Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 533 (PNJ)

Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana

2004-05-05

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - By this judgment, I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998 (Smt. Shanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana) and Criminal Revision No. 17 of 1998 (Shyam Lal v. Smt. Shanti Devi and others) as both the cases arise out of the same judgment. 2. Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Jagan Nath, her son Bansi Lal, husband of Sarla Devi deceased, another son Ashok Kumar and his wife Smt. Shankuntla were booked in a case FIR No. 96 dated 25.6.1991 registered at police station Farrukh Nagar, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment dated August 22/25, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, Ashok Kumar and Smt. Shankuntla stand acquitted, whereas Smt. Shanti Devi and Bansi Lal, the appellants-herein stand convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B Indian Penal Code and 306 Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced as under : Smt. Shanti Devi appellant U/S 304-B Indian Penal Code RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for six months. U/S 498-A Indian Penal Code RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further RI for two months. Bansi Lal appellant 304-B Indian Penal Code RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for two months. 498-A Indian Penal Code RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for two months. 3. The sentences awarded under both the counts have been ordered to run concurrently. However, no sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, both the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. The State of Haryana has not filed any appeal against acquittal of Ashok Kumar and Smt. Shakuntla. 6. Shyam Lal complainant has filed the present revision challenging the acquittal of Ashok Kumar and Smt. Shakuntla. However, legally the acquittal of Ashok Kumar and Smt. Shakuntla cannot be disturbed in revision in the absence of any appeal filed by the State. 7. Sarla Devi, the deceased-herein was daughter of Shyam Lal (PW4). 6. Shyam Lal complainant has filed the present revision challenging the acquittal of Ashok Kumar and Smt. Shakuntla. However, legally the acquittal of Ashok Kumar and Smt. Shakuntla cannot be disturbed in revision in the absence of any appeal filed by the State. 7. Sarla Devi, the deceased-herein was daughter of Shyam Lal (PW4). She was married to Bansi Lal appellant in the year 1988. The present case was registered on the statement of Shyam Lal, in which he has alleged that at the time of marriage, he had given sufficient dowry to the in-laws of Sarla Devi, but after the marriage, they insisted and persisted for a scooter and on that account Sarla was being maltreated; that after one year of the marriage when the demand did not finish and the maltreatment continued, she had come to her parents house and remained there for 14 months; that thereafter the complainant alongwith his relations visited the house of in-laws of Sarla Devi and convened a Panchayat; that thereafter Sarla had stayed in her in-laws house; that Gulshan Kumar (PW5), brother of Sarla had gone to Seewari, the village of in-laws of Sarla Devi and on his return, he told the complainant that the demand of dowry was still continuing; that the complainant against went to the house of in-laws of Sarla and tried to convince them that he was not in a position to meet their demand; that the complainant also pacified his daughter; that immediately, thereafter, within a fortnight, they got the information about death of Sarla Devi and on reaching village Seewari, they saw that she had committed suicide by hanging herself. 8. Shyam Lal made a complaint (Ex.PF) to ASI Arjun Singh Yadav (PW6), the Investigating Officer on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PF/2) was registered in the concerned police station. The Investigating Officer immediately visited the spot and prepared the inquest report (Ex.PC). He took into possession a note book (Ex.P1), a writing (Ex.P2) and a ball pen (EX.P3), which were found in the almirah of the room. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PG. A sari (Ex.P4), which was hanging around the dead body, was also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PH. The rough site plan (Ex.PJ) was also prepared. Statements of Gulshan Kumar and other witnesses namely Mahabir Singh and Hoshiyar Singh were recorded during investigation. 9. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PG. A sari (Ex.P4), which was hanging around the dead body, was also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PH. The rough site plan (Ex.PJ) was also prepared. Statements of Gulshan Kumar and other witnesses namely Mahabir Singh and Hoshiyar Singh were recorded during investigation. 9. Ashok Kumar and Smt. Shakuntla were not challaned by the police. They were subsequently summoned to face trial on an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code 10. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the present two appellants, whereas Ashok Kumar and Shakuntla earned acquittal. 11. There is no dispute regarding unnatural death of Sarla Devi at her-in- laws house, within seven years of her marriage in this case. In order to substantiate the charge of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, that too with regard to maltreatment meted out to her in respect of demand of dowry soon before her death, the prosecution mainly relies upon the statements of Shyam Lal (PW4), father of Sarla-deceased and Gulshan Kumar (PW5) her brother. Shyam Lal complainant when stepped into the witness-box has stated that he had performed the marriage of Sarla Devi with Bansi Lal appellant on 4.4.1988 by spending Rs. 45,000/-; that though at the time of marriage there was no demand from the accused side yet after the marriage they made a demand of scooter and the present two appellants used to harass her for demand of scooter; that when Gulshan Kumar went to meet his sister, he was not allowed to meet with her and the demand of scooter was also put forth before him. Shyam Lal has categorically stated that mother-in-law of Sarla did not talk to her regarding non-fulfilment of the said demand of scooter. He also talks about stay of Sarla-deceased at his house for about 14 months, whereafter she was left at her matrimonial house on the assurance given by her in-laws that she would not be harassed on account of demand of scooter. According to this witness, even 15 days prior to the incident, one Murari Lal had visited village Seewari and informed Shyam Lal that Sarla Devi was not happy there because of the said demand of scooter. The statement of Gulshan Kumar (PW5) brother of the deceased is also to the same effect. 