Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 485 (PNJ)

Manmohan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-04-04

NIRMAL YADAV

body2005
Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.4.2002 and order of sentence of even date vide which accused Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani have been convicted under Sections 304-B and 315, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304-B, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 315, IPC, whereas, Manmohan Singh has been convicted under Section 498-A, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pray a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months, while, accused-Jankar Singh has been convicted under Sections 304-B and 315, IPC and being juvenile his case has been forwarded to the Juvenile Court for passing appropriate orders on his sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Act and accused Sushma Rani has been acquitted of the charges framed against her. 2. Briefly, the facts are that Reeta Kumari, daughter of Sudershana Rani tied nuptial knot with Manmohan Singh on 19.2.1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremo- nies. As per the status of the complainants, sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. However, Reeta Kumari disclosed on her first visit to parental house that the accused were subjecting her to taunts and harassment for not bringing scooter and golden bangle in the dowry. The young bride was told in clear terms if their demands of scooter and golden bangle were not satiated, she should not return to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, during her visits to parental house on 2-3 occasions. Reeta Kumari informed her family members that accused were repeating their demands of scooter and golden bangle. She was pacified with a request to return to the matrimonial home on an assurance that demands of scooter and golden bangle would be met as and when complainants husband came back. About 14 days prior to the occurrence, Dharminder Singh, brother of Reeta Kumari went to enquire about the welfare of his sister to the house of the accused. She was pacified with a request to return to the matrimonial home on an assurance that demands of scooter and golden bangle would be met as and when complainants husband came back. About 14 days prior to the occurrence, Dharminder Singh, brother of Reeta Kumari went to enquire about the welfare of his sister to the house of the accused. On his return, he informed his mother that Reeta was subjected to maltreatment by the accused on account of demand of dowry, therefore, he had brought Reeta along with him to the parental house. Complainant thereafter, had a talk with the accused and assured them that their demands of scooter and golden bangle would be fulfilled as and when her husband came back on leave. Reeta was again sent back to matrimonial home along with her cousin Gopal Singh. Ultimately, on 20.6.1999 at about 3.30 p.m. Mangal Ram, who acted as mediator for the marriage of Reeta Kumari and Manmohan Singh informed that Reeta had died after consuming some poisonous substance. On hearing the news, complainant along with her son Dharminder Singh and brother Daulat Singh went to the house of the accused at village Kahnuwan and found the dead body of Reeta lying in a room. Her statement Exhibit-PB was recorded on the same day by S.I.-Swinder Singh who met them at the bus stand Kahnuwan. 3. From the facts, it is evident that a young bride along with a child of about 12 weeks gestation period in her womb, was whacked to death by throttling at the nuptial home. Her husband Manmohan Singh, father-in-law Kishan Singh, mother-in-law Bachni Rani, brother-in-law January Singh and sister-in-law Sushma Rani were indicted for causing dowry death of Reeta and death of child in her womb. 4. The Trial Court acquitted Manmohan Singh of the charges under Sections 304-B and 315, IPC, however, convicted him under Section 498-A, IPC. Accused-Sushma Rani was acquitted of all the charges; while, the case of accused-Jankar Singh being juvenile was forwarded to the Juvenile Court for passing appropriate orders on his sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Act. The Trial Court found accused Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani guilty of offences under Sections 304-B and 315, IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed in para-1 above. 5. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. The Trial Court found accused Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani guilty of offences under Sections 304-B and 315, IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed in para-1 above. 5. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Swinder Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur and following injuries were found on the dead body : "1. 3 x 1/2 cm. abrasion on right side of the anterior of the middle of the neck. 2. 2 x 1 cm. abrasion on right side of the anterior of the middle of the neck. Just 1 cm below injury No. 1. 3. 4 x 2 cm. abrasion on left side of the anterior of the middle of the head. On dissection of injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 subcutaneous tissues of the neck shows extravasation of blood beneath the injured area. On further dissection fracture of projection of Laryngeal cartilage seen. Brain, pleura, lungs, spleen and kidney were congested." 