S.S. Nijjar, J.@mdashThis judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal Nos. 1839-SB of 2002, 1942-SB of 2002 and Crl. Revision No. 139 of 2003. Crl Appeal Nos. 1839-SB of 2002 has been filed by Swaran Singh and Mohinder Kaur wife of Swaran Singh and Crl. Appeal Nos. 1942-SB of 2002 has been filed by Sukhdeep Singh son of Swaran Singh against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18-10-2002 passed by A. N. Jindal, Sessions Judge, Faridkot in Sessions Case No. 5 dated 17-1-2000 in case FIR No. 42 dated 5-10-1999 u/s 304B/34 of the IPC whereby the appellants have been convicted u/s 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years. Crl. Revision No. 139 of 2003 has been filed by Chanan Singh, complainant-father of the deceased, seeking enhancement of the sentence from seven years R.I. to life imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case has been narrated by Chanan Singh, P.W. 7 in his statement Ex. PC. The statement has been made on 26-9-2001. He states that he is a resident of Village Mudki. He had a daughter, namely, Surjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). She was found dead about one year and five months after her marriage to Sukhdeep Singh. The son named Manjit Singh who was born about five months earlier was also found dead along with the deceased. Just after the marriage of the deceased, the accused (three appellants) had started maltreating her on account of bringing inadequate dowry in the marriage. The deceased had told the complainant and other members of his family that her husband, Sukhdeep Singh used to beat her up. Appellants No. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the father-in-law and mother-in-law" respectively) used to taunt and maltreat her on account of demand of dowry. The complainant and his family had requested the appellants not to maltreat the deceased. At the time of the birth of Manjit Singh, the appellants raised a demand of Rs. 50,000/- by way of dowry. The complainant and the family of the deceased showed their Inability to pay this huge amount. This fact was brought to the notice of Mukhtiar Singh, Sarpanch of the Village (P.W. 8), Mohinder Singh and Ranjit Singh etc., who assured the complainant and his family that they would go to the house of the appellants as a Panchayat. However, the Village Panchayat could not be convened due to election. About one month prior to the deaths, Sukhbir Singh (P.W. 9) brother of the deceased, Gurmeet Kaur, sister-in-law of the deceased and Amar Kaur mother of the deceased had gone to the village Pindi Balochan to see the deceased. She prepared Pakoras for serving them. At that time, the husband came there and started beating the deceased saying that his father had suffered injuries on his hand and she was busy in preparing Pakoras for her relatives. On 5-10-1999 at about 1-30 p.m. the complainant, his wife and sons were present in the house when Ginder Singh son of Gurdial Singh, mason, resident of Sadiq came there and informed them that Surjit Kaur (the deceased) had consumed some pesticides and had also administered the same to her son and as a result thereof, they had died. On receipt of this message, the complainant along with his sons, Sarpanch Mukhtiar Singh, Jasbir Singh and other respectables went to the village Pindi Balochan to the house of the appellants. On reaching there they had found the deceased and her son lying dead on a cot in the veranda. He stated that either deceased Surjit Kaur and her son Manjit Singh had been administered some pesticides by the appellants or she had consumed some pesticides herself and administered the same to her son, after becoming fed up with the maltreatment and harassment meted out to her by the appellants because of insufficient dowry. Thereafter, due investigations were carried out by the police. Inquest reports, Ex. PP and Ex. PQ of the dead-bodies were prepared in the presence of the complainant and his son, Sukhbir Singh. Two khes Ex. P9 and Ex. P10 were lifted from the spot and converted into a parcel and sealed bearing impressions ''DS'' and took the same along with the Ex. PII vide recovery memo Ex. PH which was attested by Punjab Singh and Sukhbir Singh. The Investigating Officer also lifted from the spot one vial of pesticides, covered the same into a parcel after closing it with a lid sealed the same with his seal bearing impressions "DS" and took the said parcel into possession, vide memo Ex. PJ. He also prepared rough site plan, Ex. PS. Dead bodies were sent for post-mortem Dr. K. K. Aggarwal conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased on 6-10-1999. A silver bangle, Ex. P12, two pairs of ear-rings Ex. P13 and Ex. P14 and two copies of post-mortem reports contained in a parcel along with the belongings of both the deceased i.e. Salwar Ex. P-3, Kameez Ex. P4, underwear Ex. PS, Chunni (Head Cloth), Ex. P6, Bra Ex. P7 and black coloured thread (Taragi) Ex. P8 were taken into possession in a sealed parcel bearing impressions "DS" vide memo Ex. PT. the visceras of the deceased were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala to give report Ex. PN and Ex. PO. He detected Chloro compound, a group of insecticide in the samples.
