Judgment 1. Out of the five accused namely Kulwant Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Sukhwant Singh, Gurtehal Singh and Harminder Kaur, tried for the offences under Ss. 304-B/498-A, I.P.C., learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide its judgment dated 17-8-1993, while acquitting Gur-charan Singh and Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha both sons of Gurtehal Singh, convicted Kulwant Singh (husband), Gurtehal Singh (father-in-law) and Harminder Kaur (mother-in-law), under the aforesaid sections and sentenced them as under :- Kulwant Singh, Gurtehal Singh and Harminder Kaur U/S. 304-B, I.P.C. : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. U/S. 498-A, I.P.C. : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2 It is yet another case where a newly wedded bride fell prey at the hands of her in-laws on account of demand of dowry and she after throwing her false dreams of happy married life to the winds preferred to chose heavenly abode along with a child in her womb, than to embrace the bosom of her husband. 3. Rachhpal Kaur (deceased) was married to Kulwant Singh on 18-11-1984. At the time of marriage, she was given sufficient dowry which was entrusted to all the aforesaid five accused at village Ladhian Khurd, Tehsil Ludhiana. After few days of the marriage, the accused-Kulwant Singh (husband), Harminder Kaur (mother-in-law), Sukhwant Singh (brother-in-law) and Gurtehal Singh (father-in-law) started harassing and maltreating Rachhpal Kaur on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Despite the panchayat convened by her parents, the accused did not desist from maltreating her and did not allow her to live peacefully and threatened with dire consequences until their demands are fulfilled. On 15-10-1988, at about 9.00 a.m., Sukhdev Singh complainant (father of the deceased) received a message from his daughter Avtar Kaur that Rachhpal Kaur had been murdered by her in-laws in a suspicious circumstances. On hearing this, he proceeded to her in-laws house, got conducted her autopsy at Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. A DDR No. 14 dated 14-10-1988 was recorded regarding the incident at Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh. Thereafter, on the complaint Ex. PG filed by the complainant, a formal FIR Ex. PG/3 was registered at 7.00 p.m. on 2-11-1988. 4. On hearing this, he proceeded to her in-laws house, got conducted her autopsy at Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. A DDR No. 14 dated 14-10-1988 was recorded regarding the incident at Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh. Thereafter, on the complaint Ex. PG filed by the complainant, a formal FIR Ex. PG/3 was registered at 7.00 p.m. on 2-11-1988. 4. It may be reiterated that on the receipt of the message on 14-10-1988, ASI Karnail Singh rushed to the Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh, took into possession dead body of Rachhpal Kaur, prepared injury statement Ex. PC and inquest report Ex. PD. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination along with his request Ex. PB to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh through Constable Bhajan Singh. After recording statements of the witnesses, proceedings under S. 175, Cr. P.C. were brought into process. Then, on the registration of the case on 2-11-1988, SI Balbir Singh handled the investigation. During investigation he took the previous papers into possession. On 16-1-1989, SI Balbir Singh sought the opinion of the doctor vide request application Ex. PE. Dr. Asha Kiran (P.W. 1) opined vide her endorsement Ex. PE/1 to the effect that "Aluminium phosphide was detected in the stomach of deceased and that phosphine a constituent of aluminum phosphate, was detected in the liver, spleen, right kidney and right lung." He sent the aforesaid contents to the office of Chemical Examiner who submitted his report Ex. PE/2. He also arrested the accused, took into possession the promissory note Ex. PH for Rs. 6000/- executed by Jasbir Singh to raise loan in order to meet the demand of the accused and recorded statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. 5. A formal charge under Ss. 304-B/498-A, I.P.C. was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. On commencement of the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Asha Kiran (P.W. 1), MHC Amrik Singh (P.W. 2), Constable Baljit Singh (P.W. 3), Constable Bhajan Singh (P.W. 4), Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 5), Partap Singh (P.W. 6), Sohan Singh (P.W. 7), Darshan Singh, Advocate (P.W. 8), Avtar Kaur (P.W. 9), Jangir Singh (P.W. 10), Jasbir Singh (P.W. 11), SI Karnail Singh (P.W. 12) and Inspector Balbir Singh (P.W. 13). 7. When examined under S. 313, Cr. 7. When examined under S. 313, Cr. P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, accused-Kulwant Singh in his written statement took the defence, inter alia, that at the relevant time he was working as a Bus Conductor in New Fatehgarh Sahib, Bus Service, Ludhiana. On 14-10-1988, he was at Khanna and stayed there for a night. on the morning of 14-10-1988, on coming to know about the serious condition of his wife, he immediately set for his village Salani and reached there at 8.00 a.m., where he was told that his wife had been taken to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh by Surjit Singh, elder brother of his father and other villagers. While reaching there he came to know that she had expired. He informed his father-in-law Sukhdev Singh about her death who arrived there on the same day. Then they submitted an application Ex. DC for taking the delivery of the dead body of Rachhpal Kaur without post-mortem examination. However, subsequently, his father-in-law, as instigated by his relations, foisted this false case on him and other members of his family. He further submitted that he was residing separately from other members of his family. His wife used to remain ill. She was frustrated on account of prolonged illness. She often suffered fits. She had developed suicidal tendency. 8. The remaining accused also pleaded that they neither demanded dowry from the deceased or her parents nor they harassed or maltreated her. 9. In defence, the accused examined Gopal Krishan Sharma, Finger Print Expert (D.W. 1), Sat Pal Sharma (D.W. 2) Reader in the Court of SDM, Nabha. 