Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1034 (PNJ)

Ram Karan v. State Of Punjab

2007-05-02

MAHESH GROVER

body2007
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for having committed an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment/order dated 28/29.7.1995 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala. 2. The FIR was lodged on the basis of statement made by one Zora Ram on 14.5.1992 at 11.25 a.m. It was alleged therein that Smt. Joginder Kaur, the youngest of his six sisters was married to Ram Karan accused-appellant three years before the date of occurrence. One Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, another sister of Zora Ram was also married to Joginder Singh, resident of Nai Basti, Sarai Patti, Samana. Ram Karan appellant, his father Pritam Ram and mother Devki were accused of having pressurised Joginder Kaur to bring more dowry, which the family of the complainant could not satiate as they were poor people. It was alleged that the appellant, his father and mother had prevented Joginder Kaur from visiting the house of her parents. A small daughter aged about 1-1/2 years of Tarsem Ram, brother of Joginder Kaur had died 15 days before this occurrence and Joginder Kaur had gone to the house of her parents at village Kuka on 13.5.1992 to condole the death of the young child. On the same day complainant Zora Ram is said to have accompanied Joginder Kaur to the house of her in-laws at Samana and left her there. Thereafter he went to his sister Sukhwinder Kaur to pay her a visit. At about 7.00 p.m. on 13.5.1992 Zora Ram and Joginder Singh again visited the house of the accused and found that the appellant, his father and mother were reprimanding Joginder Kaur for having visited village Kuka without their consent and permission. Joginder Kaur replied that it was necessary for her to go to the house of her brother to condole the death of small child. The complainant Zora Ram and Joginder Singh are said to have intervened and separated them. Thereafter Zora Ram along with Joginder Singh returned to their houses. At about 9.00 a.m. in the morning on 14.5.1992 Zora Ram and Joginder Singh again visited the house of the accused in order to inform Joginder Kaur that Zora Ram was returning to his village Kuka. They found that Joginder Kaur was lying dead in a room in the house of her in-laws. At about 9.00 a.m. in the morning on 14.5.1992 Zora Ram and Joginder Singh again visited the house of the accused in order to inform Joginder Kaur that Zora Ram was returning to his village Kuka. They found that Joginder Kaur was lying dead in a room in the house of her in-laws. They also observed the presence of ligature marks around her neck. According to the complainant, the appellant, his father and mother had murdered Joginder Kaur because she could not bring sufficient dowry from her parents. Zora Ram left Joginder Singh near the dead body and went to the police station to report the matter. 3. The police investigated the matter and presented a challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellant, his father Pritam Ram and mother Devki. The Court thereafter framed a charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. 4. The prosecution in order to establish its case against the accused examined number of witnesses which included the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure the appellant pleaded false implication and contended that Joginder Kaur had committed suicide but not on account of the fact that she was being harassed but because she was having illicit relations with Joginder Singh and the family of the appellant was objecting to it, as a result of which she took her life. 6. The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence went on to convict the appellant in the manner aforesaid while the other accused persons, namely Pritam Ram and Devki were acquitted vide judgment dated 28.7.1995. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the perusal of the testimony of Zora Ram complainant does not show that any demands of dowry were being made. The evidence of PW-5 Boota Singh has been disbelieved by the trial Court leaving the statement of PW-4 Joginder Singh, in which no reference to the demand of dowry has been made. The evidence of PW-5 Boota Singh has been disbelieved by the trial Court leaving the statement of PW-4 Joginder Singh, in which no reference to the demand of dowry has been made. On the strength of this, it was pleaded that since the demands of dowry have not been established, consequently the conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable as the basic ingredients of the offences are not met. It was next contended that the medical testimony in the shape of PW-2 Dr. Avtar Singh if read in entirety implies that the possibility of the deceased having committed suicide cannot be ruled out. The nature of the injuries also indicates that the deceased had actually committed suicide. 8. It was pleaded on the basis of the aforesaid contentions that at best the conviction of the appellant could be under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to the appellant necessarily deserves to be toned down. 9. The contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant were sought to be refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the State, who contended that the factum of the harassment on account of dowry stood established from the evidence on record and since the death had taken place after three years of marriage, the presumption of law was straightaway attracted and hence the appellant could not escape his liability and conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 11. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the demands of dowry and the consequent harassment of the deceased on account thereof has not been established by the cogent evidence on record, is not misplaced. The statement of PW-3 Zora Ram is woefully lacking in content in so far as the allegations of demand of dowry are concerned. He being the brother of the deceased was expected to not only know about the demands of dowry but rather it was logical that the same would have been made upon him as he was said to be visiting the matrimonial house of the deceased repeatedly. PW-4 Joginder Singh has, however, introduced an allegation that Rs. 10,000/- were demanded from the family of the deceased on account of dowry. PW-4 Joginder Singh has, however, introduced an allegation that Rs. 10,000/- were demanded from the family of the deceased on account of dowry. To the similar effect is the statement of PW-5 Boota Singh on this aspect of the matter by observing that since the complainant Zora Ram has not made any categoric allegation, therefore, the testimony of Buta Singh is rendered doubtful, but strangely enough it has accepted the testimony of Joginder Singh on this aspect. There is no reason as to why the same logic be not extended to the testimony of PW-4 Joginder Singh to discard it. 12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the complainant had made no allegations of such type and his testimony if read in entirety does not inspire any confidence, particularly if the aspect of demands of dowry is to be considered. 13. That apart, it has also come in evidence that the complainant and his family earned their living as daily wagers, whereas the appellant and his family were relatively more affluent. Even though ipso facto this cannot be treated to be an indicator of the conduct of a person to raise a demand of dowry, but yet in the wake of deafening silence on this aspect in the testimony of complainant, there is hardly any escape from the conclusion that the allegations of demand of dowry are not proved. Once such a conclusion is established, the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code stands washed out. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained under the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 14. The Court is then confronted with a situation where concededly death of a young lady has taken place in the matrimonial home within three years of the marriage and accordingly the same has to be answered. The evidence of PW-2 Dr. Avtar Singh reveals as follows : ".... there was ligature mark single, semicircular, continuous around the neck, below the thyroid, base of groove was soft, reddish. There were no abrasions, subcutaneous tissues under the neck echymosed, injury to the muscles, carotid arteries ruptured. There was fracture of larynx, tractria. The body was moderately built, moderately nourished. Post-mortem staining was present. Rigor mortis was present. There was no bruise on the face, neck or other parts of the body. The face was congested. There were no abrasions, subcutaneous tissues under the neck echymosed, injury to the muscles, carotid arteries ruptured. There was fracture of larynx, tractria. The body was moderately built, moderately nourished. Post-mortem staining was present. Rigor mortis was present. There was no bruise on the face, neck or other parts of the body. The face was congested. The next (neck ?) was in non-stretched state. The eyes were prominent, partly open, conjunctive congested and pupils were dilated." The description of ligature mark as given by Dr. Avtar Singh PW-2 is as under :- "Ligature was 20 cm in length, around the neck, extending from the right side, 5 cm below the right ear, then towards the centre below the thyroid cartilage and reaching left side of the neck to the point line 5 cm below the mastoid process of left temporal region, width of the ligature mark was 0.75 cm in the centre and 0.5 cm on its side." Dr. Avtar Singh PW-2 also noted :- "In the Thorax Walls, ribs and cartilages were healthy, pleurae healthy, larynx and tracheas healthy, right lung, left lung, pericardium hard, congestion was found and congested portions of the lungs, heart and blood from the heart were sent for chemical analysis." In the abdomen "Walls, peritoneum, mouth larynx and desophagus were healthy. Stomach was contested and its portion was sent to the Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis. In the small intestines and large intestines, congestion was found and portion of them was packed in a container and was sent for chemical analysis. In the liver, spleen, kidneys and bladder congestion was found and portion of them in separate container was sent for chemical analysis." In the organs of generation "Congestion was seen in the organ. Fully found foetus (male) of about 16 to 18 weeks were found in the uterus and it was packed in a separate container and was sent to the Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis." 15. The said witness went on to opine that "since there was no marks of resistance on the body of the deceased, therefore, the possibility of strangulation suicidal cannot be ruled out." 16. In my considered opinion and taking into account the medical testimony and the other attending evidence on record, it appears that the deceased had taken her own life, which was on account of the harassment ostensibly for some reason in the marriage. In my considered opinion and taking into account the medical testimony and the other attending evidence on record, it appears that the deceased had taken her own life, which was on account of the harassment ostensibly for some reason in the marriage. Even if the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is taken to be true, there apparently was some discord between the two which is also borne out from the statement of the complainant. Since the appellant is the husband, he cannot escape the liability in its entirety for having caused or brought about a situation to such a boil which forced the deceased to take her own life. Hence, I deem it appreciate to convert the conviction of the appellant from Section 304-B to that under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant is converted to that under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and his sentence is reduced from 7 years to 3 years. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of.