3. The challan was presented. The appellants were charge-sheeted u/s 304B, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.
4. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Constable Raj Singh No. 1380, Police Station Sadiq. He proved his affidavit Ex. PA. P.W. 2 Head Constable Jagdish Singh has deposed that on 5-10-1999, while he was posted at Police Station Sadiq, Sub inspector Darshan Singh deposited with him one parcel, two khes and a sealed parcel containing insecticides in the Police Station. On 6-10-1999, Head Constable Punjab Singh handed over to him the belongings of both the deceased which have been mentioned above, after post-mortem examination. These articles were kept in Malkhana of the Police Station. He deposed about visceras of both the deceased along with two envelopes having been sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner. P.W. 6, Dr. K. K. Aggarwal, has opined that the cause of death to -be insecticides poisoning, which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. P.W. 7, complainant is the father of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief, he affirmed the facts as narrated above. P.W. 8 had corroborated the testimony of P.W. 7. P.W. 9 has supported the evidence of P.W. 7. P.W. 10, Head Constable Devinder Singh No. 539 has proved his affidavit Ex. PR while PW. 11 Sub Inspector Darshan Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has proved the entire investigation of the case conducted by him.
5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, in their statement u/s 313 of the Cr. P.C., the appellants had taken the plea that they had never maltreated or demanded any dowry from the deceased. The allegations are false. Deceased did not like the husband. She used to tell him that he is not a husband of her liking. She wanted to marry someone else namely, Titu son of Balbir Singh, resident of Mudki. This fact was told to the husband by the deceased herself. She also told him that she is living with him under pressure of her parents. Consequently, she had developed depression. She was admitted in the Psychiatric Ward vide Bed Head Ticket No. 2451 dated 16-3-1999 in the Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot by her father and the husband. She had tried to commit suicide earlier also by jumping into the Rajasthan Canal which runs between Mudki and Faridkot when the deceased was coming with the husband from Mudki. She was saved due to the efforts of the husband and the other persons including Jagir Singh son of Puran Singh. It was also the case of the appellants that they own 15 killas of land whereas the father of the deceased owns only 4/5 killas of land. They claim to be financially strong. Therefore, the question of demanding dowry does not arise at all. They had not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage also. In fact they had paid Rs. 40,000/- on one account and Rs. 28,000/-on another account, totalling Rs. 68,000/-to Sukhbir Singh brother of the deceased for the purchase of the electric motor and a gun. It is further the case of the appellants that they used to keep the deceased very nicely and with love and affection. But she being of sharp nature and depressed mind did not like them. Further she being under depression and of unsound mind had herself consumed the insecticides and also administered the same to her son, Manjit Singh. They claim that the husband has eight sisters. He is the only son. They claim to have been falsely implicated in the case. The appellants also examined DW. 1, Balwant Singh who is a co-villager of the appellants. He has testified that on 5-10-1999 at about 6-00 a.m. he was going to his fields and when he passed by the side of the house of the accused, he found the mother-in-law of the deceased weeping there and she told him that her daughter-in-law had committed suicide by poisoning and had also administered poison to her son. According to him, a number of people had gathered there. He went to the Police Station and the Police came to the spot with him at about 7.00 a.m. He further stated that all the appellants were present in their house and the parents of the deceased had also arrived at about 8 a.m. He stated that the appellants are not greedy persons. He also stated that he has never heard of any quarrel between the deceased and any of the appellants on account of dowry. DW2, Harjinder Singh Chanana has given evidence with regard to the withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- on 31-5-2000 by the father-in-law from his account in Punjab and Sindh Bank Jand Sahib. He further stated that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn earlier by the father-in-law from his account on 3-5-1999. D.W. 3, Bharpur Singh Branch Manager, Jand Sahib deposed that the husband was sanctioned R.C. limit to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- by the bank. He withdrew a sum of Rs. 28,000/- from the bank on 7-5-1999. Earlier he had deposited a sum of Rs. 31630/- in his account on 3-5-1999. DW. 4, Nachhattar Singh of village Pindi Balochan states that the father-in-law owns 8-10 killas of land which is cultivated by themselves. He also states that he never heard any quarrel between the deceased and the husband. He was also in the village on 5-10-1999. According to him, the police might have reached the spot at about 8.00/8-30 a.m. He had told the police that no dispute