of marriageable age, therefore, her brother, husband of Kamaljit Kaur will be equally concerned for welfare of Manjit Kaur. Therefore, demand for getting treatment of a sister on the part of husband will amount to seeking financial assistance after resorting to coercive measures i.e. giving beating, and turning the wife out of the house. Therefore, acts of omission and commission on the part of appellant Joga Singh may not constitute an offence u/s 304B IPC as soon before the death the demand was not in relation to the dowry but for the treatment of his sister but at the same time Section 113A Indian Evidence Act is attracted and offence u/s 306 IPC will be complete on the part of Joga Singh. Therefore, I convert the offence u/s 304B to Section 306 IPC.
17. My answer to the second question is that all the accused were involved. Manjit Kaur unmarried sister was ill. Swarni, mother-in-law as has come in evidence used to give taunts to the deceased. Joga Singh was not demanding for his own self but for the treatment of Manjit Kaur which was a family responsibility. Therefore, it could be safely termed that Swarni and Manjit Kaur were unison with Joga Singh to demand amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the family of complainant for getting treatment of Manjit Kaur. Section 113-A IPC reads as under :-
"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".
18. Since death has occurred within the period of seven years and all the accused are responsible for the unnatural death they are guilty of offence u/s 306 IPC. In the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1996. Maximum sentence which could be awarded u/s 306 IPC is ten years. The appellants have already been convicted for offence and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment u/s 304B IPC. Since I have converted the offence from Section 304B to Section 306 IPC, the question which arise for consideration as to what sentence will be adequate in the circumstances taking the protracted trial into consideration which this Court can award at this stage. I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be met in case appellant Joga Singh is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment u/s 306 IPC. However, the head note of the judgment shows that Swarni was 60 years old in the year 1997, she is now aged about 70 years. Manjit Kaur was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence. Mr. Riar has stated that Manjit Kaur is now married.
19. Taking into consideration protracted trial and the fact that both Swarni and Manjit Kaur are women, ends of justice will be fully met if they are awarded two years rigorous imprisonment for offence u/s 306 IPC.
20. In the end, the appellants are acquitted for an office u/s 304B IPC and convicted u/s 306 IPC and have been awarded sentence as mentioned above.
The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