6. After consulting the report of the Chemical Examiner, Dr. Swinder Kumar gave his opinion with regard to cause of death; that death was caused due to ante-mortem throttling and consumption of Aluminium Phosphate, which is a pesticide. 7. To prove the case of the prosecution, particularly, the allegations of demand of dowry, the prosecution has relied on statements of PW 2 Sudershana Rani, mother, PW 4 Gopal Singh, first cousin and PW 7-Dharminder Singh, brother of the deceased. All these three witnesses have categorically stated that Reeta was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her in-laws on account of not bringing scooter and golden bangle in dowry. Whenever Reeta visited the parental house, she disclosed this fact to her mother and brother, but on every occasion she was pacified saying that the demands of the accused would be met as and when her father came back on leave. Dharminder Singh, brother of the deceased went to the house of the accused 14 days prior to the alleged occurrence to, enquire about the welfare of her sister. In his presence also, the accused raised demands of scooter and golden bangle. 8. Dharminder Singh, brother of the deceased went to the house of the accused 14 days prior to the alleged occurrence to, enquire about the welfare of her sister. In his presence also, the accused raised demands of scooter and golden bangle. 8. In order to prove the offence under Section 304-B, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients : (i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns, or bodily injury, otherwise than in normal circumstances; (ii) the death should be within seven years of her marriage; (iii) the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and such cruelty or harassment should be meted out soon before her death. 9. It is not disputed that death of Reeta has taken place within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circums - tances at the matrimonial home. However, it is to be seen as to whether deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death by her husband or any relative of her husband. The learned defence counsel argued that admittedly, it is proved that husband did not mal-treat or harass the deceased for dowry. He had entered the name of deceased as his nominee in the nomination form of death-cum-retirement gratuity. He nominated her as his nominee for his insurance benefits as well. Few days after the marriage, he had left for the place of his posting. He came back on leave during the days of occurrence and was to join his duty back on 10.7.1999. Manmohan Singh, the husband had also brought Railway warrant for taking his wife to Goa. Both Manmohan and Reeta (deceased) had visited Mata Vaishno Devi shrine during this time. While returning from the shrine. Reeta insisted that they should first go to her parental house, whereas, Manmohan Singh wanted to return to his own house. When Manmohan Singh did not agree to her request, she consumed Sulphas tablets on coming back to the matrimonial home. Manmohan Singh and his father tried to take out the Sulphas tablets from her mouth and in this process she received injuries near her mouth. When Manmohan Singh did not agree to her request, she consumed Sulphas tablets on coming back to the matrimonial home. Manmohan Singh and his father tried to take out the Sulphas tablets from her mouth and in this process she received injuries near her mouth. She was also taken to a nearby hospital, i.e., Oberoi Hospital where doctors advised them to take her to Govern- ment Hospital, but she expired before reaching the hospital. Learned counsel pointed out that PW 3-Dr. Swinder Kumar admitted in the cross-examination that injuries near the mouth could be caused if attempt was made by someone to prevent the person from taking the tablets or trying to take the tablets out. The learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence, that Reeta was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death. There are vague allegations with regard to demand of dowry. There are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of material witnesses. The learned counsel referred to statement of PW 2 Sudershana Rani where she stated that demand was made at the time of Shagan ceremony. PW 4 Gopal Singh stated that demand was raised after the marriage. PW 7 Dharminder deposed that demand of golden bangle was made prior to the marriage, whereas, demand of scooter was made after the marriage. The learned counsel further argued that from the statements of the witnesses, it is well proved that relations between Reeta and her husband were quite cordial. Even no complaint was made prior to this occurrence about the alleged mal-treatment meted out to Reeta, by the complainant or by any of their relatives, etc. 10. On the other hand, the learned State counsel argued from the statements of PW 2-Sudershana Rani, mother, PW 4-Gopal Singh, first cousin and PW 7-Dharminder Singh, brother of the deceased, that it is well proved that soon after the marriage accused started harassing Reeta Kumari as their demand of scooter and golden bangle was not met. Reeta, during her visits to parental house, had been telling that accused were subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for not bringing the above-mentioned articles. Just 14 days prior to the alleged occurrence, Dharminder Singh had visited the house of the accused to enquire about the welfare of her sister and he had brought Reeta along with him to the parental house. Just 14 days prior to the alleged occurrence, Dharminder Singh had visited the house of the accused to enquire about the welfare of her sister and he had brought Reeta along with him to the parental house. At that time also, the accused had repeated their demands and had further declared if their demands were not met, then Reeta should not come back to the matrimonial home. She was sent back to the matrimonial home a few days prior to the present occurrence along with Gopal Singh, first cousin of the deceased with the assurance that demands of the accused would be met as and when father of Reeta would come back on leave. 