12. According to this witness, even 15 days prior to the incident, one Murari Lal had visited village Seewari and informed Shyam Lal that Sarla Devi was not happy there because of the said demand of scooter. The statement of Gulshan Kumar (PW5) brother of the deceased is also to the same effect. 12. ASI Arjun Singh Yadav (PW6) the Investigating Officer has stated that immediately after recording statement of Shyam Lal, he went to the spot and during investigation he took into possession a note book (Ex.P1), a letter (Ex.P2), which forms part of the note-book itself, ball pen (Ex.P3). The other articles including Sari of the deceased were also taken into possession. 13. The stand of the appellants, as emerges from their statements recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is that Sarla Devi was in love with some other person and she was forced to marry with Bansi Lal appellant against her wishes, due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, leaving behind a suicide note (Ex.P2) in the note book in this regard. It is further asserted that the demand of scooter has been concocted by the complainant side in order to falsely implicate them. 14. The defence adduced by the accused side was mainly with regard to the fact that Ashok Kumar was having a separate residence. There is no need of entering into details in this regard as Ashok Kumar and his wife Shakuntla Devi already stand acquitted. 15. I have heard Mr. G.S. Bawa and Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advocates for the appellants and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, AAG, Haryana assisted by Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Senior Advocate representing the complainant. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record. 16. Admitting the factum of unnatural death of Sarla Devi in her in-laws house and that too within 7 years of her marriage, Mr. Bawa has mainly attacked the prosecution case, arguing that the prosecution has not been able to establish that Sarla Devi was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. Mr. Bawa has once again taken me through the statement of Shyam Lal complainant (PW4), wherein he has categorically stated that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry from the accused side. This, according to Mr. Mr. Bawa has once again taken me through the statement of Shyam Lal complainant (PW4), wherein he has categorically stated that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry from the accused side. This, according to Mr. Bawa, indicates that the appellant side was not at all greedy for any dowry and the alleged demand of scooter which according to the prosecution story continued for more than 3 years, is nothing but a coined up version just to take undue advantage of the unnatural death of Sarla Devi in her in-laws house. 17. The learned counsel then contends that even otherwise Shanti Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased has no nexus with the demand of scooter, as she could not be the beneficiary. 18. The learned counsel in order to demolish the case of the prosecution puts much stress on Ex.P2, the suicide note, allegedly taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the almirah of the room, immediately after registration of the case. He contends that this suicide note indicates that Sarla was having affairs with someone else and after the marriage, she was feeling suffocated in her matrimonial home and ultimately committed suicide. My attention has been drawn to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, where he has stated that he had enquired about the author of the letter Ex.P2 and it was revealed that the same had been written by the deceased. From this, the learned counsel wants to develop that the letter Ex.P2 was written by the deceased only and this exonerates the appellants from their liability. He, therefore, prays for acquittal of both the appellants. 19. Refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that even if it has come in evidence that at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry from the appellants side, it cannot be said that thereafter the demand could not be made. Any demand subsequently made would also be termed as dowry demand. He then contends that so far as demand of scooter is concerned, it started a few days after the marriage and persisted till Sarla Devi died an unnatural death in the house of her in-laws. Any demand subsequently made would also be termed as dowry demand. He then contends that so far as demand of scooter is concerned, it started a few days after the marriage and persisted till Sarla Devi died an unnatural death in the house of her in-laws. From this, the learned State counsel contends that it can be comfortably said that the demand of dowry in the shape of scooter was a demand soon before the death. According to the learned State counsel, all the main ingredients for drawing an inference under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act against both the appellants are proved to the hilt and as such they have no escape. With regard to Exhibit P2, the learned counsel submits that the same cannot be taken into account being inadmissible in evidence and the defence cannot take any support from it. 20. After hearing rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt qua Smt. Shanti Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, whereas it has been able to establish the charges against Bansi Lal appellant, husband of the deceased. My reasoning for arriving at the said conclusion is as under : 21. From the statements of two witnesses i.e. Shyam Lal complainant (PW4) and Gulshan (PW5), it is apparent that there was a demand of scooter only and no other item. This demand continued till Sarla died an unnatural death in her in-laws house. Statement of Shyam Lal complainant appears to be natural in all respects. He has very fairly stated that at the time of marriage, he had spent about Rs. 45,000/-. He has disclosed certain articles given at the time of marriage. This shows that there was no exaggeration from his side. He then very fairly states that at the time of marriage there was no demand of any dowry item and a demand of scooter started after the marriage. This is again a very plain statement. According to Shyam Lal or even his son Gulshan, no other demand was made except that of scooter. He then very fairly states that at the time of marriage there was no demand of any dowry item and a demand of scooter started after the marriage. This is again a very plain statement. According to Shyam Lal or even his son Gulshan, no other demand was made except that of scooter. It is pertinent to mention here that had the intention of the complainant side been to develop its case by adding unnecessary allegations, it could be very comfortably said that alongwith the scooter, the demand of some other articles was also being made by the accused side. However, the same is not done in this case. I do not find any reason to doubt the statements of Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs with regard to demand of dowry. 