between the appellants and the deceased ever took place in his presence. D.W. 5, Ajaib Singh has stated that about 3/31/2 years back when he was going to the office of XEN, Irrigation in connection with his work, he had seen that the police had apprehended Sukhdeep Singh and his wife near the Rajasthan Feeder in the area of Faridkot at about noon time. However, nothing had happened in his presence. But the Police had told that the girl had tried to jump into the canal. He then took the girl to her village. DW. 6, Dr. K. C. Jindal, Assistant Professor, Psychiatrist, on deputation to institute of Mental Health, Amritsar had stated that the deceased was admitted in the Psychiatric Ward of the G.G.S. Medical College/Hospital Faridkot vide bed Head ticket No. 2151 dated 16-3-1999, Ex. PW/ 6/1. She was admitted to the hospital on account of mental depression in manic depression psychosis. He states that this is an illness related to brain. According to him, the history of the patient was written on the bed head ticket by some house physician/junior doctor. The deceased was discharged from the hospital on 19-3-1999. Subsequently, she only came once for follow up treatment as an out door patient on 22-3-1999. DW. 7 Ginder Singh of village Sadiq has testified that he was sent by the appellants to inform the parents of the deceased about their death. He accordingly went to village Mudki and informed the parents of the deceased. His parents told him that previously also the deceased had tried to commit suicide. They told him that they would join the cremation. Some men and women came for the cremation of the deceased from village Mudki.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the whole story is concocted. The FIR has been deliberately delayed and had been registered after due deliberations at 5.30 p.m. I do not find much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. P.W. 9 had categorically stated that on 5-10-1999, Ginder Singh DW. 7 came to their house in Mudki and informed that his sister and her son had died due to poisoning. P.W. 7 also states that information about death was given by Ginder Singh DW. 7. This witness does not give the time at which the Information about the death of his daughter was given by Ginder Singh. He, however, stated that after the receipt of the information he, along with other respectables of the village Mudki went to the house of the appellants in village Pindi Balochan and reached there at about 4 p.m. Thereafter, the complainant and Jasbir Singh went to the Police Station to lodge the report. There is no cross-examination of this witness with regard to the time at which they reached the house of the appellants. Mukhtiar Singh, Sarpanch, PW. 8 stated that on 5-10-1999 at about 2 p.m., Sukhbir Singh P.W. 9 had gone to the house of the Sarpanch and informed him that his sister and her son had been murdered by the appellants. According to this witness, Narinder Singh, President was also present in his house. According to this witness, he along with Jasbir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Ranjit Singh and other respectables of the village reached the house of the appellant at about 4.00 p.m. Even at that time, the dead-bodies of Surjit Kaur and her son were lying on a cot in the Verandah of the house of the appellants. It was at that stage that Sukhbir Singh, P.W. 9 went to the Police Station to lodge the report. The Sarpanch stayed in the house along with the other respectable persons from village Mudki to guard the dead bodies. Again this witness has not been cross-examined with regard to the time when they reached the house of the appellants. P.W. 9 stated that he had received a message from the village Pindi Balochan that his sister and her son had expired/died after consuming poison. He also stated that he along with his father, Sarpanch Mukhtiar Singh and some other persons of the village went to the house of the appellants. They saw the dead-bodies lying on the cot in the house of the appellants. He further stated that thereafter his father went to inform the Police. It was only thereafter that the Police reached the spot and prepared the inquest report. This report has been attested by P.W. 7. Again significantly, this witness has not been cross-examined about the time at which they reached the village of the appellants. From the above, it becomes apparent that there is consistent and uncontroverted testimony to the effect that the complainant and his son did not come to know about the tragedy till 1-00 p.m. at the earliest. It can also not be disputed that the party from Mudki reached the village of the appellants at 4 p.m. I am of the considered opinion that there is no undue delay in the registration of the FIR. However, it must be stated that, the appellants had produced D.W. 7, Ginder Singh of village Sadiq who stated that he was sent to inform the parents of the deceased about her death by the appellants. He stated that he went to village Mudki. The parents of the deceased told him that previously also she tried to commit suicide. They had also, told him that they will join the cremation of the deceased. He further stated that men and women in a jeep came at the time of the cremation. They did not raise any objection with regard to the involvement of the appellants in the commission of crime. He further stated that while he was in the house, the police came there on its