11. On a careful consideration of the facts, evidence and arguments of both the counsel, I do not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Trial Court with regard to accused Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani but there is no doubt that a young bride has died in the matrimonial home just four months after the marriage. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has acquitted Sushma Rani, sister of Manmohan Singh on account of the fact that she was not residing in the matrimonial home and was married much prior to the marriage of Reeta and, therefore, she could not have played any role in causing cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death. Similarly, the evidence is also lacking with regard to Manmohan Singh, who had come on leave only on 14.6.1999 and thereafter both Manmohan Singh and Reeta had visited Mata Vaishno Devi shrine. Thereafter, none of the family members had met Reeta. There is no evidence that Reeta had complained against Manmohan Singh with regard to any demand of dowry soon before her death. 12. From the facts on record, it is evident that Manmohan Singh went back to his place of posting after the marriage and he had come on leave from 14.6.1999 to 9.7.1999. At least two days might have been taken by him in reaching his village from Goa and, therefore, he could not have reached his house prior to 16th June, 1999. At least two days might have been taken by him in reaching his village from Goa and, therefore, he could not have reached his house prior to 16th June, 1999. Accordingly, Gopal Singh could not have met Manmohan Singh when he accompanied Reeta to the matrimonial home 10 or 12 days prior to the occurrence. 13. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence against the other accused i.e. mother-in-law and father-in-law as Reeta was living with them, Dharminder Singh, PW 7 categorically stated that 14 days prior to the death of Reeta, he had visited the house of the accused and at that time when Reeta had complained against the accused persons she was brought to the parental house by him, but she returned to the matrimonial home 10-12 days prior to her death along with Gopal Singh, PW 4. Gopal Singh has stated in equivocal terms that accused had reiterated their demands of scooter and golden bangle before him. 14. The learned defence counsel urged that accused Manmohan Singh as well as Kishan Singh were already having scooter and motor-cycle and, therefore, there was no reason for them to make a demand for scooter. This argument is not at all, receptive. It is a matter of common knowledge that even if the in-laws have everything at their house, still they make demands from the parents of the bride as it enhances their status in the eyes of the public. Admittedly, Reeta Kumari died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. As per the medical evidence, Reeta was carrying a 12 weeks foetus also at the time of her death. Therefore, the accused Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani have rightly been found to be guilty of the offences for which they have been charged. However, as discussed above, there is no evidence against Manmohan Singh that he had subjected Reeta Kumari to cruelty or maltreatment on account of demand of dowry. Had there been any such complaint against Manmohan Singh, Reeta could have disclosed this fact to her parents immediately after the marriage. Previously, Manmohan Singh had come *P-12* on leave from 15.2.1999 to 26.3.1999. Had there been any such complaint against Manmohan Singh, Reeta could have disclosed this fact to her parents immediately after the marriage. Previously, Manmohan Singh had come *P-12* on leave from 15.2.1999 to 26.3.1999. There is no evidence that during that period Manmohan Singh had ever made a demand of golden bangle and scooter. For the sake of repetition, it may be mentioned that thereafter he came on leave from 14.6.1999 to 9.7.1999. He might have reached home on 16.6.1999 and Reeta died on 20.6.1999. None of witnesses i.e. PW 2, PW 4 or PW 7 had met Reeta during this period. The prosecution has failed to prove that Manmohan Singh had caused any cruelty or harassment to Reeta with regard to demand of dowry. 15. Accordingly, Manmohan Singh is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A, IPC, whereas conviction and sentence awarded to accused Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani by the Trial Court is hereby maintained. 16. Accordingly, the appeal qua Manmohan Singh is allowed, whereas, appeal qua Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani is dismissed.