Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 931 (PNJ)

Karma S/o Fauja Ram v. State of Punjab

2009-05-12

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 04.04.97, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which, it convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of ten years each. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, Devi Rani @ Karmi daughter of Beera Ram, complainant, was married to Karma, accused, about 2 ¼ years, before her death at village Pul Pukhta. Out of that wedlock, a child was born to her, who was aged about three months, at the relevant time. At the relevant time, wife of Beera, namely Swaran Kaur, and the wife of his elder brother namely Amar Kaur, had gone to Karmi, with the customary gifts, but Karma, was not happy with the same and had raised a demand of scooter. This fact was told by Swaran Kaur to Beera Ram, whereupon, he went alongwith his brother, and collected the persons from the brotherhood of the accused, in the village, and the matter was settled. Thereafter, Karma, accused, his brother Channa Ram, and Devi Rani @ Karmi's father-in-law Fauja Ram, started taunting her, on account of bringing insufficient dowry. They demanded money to send Karma, abroad. The deceased narrated her tale of woes to her father, but being a poor man, he could not fulfil the demands of the accused. Thus, he sent his daughter to her in-laws house. On 14.09.95, at about 9.00 AM, Beera Ram, went to the house of the deceased, alongwith Harbans Singh @ Bansa, mediator, and when, they were having tea, in the courtyard, Karma, Fauja, and Channa, accused, showed their anger to them (Beera Ram and Harbans Singh). Fauja, exhorted that the dispute should be finished once for all. Consequently, Channa, accused, caught hold Devi Rani @ Karmi, of her hair, and Karma, poured kerosene oil, from a container, on her person, and lighted the matchstick. Thereafter, both of them ran away, out of fear. The complainant collected his brotherhood, in village Sathiala, and after deliberations, reached Tanda, where they came to know that Devi Rani, had died of burn injuries. On the statement of Beera Ram, complainant, the case was registered. After the completion of investigation, Karma, accused was challaned. 3. Thereafter, both of them ran away, out of fear. The complainant collected his brotherhood, in village Sathiala, and after deliberations, reached Tanda, where they came to know that Devi Rani, had died of burn injuries. On the statement of Beera Ram, complainant, the case was registered. After the completion of investigation, Karma, accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, Karma, accused, was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, Charge under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against him, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. After recording the statement of Beera Ram, complainant, Channa Ram, and Fauja Ram, accused, were also summoned, in pursuance of the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge under Sections 302 read with Section 34, and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against all the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Kuldip Chand Sharma, draftsman (PW1), who prepared the site plan PA. 6. Dr. Satpal Singh, Medical Officer (PW2), deposed that an application PE, was moved by the Police, as to whether, Karam Kaur @ Devi Rani, was fit to make statement. He further stated that vide PE/1, he tendered the opinion that the patient was not fit to make statement. It was further stated by him, that he sent the chit PF, to the Station House Officer, Police Station Tanda, intimating that Karam Kaur, expired on 14.09.95, at 2.25 PM. 7. Dr. Parminder Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tanda, was examined as (PW3). His evidence is to the effect, that on 14.09.95, at 10.30 AM, he sent the chit PD, to the Station House Officer, Police Station Tanda, on the arrival of patient Karam Kaur wife of Karamjit Singh of village Pul Pukhta, P.O. Maini. 8. Constable Parminder Singh (PW4), tendered his affidavit PE. 9. Beera Ram, complainant, father of the deceased, was examined as (PW5). The broad features of his testimony, already stand noticed, while narrating the facts, in para No. 2, of the judgement. 10. Dr. 8. Constable Parminder Singh (PW4), tendered his affidavit PE. 9. Beera Ram, complainant, father of the deceased, was examined as (PW5). The broad features of his testimony, already stand noticed, while narrating the facts, in para No. 2, of the judgement. 10. Dr. Jagdish Singh, SMO, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur (PW6), conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead-body of Devi Rani @ Karmi daughter of Beera Ram, aged about 22 years. He stated that whole of the body of Devi Rani, bore burn injuries, except the sole of feet and part of scalp. The scalp hair were singed. Rigor mortis was present and well developed. There were first and second degree burns. Blisters were present at places. There was singing of the hair, and the eyebrows. Blackening of skin was present. The brain and membrances were congested. Both the lungs were congested. In the opinion of the doctor, death, in this case, was due to external extensive burn injuries leading to dehydration and shock. He further opined that the injuries were ante-mortem, in nature, and sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that lapsed between the injuries and death was within 12 hours, and between death and postmortem was about 25 hours. 11. Harbans Singh (PW7), is the mediator, who arranged the marriage, between Devi Rani @ Karmi, and Karma, accused. He also supported the statement of Beera Ram. 12. Mangal Dass (PW8), stated that Beera Ram, told him, that the husband of his daughter namely Karma, had demanded money for going abroad, and for that she was being harassed. 13. Resham Singh, Moharrir Head Constable (PW9), filed affidavit PL. 14. Hazara Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW10), is the Investigating Officer, in this case. He conducted the investigation. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 15. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Karma, accused, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he had never demanded any dowry, from the parents of Karmi, deceased. He further stated that both of them were living happily. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Karma, accused, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he had never demanded any dowry, from the parents of Karmi, deceased. He further stated that both of them were living happily. He further stated that on 14.09.95, in the morning, his wife wanted to go to her parents house, and requested him to accomapny her but he showed his inability to accompany her. He further stated that she demanded Rs. 200/-from him, but he had given Rs. 100/-only to her, as he could not manage more. He further stated that then he went for his work, in the fields, and she was left all alone, in the house. In his absence she sprinkled kerosene oil upon her, and set herself ablaze. He further stated that, in order to save her, he took her to Civil Hospital, Tanda, where, unfortunately, she succumbed to her injuries. 