22. Now the other factor which needs consideration is as to whether Smt. Shanti, mother-in-law can be connected with the alleged demand of scooter, which was to be used exclusively by Bansi Lal, the husband. In my considered view, Shanti Devi was not at all the beneficiary. In Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 674 (P&H), while dealing with this aspect, when there was demand of certain gold ornaments, the father-in-law, who was an old man, was considered not to be a party to the said demand. Consequently, he was acquitted, giving him benefit of doubt. In another judgment rendered in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 259 (P&H), on a demand of scooter the husband was held to be the beneficiary of the scooter and the other accused were acquitted. Scanning the entire evidence minutely, I also extend the benefit of doubt to Smt. Shanti appellant and acquit her of all the charges. 23. However, Bansi Lal appellant has no escape from his liability. In a very recent judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in Yasodha and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 850 (SC) their Lordships while interpreting the words "soon before" in the context of Section 304-B have held that no strait-jacket formula can be set down to determine as to what constituted soon before in this context and it has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the demand for scooter persisted till last and even a few days before the occurrence, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of the said demand. 24. Much has been said by the learned counsel about Ex.P2, the note allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer. In my considered view, this document has to be totally rejected from consideration in evidence for the simple reason that no nexus of the deceased has been established with this document. There is no evidence worth the name from the side of the prosecution or from the defence, which may indicate that the writing Ex.P2 was, in fact, in the hand of Sarla-deceased. Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs when stepped into the witness-box do not say even a word that the document Ex.P2 is written in the hand of Sarla-deceased. Even the defence counsel did not put any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses about authorship of this document, knowing very well that ASI Arjun Singh Yadav, Investigating Officer had taken it into possession from the almirah of their house. The Investigating Officer (PW6) in his cross-examination has stated that the diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the room and he enquired about the author of the said letter Ex.P2 and it was revealed that the same was written by the deceased. This statement can be termed as a hearsay evidence, having no legal sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked about the authorship thereof. A mere suggestion put to Shyam lal and Gulshan PWs to the effect that Sarla had left a suicide note regarding her relations with some other person, takes us no where. The authorship of this letter could be proved either by producing some witness who had seen the deceased writing and signing or the said document could be sent to some handwriting expert alongwith the admitted writing of Sarla-deceased for comparison. Both the situations are missing. Even the Investigating Officer does not say a word as to from whom he had verified about authorship of the said letter. In case this document is taken to be a proved one, this would amount to bye-passing the provisions of the Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer cannot be all and end all. The irresistible conclusion, thus, is that the document Ex.P2, the so-called suicide note has to be taken out of the zone of consideration. In case this document is taken to be a proved one, this would amount to bye-passing the provisions of the Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer cannot be all and end all. The irresistible conclusion, thus, is that the document Ex.P2, the so-called suicide note has to be taken out of the zone of consideration. The defence of the Bansi Lal appellant thus becomes very weak and fragile. 25. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the totality of the circumstances go to show that Bansi Lal appellant, husband of Sarla Devi deceased is the person responsible for unnatural death of his wife, who committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, on account of unlawful demand of dowry. A presumption, as envisaged under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, has to be drawn against him. All the charges framed by the trial Court against him are, thus, proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Resultantly, his conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby upheld. 26. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, in my view Bansi Lal appellant deserves some leniency. The occurrence relates to the year 1991. He has already suffered the agony of protracted trial of about 13 years. Learned counsel has stated at Bar that Bansi Lal appellant has remained in custody for about 2 years and 8 months as his sentence was suspended by this Court in April, 2001. In my considered view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence of ten years awarded to him is reduced to seven years under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code. So far as sentence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is concerned, it shall remain intact. However, the sentence of fine shall also remain as it is on both the counts. I need not comment upon Section 306 Indian Penal Code, as the trial Court itself has not awarded any separate sentence for the said charge. 27. The net result is that the present appeal stands partly allowed, acquitting Smt. Shanti Devi appellant and upholding the conviction of Bansi Lal but with the modification in quantum of sentence qua him, as indicated above. 28. Since Bansi Lal appellant is on bail, necessary steps shall be taken promptly to take him into custody to serve out the remaining substantive sentence. 29. 28. Since Bansi Lal appellant is on bail, necessary steps shall be taken promptly to take him into custody to serve out the remaining substantive sentence. 29. Criminal Revision No. 17 of 1999 also stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.