Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1398 (PNJ)

Gora Lal v. State of Punjab

2003-10-08

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - The facts of this appeal are as follows :- Pushpa (deceased) daughter of Kaka Ram (PW-5) had been married to Gora Lal accused about two years prior to the incident. The marriage had been arranged through the good offices of one Harbans Lal, resident of Budhlada. A son had also born to the couple, who was about 8 months of age at the time of the occurrence. It is the prosecution story that at the time of the marriage, Kaka Ram had spent a substantial amount and had also given dowry according to his means. About a month after the marriage, however, Raj Rani, Pushpas mother-in-law, asked him to provide a scooter to Gora Lal. Kaka Ram, however, stated that as he had spent a considerable amount on the marriage and it was difficult for him to provide a scooter. A few months thereafter, during the summer, Rani and Chiman Lal, the sister and brother of Gora Lal accused, respectively asked Kaka Ram to purchase a cooler for them, but he was able to provide only a fan. The accused also taunted Pushpa saying that the clothes given to her at the time of the marriage were not upto their standard. About three months prior to the incident, Kaka Ram had gone to Budhlada to meet Pushpa when all the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the purchase of a house. Kaka Ram expressed his inability to pay the amount on which the accused taunted Pushpa yet again. A panchayat was thereafter called at the house of (PW-1) Megh Raj, in which Prem Chand, Gora Lal and Raj Rani were present. Megh Raj reprimanded the accused and Pushpa was thereafter sent with them to her matrimonial home as a compromise had been effected in the gathering. About two months prior to the occurrence, Pushpa, however, returned to her parental home saying that she had been maltreated yet again by the accused. A gathering was once again convened at the house of Madan Lal (PW-2) in which Prem Chand, Chiman Lal, Gora Lal and Raj Rani were present and Madan Lal too reprimanded them and persuaded them to take Pushpa back to the matrimonial home. She accordingly returned to the house of her in-laws. A gathering was once again convened at the house of Madan Lal (PW-2) in which Prem Chand, Chiman Lal, Gora Lal and Raj Rani were present and Madan Lal too reprimanded them and persuaded them to take Pushpa back to the matrimonial home. She accordingly returned to the house of her in-laws. The prosecution story further is that Pushpa committed suicide, as she died of burn injuries on 13.5.1987 at about 10.00 A.M. in the matrimonial home. This information was conveyed to Kaka Ram by Madan Lal at about 11.00 A.M. The FIR was registered at Police Station, Budhlada at 12.10. P.M., the same day at his instance and the special report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 2.20 P.M. The investigation was thereafter set in motion. The police visited the place of incident and took into possession several articles including a match box (Exh.P1), ash (Exh.P2), dabba tin (Exh.P3), a bucket alongwith a glass and a plastic can (Exh.P4), a lid of a plastic can (Exh.P5) and a pair or chappal (Exhs. P6 & P7). The dead body was also sent for the post mortem and it was reported that she had died of extensive burn injuries. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty were brought to trial. 2. The prosecution in support of its case placed primary reliance on the evidence of PW-1 Megh Raj; PW-2 Madan Lal; PW-3 Baldev Singh, a witness to the recovery of the articles from the place of occurrence; PW-4 Dr. Harkirat Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem; PW-5 Kaka Ram, the father of the deceased; and PW-8 ASI Darshan Singh, the main Investigating Officer. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and while admitted the factum of his marriage with the deceased, Gora Lal stated that the other members of the family were residing separately from him and that Prem Chand, his uncle, was also living separately ever since he had attained the age of discretion. Chiman Lal and Prem Chand accused also made similar statements. Rani accused stated that she alongwith her mother Raj Rani and father were residing separately from Gora Lal. Raj Rani made a similar statement. Chiman Lal and Prem Chand accused also made similar statements. Rani accused stated that she alongwith her mother Raj Rani and father were residing separately from Gora Lal. Raj Rani made a similar statement. They also examined certain witnesses in defence. 4. The trial Court in its judgment dated 3.5.1990 held that it appeared that the FIR had been lodged with deliberation and in that eventuality the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out and having held as above, acquitted Rani, aged 16 years, sister of Gora Lal accused. The Court, however, examined the evidence with regard to the culpability of the other four accused and observed that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in particular, Kaka Ram and Madan Lal P.Ws., it was clear that a case had been made out against the accused as they had time and again made demands of dowry either in the shape of cash or goods and as their demands could not be satisfied by Kaka Ram, Pushpa had been harassed on that account, which had led her to commit suicide. The argument of the defence that it was a case of an accidental death was repelled by observing that not only a container of kerosene oil but a match box had been recovered from the place where the deceased had been burnt, which clearly ruled out such a case. The accused were accordingly convicted and sentenced as under :- Accused Gora Lal, Chiman Lal, Prem Chand and Raj Rani under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. All the four accused under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 5. It is the conceded position and as a matter of fact supported by a death certificate produced by Shri J.S. Mann, Advocate today in Court that Raj Rani had expired on 11.5.1998. This appeal qua her, therefore, abates. It accordingly survives qua Gora Lal, Chiman Lal and Prem Chand, the husband, brother and uncles respectively, of the deceased. 6. 5. It is the conceded position and as a matter of fact supported by a death certificate produced by Shri J.S. Mann, Advocate today in Court that Raj Rani had expired on 11.5.1998. This appeal qua her, therefore, abates. It accordingly survives qua Gora Lal, Chiman Lal and Prem Chand, the husband, brother and uncles respectively, of the deceased. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the trial Court had given a positive finding that there was a delay in the lodging of the FIR and that the delay had been utilised for the concoction of a false story. It has also been urged that there was absolutely no evidence or proof to show that any demand for dowry had been made, more particularly, as the deceased had never complained to any one about such demands shortly before her death. In this connection, reliance has been placed on two judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Sham Lal v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) Recent Criminal Reports 85 and Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2828 to contend that if there is no evidence to show that demands for dowry had been made soon before the incident, a case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code could not be held to be proved. 7. It has also been pleaded that there was no independent corroboration with regard to the prosecution story as only Madan Lal PW, who bore animosity to the accused had been produced as a prosecution witness. It has finally been urged that as Prem Chand and Chiman Lal were residing separately from Gora Lal and his family, their involvement was, in any case, in doubt. 8. These arguments have been controverted by the learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the complainant. 9. I find from a consideration of the evidence on record that the finding or the trial Court that there was a delay in the lodging of the FIR appears to be erroneous. It is the prosecution case that the incident had happened at about 10.00. A.M. on 30.5.1987 and that the information with regard to the incident had been conveyed to Kaka Ram PW at about 11.00 A.M. by Madan Lal PW. It is the prosecution case that the incident had happened at about 10.00. A.M. on 30.5.1987 and that the information with regard to the incident had been conveyed to Kaka Ram PW at about 11.00 A.M. by Madan Lal PW. The FIR had been lodged in the police station at 12.10 P.M. and the special report had been delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 2.20 P.M. the same day. To my mind, therefore, there is no basis for the finding that the FIR had been lodged belatedly after deliberation amongst the prosecution witnesses. To my mind even otherwise in a case involving close relationship such as a husband and wife the obvious anxiety of the girls family would be to avoid complications for her, and it certain deliberations were made so as to ascertain as to what had actually transpired before any irreversible action was taken, the same must be overlooked. I also find no substance in the argument of the counsel for the appellants that there was no proof of demands for dowry shortly before the incident. From the evidence it stands proved that frequent demands for dowry had been made, the last one at the end of March, 1987. It is clear from the evidence of the two primary witnesses Kaka Ram and Madan Lal that not only one but two panchayats had been convened on two different occasions to sort out the differences between the families. It has come in the evidence of Surinder Pal (PW-6), the brother of the deceased that the last such meeting had been convened in the last week of March, i.e., about two months prior to the incident. To my mind, the chain of circumstances leading from the time of marriage (about 2-1/2 years before the occurrence) right to the end of March, 1987, clearly supports the view that not only one but several demands for dowry had been made from the deceased and her family. In the light of the evidence that has come on record, the judgments are clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Sham Lals case (supra), the facts before the Court were that about one and a half years prior to the incident Neelam Rani deceased had returned to her matrimonial home about ten to fifteen days prior to the date of occurrence. In Sham Lals case (supra), the facts before the Court were that about one and a half years prior to the incident Neelam Rani deceased had returned to her matrimonial home about ten to fifteen days prior to the date of occurrence. It was in this situation that the Supreme Court observed that as nothing untoward had happened during those ten to fifteen days, it could not be said that any demand for dowry had been made soon before the death. Likewise in Satvir Singhs case (supra), the broad principle as to the meaning of soon before death was examined and commented upon and it was observed that there should be a perceptible nexus between the death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on the deceased and if the interval that elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and death was wide the court could infer that in all probability the demand would not have been the immediate cause of death. It was observed that even then the matter would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case to determine as to whether the interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept soon before her death. I find that the last demand for dowry made in March, 1987 had been preceded by a chain of demands made regularly from time to time from the date of marriage, the cord was, therefore, not snuffed out. 10. It has also been urged by the counsel for the appellants that there was no independent corroboration with regard to the incident. To my mind, in any family dispute such as the present one, independent corroboration would be rare as the anxiety of the family would be to keep the dispute within itself. Nevertheless, in the present case, the statement of Madan Lal (PW-2) does become relevant. Madan Lal was in fact related to both the families, i.e., to the accused as well of the deceased though he admitted in his cross- examination that he was not on visiting terms with Gora Lal. The fact, however, remains that Madan Lal did support the prosecution story in its entirety more particularly, the immediate circumstances leading upto the death. 11. I, however, find some merit in the last arguments. The fact, however, remains that Madan Lal did support the prosecution story in its entirety more particularly, the immediate circumstances leading upto the death. 11. I, however, find some merit in the last arguments. Prem Chand, Gora Lals uncle had been residing separately from the rest of the family and was separate in business as well. In this connection the evidence of the prosecution witnesses more particularly Kaka Ram had been alluded to and it has been emphasised that no prosecution witness had said that he had been residing with Gora Lal and his family. Moreover, I find that vague allegations have also been made against him. He would also, in any case, not have been a beneficiary of any of the goods that might have come to Gora Lal or his family from the side of his in-laws. His involvement, therefore, appears to be suspect. He is accordingly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The appeal qua the others is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.