own. They took all the accused with them. In cross-examination, this witness had stated that the distance between Pindi Balochan is at a distance of 7/8 kms from Sadiq. Pindi Balochan is within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadiq. He did not inform the police about the incident. He did not care to ring the police about the same. He did not inform the Panchayat of Village Mudki. Surprisingly, the parents of the deceased confided in him that she has herself committed suicide, and therefore, had committed a wrong act. This witness has not given any details as to the time when he was informed about the death of the deceased by the father-in-law and the mother-in-law. He also does not give any time as to when he reached village Mudki. But he refers to the so-called statement made by the parents of the deceased that she had previously also tried to commit suicide. In cross-examination, he refers to a further statement that the parents were of the opinion that the deceased had committed suicide. It appears that the witness is not telling the truth. He is deliberately making statements which are damaging to the prosecution and are calculated to help the accused/appellants. There was no occasion for the parents to make such statements squarely holding the deceased responsible for her death and at the same time virtually absolving the accused/appellants of any blame. I am of the considered opinion that testimony of this witness is to be totally disregarded being wholly untrustworthy. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence given by P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 to hold that they were not informed about the death before 1.00 p.m.
7. Mr. Bansal has then argued that in any event, the offence u/s 304B of the IPC is not proved against the appellants. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence of any demand of dowry. There is also no evidence of any harassment on that account. According to the learned counsel, the story about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- is made up to implicate the appellants. Learned counsel further submitted that the story about the beating up the deceased by the husband for serving pakoras to her brother, sister-in-law and mother is totally concocted. He submitted that it has come in evidence that the deceased was in love with the boy called Titu from her village. She had compelled her husband to attend the wedding of Titu. When they were coming back from the wedding, out of sheer frustration, she tried to commit suicide by jumping in the canal. He therefore, submitted that the possibility of the wife having committed suicide out of frustration cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further submitted that there is evidence on the record to show that the attempt of the deceased to commit suicide by jumping into the canal was foiled by the husband and some other persons. He also submitted that the deceased was mentally imbalanced. She was receiving psychiatric treatment. This fact has been amply proved by the doctor, DW. 6. The signature of the deceased on the Bed Head Ticket has been recognised by the brother of the deceased, P.W. 9, He, therefore, submits that the offence u/s 304B of the IPC is not made out at all. Learned counsel farther submitted that at best it can be argued that an offence u/s 306, IPC is made out. In reply to this argument, the counsel for the complainant, Mr. Kaushal submitted that there is clear proof of demand of dowry. This has been proved by the testimony of P.W. 8 and P.W. 9. In any event, death having occurred within 1 year and 5 months of the marriage under unnatural circumstances would raise a presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellants are responsible for the crime. It was for them to prove that they had no role to play, even if it was a case of suicide.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed by anybody that death occurred within 1 year and five months of the marriage between the deceased and the husband-appellant. The post-mortem report has categorically stated that the death has occurred due to poison. The story with regard to the illicit relation of the deceased with Titu is a figment of imagination of the appellants. The only evidence on the record to this effect is that the deceased is supposed to have told the appellant about the alleged love affair. In spite of knowing that the deceased was in love with Titu, the husband was persuaded to attend his wedding along with the deceased. I find this a little difficult to digest. There is no evidence whatsoever on record excepting the self-serving statement of the husband about the illicit relations of the deceased with Titu. In fact, P.W. 9 has emphatically denied the suggestion put by the defence counsel that his sister had illicit relation with Titu. He has also denied that she wanted to marry Titu. He even denied that his sister had been forced to marry the husband against her wishes. He also denied the suggestion that she was not happy with the marriage as she was unable to marry Titu. He also denied the suggestion that she committed suicide by consuming the poison and also gave poison to her only son. P.W. 7 has categorically stated that his family did not attend the marriage of Titu. In the absence of any evidence, it would be impossible to hold that the deceased was having any love affair with Titu.
