Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1072 (PNJ)

Harcharan Dass v. State Of Haryana

2005-10-06

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 2.2.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby appellants Ramesh Kumar and Harcharan Dass were convicted for the offence under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC. They were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. No separate sentence was awarded of the offence under Section 498-A IPC in view of the substantive sentence having been awarded for the major offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. 2. In this case, Ramesh Kumar, husband, Harcharan Dass husbands elder brother (now appellants), Bhagwan Dass (father), Shanti Devi (mother) and Neelam Rani, sister of the husband had faced trial. 3. Case of the prosecution against them was that Sangeeta Rani had married Ramesh Kumar on 19.6.1987. Sufficient dowry articles as per financial capacity of Ram Parkash, father of Sangeeta Devi, had been given but after the marriage accused had started taunting for not bringing adequate dowry. Some amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- were given in January and June, 1988 by father Sangeeta to the accused but still the things did not improve. An application was made on 3.5.1989 by Ram Parkash against the accused but then a compromise was effected on 26.5.1989 and Sangeeta went back to her in-laws on 28.5.1989. Thereafter, she died on 29.6.1989 when she was in the house of her in-laws other than under normal circumstances. That accused had caused dowry death of Sangeeta. 4. Police had investigated the case and sent the accused for trial. Trial Court found the case against Harcharan Dass and Ramesh Kumar proved and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid whereas other accused were acquitted. 5. No appeal was filed by the State against acquittal of accused other than Harcharan Singh and Ramesh Kumar. Present appeal had been filed by Harcharan Dass and Ramesh Kumar, who had been convicted. 6. In this case, the marriage was solemnized on 19.6.1987 whereas death took place on 29.6.1989. A male child was born on 24.10.1988 to Sangeeta. PW-1 Dr. Gurpiari, who had conducted post-mortem examination, stated that the dead body was brought by Ramesh Kumar, husband, who had earlier taken Sangeeta first to Sharma Hospital. She had stated that there was no injury mark on the dead body. In this case Sangeeta had died after consuming some poisonous substance and it was unnatural death. PW-1 Dr. Gurpiari, who had conducted post-mortem examination, stated that the dead body was brought by Ramesh Kumar, husband, who had earlier taken Sangeeta first to Sharma Hospital. She had stated that there was no injury mark on the dead body. In this case Sangeeta had died after consuming some poisonous substance and it was unnatural death. 7. Counsel for the appellants had argued that Harcharan Dass was married 15 years earlier to Ramesh Kumar. He was residing separately and had no connection with the married life of Ramesh Kumar. From the statement of Ram Parkash PW-4, father of Sangeeta, who is complainant of the case, it was pointed that he is stated to have paid Rs. 2,000/- in January 1988 and Rs. 5,000/- in June, 1988 but statement of PW-5 Santosh Kumari, who is mother of deceased, will show that, admitted that these amounts was given at the time of marriage of Neelam and it was by way of loan. After this there is no evidence that there was any demand. It is not there even in the copy of the application dated 3.5.1989 made to the police is Ex. DA. 8. It was argued that there is mention of beating etc. but it is nowhere written that there was any demand of dowry and beating etc. was due to demand of dowry. It was argued that it was a false case registered merely because Sangeeta had died in the house of her in-laws. 9. From copy of application Ex. DA dated 3.5.1989 made by Ram Parkash to the police, it would come out that Sangeeta was living in her fathers house since 5.4.1989. Earlier there had been ill-treatment but it was not connected with demand dowry. In this application Ram Parkash had written that he had given earlier Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- in 1988 and that he was a poor man and could not give anything but was ready to send Sangeeta to her in-laws place. It is admitted position that thereafter a compromise was effected on 26.5.1989 and then Sangeeta had gone to her in-laws on 28.5.1989 and then she died on 29.6.1989. Letters Ex. P-22 and P-23 will show that she was being given ill- treatment but these do not show anywhere that there was any demand of dowry or that ill-treatment was due to that fact. 10. Letters Ex. P-22 and P-23 will show that she was being given ill- treatment but these do not show anywhere that there was any demand of dowry or that ill-treatment was due to that fact. 10. For the offence under Section 304-B IPC, following ingredients are to be proved by the prosecution : 1. That the death of the woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage; and 2. That soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. 11. In the present case, amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- had been paid in January 1988 and June, 1988. These were paid at the time of marriage of Neelam, sister of husband of Sangeeta and for that an entry in the books had been made by Ram Parkash that it was loan. After May-June, 1988 there is evidence of ill-treatment and for that ill-treatment Harcharan Singh is named but there is no statement as far as demand of dowry and cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry is concerned. Letters P-23 dated 6.8.1988 shows that Harcharan Dass had been practising cruelty. This fact is again there is complaint Ex. DA. It came out that cruelty was being practised by Harcharan Dass. Ramesh Kumar husband of Sangeeta was not helping her and out of frustration Sangeeta had committed suicide, which is not connected with the demand of dowry or cruelty. 12. When Sangeeta had married Ramesh Kumar and had gone to her in-laws house then she would expect all love and affection and protection from her husband. If Harcharan Dass, husbands elder brother was practising cruelty, then it was duty of the husband to protect her. The abetment as defined under section 107 IPC is as under : "Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing". 13. When the husband omitted to protect his wife and she commits suicide due to ill-treatment or frustration then husband shall be liable for abetment. The abetment as defined under section 107 IPC is as under : "Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing". 13. When the husband omitted to protect his wife and she commits suicide due to ill-treatment or frustration then husband shall be liable for abetment. Under these circumstances by holding that case for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not proved, I hold that Ramesh Kumar is liable for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of offence by Sangeeta. Ramesh Kumar as such is acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B IPC and convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC. For this, Ramesh Kumar is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo RI for three months. 14. Harcharan Dass is acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. He had been held guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC but no separate sentence was awarded for that offence. He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo RI for three years. 15. With this modification, appeal stands dismissed.