10. On scrutiny of evidence, the trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. 11. Voluminous evidence has been led in order to establish the necessary ingredients for completing the offence under Ss. 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. Admittedly, Rachhpal Kaur was married to Kulwant Singh on 18-11-1984. The accused-Gurcharan Singh and Sukhwant Singh are brothers-in-law, Gurtehal Singh is the father-in-law and Harminder Kaur is mother-in-law of Rachhpal Kaur. She was hail and heartywhile living in her parental house and even after marriage no disease was attracted by her for which the accused had got her treated which may lead to some suicidal tendency. The accused-Gurcharan Singh and Sukhwant Singh are brothers-in-law, Gurtehal Singh is the father-in-law and Harminder Kaur is mother-in-law of Rachhpal Kaur. She was hail and heartywhile living in her parental house and even after marriage no disease was attracted by her for which the accused had got her treated which may lead to some suicidal tendency. Sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to prove that Rachhpal Kaur was being maltreated by the accused on account of demand of dowry and she died in abnormal circumstances at the house of her in-laws. Sukhdev Singh, father of the deceased (P.W. 5), Sohan Singh (P.W. 7) a neighbour of the complainant, Darshan Singh, Advocate (P.W. 8), Avtar Kaur (P.W. 9) sister of the deceased and Jasbir Singh (P.W. 11) brother of the deceased, have consistently supported the prosecution version while testifying that all the accused have been harassing, maltreating and misbehaving with Rachhpal Kaur on account of bringing inadequate dowry and they had demanded a buffalo. The said demand of the accused was satisfied. Thereafter they demanded a sum of Rs. 6000/- which was again fulfilled by taking loan by Jasbir Singh (P.W. 11) from Jangir Singh (P.W. 10) on a promissory note. A panchayat was also convened to persuade the accused for taking care of the well being of the deceased. The deceased was also adamant to stay at the house of her in-laws and pass life like a traditional Indian wife, despite their maltreatment. Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 5) has further re-iterated that his daughter Avtar Kaur (P.W. 9) came to him and told about the murder of the deceased. At this, he reached the Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh and found Rachhpal Kaur lying dead. The prosecution has also proved the promissory note regarding borrowing of the loan from Jangir Singh (P.W. 10). 12. A finger has been raised that the complainant being effluent person need not to have taken loan and story regarding taking of loan is fabricated, but this contention cannot be accepted as the farmers in this part of the country remain always short of money or are never in possession of ready money, howsoever large holding they may have, but at some times they have to arrange finances by some means. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that vide application Ex. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that vide application Ex. DC/1 given by the complainant before SDM, Nabha for taking the dead body of the deceased, the complainant did not mention about the demand of dowry or that she was compelled to commit suicide on account of demand of dowry. But, I do not find myself persuaded by this argument as it is difficult to speculate about the state of mind and depth of the agony of the aggrieved father whose young daughter, over which he had spent thousands of rupees had died and it also cannot be speculated as to what was prevailing upon his mind when this application was moved. 13. In any case, this application was merely for getting the dead body for the purpose of cremation and it cannot be treated as an FIR to the police regarding the commission of the crime by the accused and prosecution version regarding demand of dowry made by the accused cannot be said to be an after thought. At the same time, in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the application Ex. DC/1 which was merely for receiving the dead body cannot be taken as a sufficient ground to throw away the prosecution version especially when Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 5) made a categoric statement that after cremation of his daughter, he went to the Police Station, Amloh and informed the police. He also moved applications to the higher authorities for registration of the case and appeared before SSP, Patiala. Earlier, he was not heard, but ultimately, he moved application to the SSP, Patiala against the accused informing about the commission of the crime. The tenor of the application Ex. PG reveals that Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 5) was convinced that her daughter had died an unnatural death on account of demand of dowry, but the police did not register the case on the pretext that since the viscera has been sent for chemical examination and the cause of death of Rachhpal Kaur was yet to be determined. 14. It is not a case where the police was not called, inquest was not prepared and the post-mortem was not conducted. But, in that case, the police was informed, inquest was prepared and proceedings under S. 175, Cr. P.C. were recorded. 14. It is not a case where the police was not called, inquest was not prepared and the post-mortem was not conducted. But, in that case, the police was informed, inquest was prepared and proceedings under S. 175, Cr. P.C. were recorded. Thus, it appears that the police did not register the case is it might be waiting for the result of viscera which was sent by the doctor to the Chemical Examiner. Under these circumstances, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be advanced as a ground to throw away or discard the testimony of Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 5), Sohan Singh (P.W. 7), Avtar Kaur (P.W. 9) and Jasbir Singh (P.W. 11). 15. I also do not find any force in the other contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the application Ex. PG or FIR Ex. PG/3 does not contain the allegations of demand of buffalo or Rs. 6000/- by the accused. 