9. This now brings me to the argument of Mr. Bansal that there was no harassment and maltreatment of the deceased soon before her death. This again is a clearly false plea raised by the appellants out of desperation. There is cogent and clear evidence to the effect that the husband had beaten up the wife in the presence of her mother, brother and sister-in-law. This Incident took place when she was serving Pakoras to the aforesaid persons only a few days before the death. There is also evidence on the record that the appellants had been demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. Section 304B of the IPC postulates as under :--
"(1) That the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or it occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(2) Such death occurs within seven years of her marriage;
(3) Soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand of dowry."
10. The prosecution, therefore, has to prove that the death of a married woman has occurred within seven years of her marriage. The other ingredients for a successful prosecution under this Section are that the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury; or that it occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; that the cruelty or harassment was for and in connection with any demand for dowry. On all the aforesaid ingredients being proved, it shall be deemed that the husband or relatives have caused the death. Such a death is called Dowry Death! Upon conviction, a minimum sentence of imprisonment is provided which shall not be less than seven years. This term may extend to Imprisonment for life. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section shows the concern of the Parliament to provide deterrent punishment for the rising incidents of dowry death in this country. This Section introduces a deeming fiction. This is so as dowry death generally takes place in the secrecy of the house of the husband. Direct evidence is generally not available. This section, therefore, lays down the circumstances under which the husband or other relatives shall be deemed to have caused the death. In the present case, it is not disputed that the marriage of the deceased to the husband had taken place one year and five months prior to the death. So, the first ingredient of this Section is fully established. It is also not disputed that Sukhdeep Singh is the husband, Swaran Singh is the father-in-law and Mohinder Kaur is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid persons were residing with Sukhdeep Singh and the deceased. It is also not disputed that the deceased and her son were found dead in the house of the appellants. In fact the only plea raised on behalf of the appellants was that the deceased had committed suicide. Therefore, it is not disputed that the death of the deceased occurred due to poison. It is also not disputed that the death of the son was caused by poisoning. This fact is otherwise also supported by the medical evidence. The only crucial question to be decided by the Court is with regard to the deeming fiction. From the above, it becomes apparent that the death has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage. Now it has to be seen by the Court as to whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death for or in connection with any demand of dowry. If this ingredient is proved on the basis of the deeming fiction, it shall be held that the appellants have caused her death. PW. 7 has given a detailed narration. It has come in the evidence of P.W.7 that soon after the marriage, the appellants started maltreating his daughter as, according to them, she has hot brought enough dowry. They started beating her up. This fact was disclosed to him and his wife soon after the marriage of his daughter. She had categorically stated that they are demanding more dowry. He stated that he along with his son, P.W. 9 went to the house of the appellants and requested that they were unable to pay any more dowry. In the meantime, his daughter (the deceased) gave birth to a son. At the time of confinement, the deceased was at her parents'' home in village Mudki, as is customary. On the birth of Manjit Singh, the appellants again demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. P.W. 9 went to the Panchayat of the village and met the Sarpanch P.W. 8 and other respectable members of the village. These persons were informed that the appellants were demanding dowry and were harassing and regularly beating the deceased. The Panchayat assured P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 that they would go to the house of the appellants after the elections. He then states that about 20 days or a month thereafter, Sukhbir Singh, P.W. 9, his wife, Gurmit Kaur and the wife of the complainant, Amar Kaur went to the house of the appellants, The deceased had prepared Pakoras and served them, At that time the husband came from the fields and started beating up the deceased. He was saying that she had prepared Pakoras while his father had been Injured. Mohinder Kaur and Swaran Singh had also started taunting the deceased and harassed her for not bringing enough dowry. He categorically states that after about 10/15 days, his daughter has been murdered by the appellants along with the only son of the deceased. He then narrates the events with regard to reaching the village of the appellants which has been noticed above. In cross-examination, this witness has not been shaken on any material point. He has reiterated the stand taken in the examination-in-chief. He has denied any illicit relationship between his daughter and Titu. The evidence given by P.W. 7 is entirely corroborated by P.W. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought to argue that the evidence of this witness cannot be relied upon as he could not give the time, date and month when he had gone to the village Pindi Balochan where his sister had served the Pakoras. I am not much impressed by the submission made by the learned counsel as evidence of this witness cannot be discarded by considering the aforesaid statement out of the context of the entire statement. P.W. 8 is an independent witness. He has also corroborated the demand for dowry. He had also stated that he knew from P.W. 7 that his daughter was being harassed and maltreated by the appellants. He also stated that he had promised P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 that they would go to the house of the appellants after the election and persuade them not to demand the dowry and to stop harassing the deceased. The unshakeable evidence of all the three witnesses would be sufficient to hold that the aforesaid ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC have been established. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that even if the beating up of the deceased over the serving of Pakoras is accepted, it would not amount to cruelty within Section 304B of the, IPC. This Section requires that he cruelty should be soon before the death of a woman. According to the learned counsel, a period of 14 to 15 days had elapsed between the act of cruelty and the death, In support of this submission, learned counsel relied on Illustration A of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, I am unable to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, There is a continuous course of maltreatment from the date of marriage. The witnesses have narrated that the cruelty and harassment was for extracting extra dowry from the parents of the deceased. P.W. 8 has categorically stated that they were planning to go to the house of the appellants for a compromise, but they could not go due to elections. The term "soon before death" cannot be put in a straight Jacket with regard to the time limit. The acts of cruelty and harassment which are related to the demands of dowry will have to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case. As noticed earlier, the acts of harassment and cruelty generally take place within the confines of the house of the husband. The torture and cruelty can be psychological as well as physical. Usually, in such circumstances, only the immediate members of the family of the husband would be aware of the cruelty, maltreatment and harassment of the bride. It was the exposure of the young bride to a potentially hostile environment that led Parliament to enact Section 304B of the IPC to render some protection to the hapless young bride. Even the deeming fiction in Section 304B of the IPC seems to have proved inadequate. So, the Parliament has enacted and inserted Section 113B in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (inserted by Act 43 of 1986 w.e.f. 19-11-1986). The aforesaid Section provides as under :--
"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death:--
When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."
11. The aforesaid Section has to be read along with Section 304B of the IPC. This Section converts the deeming fiction provided u/s 304B of the IPC into a presumption as to dowry death. It provides that when a question arises for connecting a person with dowry death, the Court shall examine whether such a person has taken any part in the cruelty or harassment of the deceased for or in connection with any demand for dowry. If the Court finds evidence that a person is connected with the harassment, it shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death, In the present case, there is sufficient evidence to connect the three appellants with harassment and cruelty for dowry for a continuous period before the death on 5-10-1999. Therefore, a presumption arises that the appellants have caused the death of the deceased and her son. This view of mine also finds support from a judgment of this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1998) 4 Recent Crl R 375. In that case, it has been observed as follows :--
"If such acts leave behind an impression of humiliation, torture and tension on mind of the girl, who commits suicide, it will amount to cruelly soon before death within meaning of Section 304B of the IPC. The words soon before death in Section 304B do not mean ''immediately before death'' soon before death should be Interpreted in such manner that there should be close proximity with the act of unnatural death and demand."
12. As a last ditch effort, counsel for the appellant had argued that the deceased had committed suicide out of frustration. This is an unbelievable theory, even on the face of it. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was living with the husband. Within a period of one year, she produced a male child. Had she been unwilling partner in the marriage, there would have been little likelihood of sexual relations let alone conception and birth of a child. The concocted story about an attempt made by the deceased to commit suicide on the day of marriage of Titu is not supported by any evidence. This is only the self-serving bald statement of the husband. On the other hand, any illicit relations between the deceased and Titu had been totally denied by the members of her family. The appellants had examined D.W. 1 who stated that he knows the family of the husband well. On 5-10-1999 at about 6.00 a.m. he was going to his field. The wife of Swaran Singh, mother-in-law of the deceased was weeping on the road. She told him that the deceased had committed suicide by poison and had also given poison to her son. This witness has told outright lies about the time at which the police arrived. According to him, the Police had arrived at 8 a.m. Significantly, he stated that he had never heard any quarrel on account of dowry between the appellants and the deceased. This statement would clearly show that the deceased was not of a quarrelsome nature, as she is sought to be projected by the appellants. Thereafter, D.W. 4 who also lives in the village of the appellants stated that he never heard any quarrel between the husband and the deceased. This again would indicate that the deceased was not of a quarrelsome nature. None of the witnesses have said that she used to remain depressed. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the theory that the deceased committed suicide out of frustration.
13. In fact, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants had made up their mind to commit the crime way back in March 1999. By way of defence, they have stated that the deceased was suffering from manic depression psychosis. They have also stated that she had been given psychiatric treatment. She had been admitted to Psychiatric Ward at Amritsar. To prove the defence, they examined Dr. K. C. Jindal, Asstt. Professor, Psychiatric on deputation to the Institute of Mental Health, Amritsar. He stated that the deceased was admitted in the Psychiatric Ward by one Chanan Singh through Emergency. He gave the Bed Head Ticket No. 2451/16-3-1999 as relating to the patient. They produced a certified photostat copy of the Bed Head Ticket. He identified his signatures over the same as marked "B". He stated that it was a case of mental depression i.e. manic depression psychosis. He further stated that this is an illness related to brain. He then makes a crucial statement that the history described on the Bed Head Ticket is neither written nor dictated by him. He also states that the history of the patient is written by the House Physician deputed in the Ward. In this case, the history has been recorded by a Junior doctor. He further states that the treatment is not based on the history recorded by the Junior doctor. According to him, the deceased was relieved from the Hospital on 19-3-1999. Subsequently, she came as an out door patient on 22-3-1999. She came only once. In cross-examination, he candidly admitted that according to the prescription given, she was not suffering from depression. He further states that the prescription slip does not tally with the history which has been mentioned in Ex. D.W. 6/1. The prescription relates to 22-3-1999, he admits that he has not written any history of depression in mark "C". The aforesaid evidence is clinching piece of evidence against the appellants. Had there been any truth in the case put up by the defence, they would have produced the junior doctor who wrote the Bed Head Ticket. He would have been offered for cross-examination. This could lead to a clear inference that this witness has been deliberately withheld by the prosecution as he would not have supported the case of the prosecution. PW. 7 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he along with, father-in-law and sister of the husband was taken on 16-3-1999 on the ground that they were to get the foetus test conducted in order to check the sex of the child. He categorically denied that his daughter was admitted in the G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot for treatment of mental ailment. He also denied that his daughter was suffering from any mental disorder. From the above, it becomes apparent that D.W, 6 has tried to help the appellants to establish a case that the deceased was suffering from depression. She had been tricked to go to the Hospital on the assumption that the appellants wanted the sex of the child to be determined.
14. From the facts and circumstances narrated above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants are guilty of having committed the offence u/s 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide his Judgment dated 18-10-2002 is hereby affirmed. The revision petition is also dismissed.