16. Having given my thoughtful consideration to this contention, it may be observed that, on the cursory look of the complaint, Ex. PG, it appears that Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 5) while giving the application to the SSP, Patiala and releasing the copies of it to DGP, Governor of Punjab, Home Minister, Union of India, New Delhi and Prime Minister of India, categorically stated that the accused had started demanding dowry and were maltreating her for bringing insufficient dowry. They were threatening that she could lead a peaceful life only if she brings dowry to their satisfaction. No doubt this application does not contain the demand of buffalo and Rs. 6000/- made by the accused, yet it cannot be lost sight that FIR is not the encyclopedia of all the facts as brought to the surface by the prosecution during evidence but it is meant to set the law in motion and evidence is to be collected during investigation. The details regarding the demand in these circumstances only amount to elaborating the allegations of demand of dowry levelled in the FIR. The details regarding the demand in these circumstances only amount to elaborating the allegations of demand of dowry levelled in the FIR. The story of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside, ignored or thrown away merely for the fact that some facts were not found mentioned in the FIR but in such a situation, the Court would come on guard and examine the matter by sitting in the chair of prudent man hailing from countryside and find out whether such improvements were sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution version. When Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 5) has specifically mentioned in the initial application that the accused were harassing his daughter and demanding dowry, then if such allegations of demand have been elaborated by him and the same had been corroborated by Sohan Singh (P.W. 7), Avtar Singh (P.W. 9), Jangir Singh (P.W. 10) and Jasbir Singh (P.W. 11) and that their testimonies stood further strengthened from the medical evidence which reveals that the deceased died an unnatural death in the house of the accused as a result of aluminum phosphide including phosphine a constituent of aluminum phosphide a poisonous substance then in that situation prosecution version could not be condemned or brushed aside by approving the flimsy argument that the details of demand were not got recorded in the FIR. 17. The Chemical Examiner, in his report Ex. PE/2 opined as under :- "Aluminum phosphide was detected in the contents of Exhibits No. II. Phosphine a constituent of aluminum phosphide was detected in the content of Exhibits No. III and No. V. No poison was detected in the contents of Exhibit No. I." 18. The aforesaid discussions satisfy the human conscience that the deceased who was married on 18-11-1984 ended her life within four years due to poison given or though consumed by herself compelled by the circumstances, died in abnormal circumstances about which the accused even did not inform about the same to her parents. Since the deceased being hale and hearty lady was turned into corpse along with a child in her womb overnight, had put an obligation upon the accused to explain as to under what circumstances she had died, in the absence of which presumption under S. 106 read with S. 113-B of Evidence Act would apply, especially when demand of dowry on the part of the accused from the deceased has been duly established on the record. A reference, if any, can be made Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209, wherein their Lordships observed as under :- "34. In the instant case, the deceased-Ravinder Kaur was married to the accused-Satpal Singh in November, 1982 and she committed suicide on June 25, 1983. It has also been found on a consideration of the circumstantial evidence that she was compelled to take the extreme step of committing suicide as the accused persons had subjected her to cruelty by constant taunts, maltreatment and also by alleging that she has been carrying an illegitimate child. The suicide having been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage in accordance with provisions of this section, the Court may presume having regard to all the other circumstances of the case which we have sent out earlier that such suicide had been abetted by the husband and his relations. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge, are quite in accordance with the provisions of this section and the finding of the High Court that the accused persons could not be held to have instigated or abetted the commission of the offence, is not sustainable in law." 19. It has also been observed by the Apex Court in case Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, AIR 1983 SC 826 that it is impossible to escape the conclusion that, in a case such as this, the death of a young wife must be attributed either to the commission of a crime or to the fact that, mentally tortured by the suffocating circumstances surrounding her, she committed suicide. Young women of education, intelligence and character do not set fire to themselves to welcome the embrace of death unless provoked and compelled to that desperate step by the intolerance of their misery. 20. In this case also, no reason has been or could be attributed to the deceased to have consumed the aluminum phosphide and take such a drastic step. There is sufficient evidence to show that Rachhpal Kaur was treated with cruelty and was harassed before her death. They did not desist from doing so despite that she became pregnant and was in the advance stage of pregnancy. 21. Under these circumstances all the ingredients as envisaged under Ss. 304-B/498-A, I.P.C. stand established against the accused-appellants. There is sufficient evidence to show that Rachhpal Kaur was treated with cruelty and was harassed before her death. They did not desist from doing so despite that she became pregnant and was in the advance stage of pregnancy. 21. Under these circumstances all the ingredients as envisaged under Ss. 304-B/498-A, I.P.C. stand established against the accused-appellants. The accused had already been awarded lessor punishment for committing not only dowry death of Rachhpal Kaur, but also vanishing the child in her womb, therefore, no leniency in the matter of sentence is also called for. 22. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.