16. Channa Ram, and Fauja Ram, accused, also took up the same plea, as was taken up by Karma, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court convicted the accused, as stated above. 18. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellants. 19. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 20. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that no doubt Devi Rani @ Karmi, died within 07 years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances i.e. on account of burn injuries, yet it was not proved that she was subjected to cruelty, at any point of time, or soon before her death, in connection with the demand of dowry. He further submitted that no specific details of the dowry articles, which were allegedly demanded by the accused from Devi Rani @ Karmi, or from her parents, were given by the witnesses. He further submitted that the alleged demand of money for sending the husband of the deceased to foreign country, from her parents, by the accused, did not fall within the definition of dowry. He further submitted that the alleged demand of money for sending the husband of the deceased to foreign country, from her parents, by the accused, did not fall within the definition of dowry. In the alternative, it was submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that it was a case of dowry death, then, at the most, Karma son of Fauja Ram, husband of the deceased, could be held liable, whereas, Channa Ram, brother of Karma, and Fauja Ram, father of Karma, could not be said to be liable in any manner. He further submitted that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, were liable to be set-aside. 21. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that it was proved through cogent and convincing evidence, that the accused from time to time subjected Devi Rani @ Karmi, to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowy, and such demand continued upto her death. She further submitted that demand of amount for sending Karma, accused, to foreign Country, from the deceased, or from her parents, also fell within the definition of demand of dowry, as such demand was raised, in connection with the relationship of marriage. She further submitted that the trial Court was right, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 22. For constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that a married woman died within seven years of her marriage, otherwise, than under normal circumstances, and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, by her husband or his relatives. It was admitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that Devi Rani @ Karmi, was married to Karma, accused 2 ¼ years, before the date of occurrence. It was also admitted that she died, in the house of Karma, accused, within seven years of her marriage, otherwise, than under normal circumstances i.e. by burn injuries. Two ingredients required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, were admitted, and even proved, from the evidence, produced by the prosecution. 23. Now let us see, as to whether, the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death. Two ingredients required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, were admitted, and even proved, from the evidence, produced by the prosecution. 23. Now let us see, as to whether, the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death. Beera Ram, PW5, father of the deceased, stated that Karma, accused, demanded a scooter from them in the shape of dowry. He further stated that he convened a Panchayat, consisting of Mehangi Ram, lambardar Mangal Dass, Piare Lal, and mediator Harbans Singh @ Bansa. Then the Panchayat, went to the house of the accused. It was further stated by him that the accused apologized before the Panchayat, and ensured that they will not make such demands. It was further stated by him that thereafter he came back. It was further stated by him that his daughter told him that the accused were still taunting her, for bringing insufficient dowry. It was further stated by him that both Karma, accused, and his daughter Devi Rani @ Karmi, had come to him, and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-as Karma, was to go abroad. Harbans Singh, PW7, also stated that the accused had been taunting the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. Mangal Dass, PW8, stated that Beera Ram, complainant, told him that the husband of his daughter had demanded money for going abroad, and that she was being harassed by him, on account of that reason. It was further stated by him, that he was also a member of the Panchayat, which was convened and taken to the house of the in-laws of the deceased. From the statements of these witnesses, it was proved that Karma, accused, husband of the deceased, demanded scooter, in the shape of dowry. He also used to torture the deceased, on the ground, that she had brought insufficient dowry. Not only this, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-was demanded by him, from the parents of the deceased, for going abroad. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touchstone of all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. There was no reason, on their part to depose falsely, at least against Karma, accused, husband of the deceased. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touchstone of all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. There was no reason, on their part to depose falsely, at least against Karma, accused, husband of the deceased. Had Karma, not tortured the deceased, that she had brought insufficient dowry, and had he not demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, from her parents, for going abroad, as also scooter in the shape of dowry, she would not have committed suicide, as she was having a minor child, in her lap. No doubt, certain improvements were made by Beera Ram, over his previous statement. Those improvements, were of insignificant and innocuous nature, which did not go to the root of the case. However, the evidence of Beera Ram, Harbans Singh, and Mangal Dass, was consistent with regard to the substratum of the case. It was, thus, proved from the evidence, on record, that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the aforesaid demand of dowry, right from the inception of her marriage, till her death. The deceased was 22 years of age, at the time of her death. She was having a minor child in her lap, at that time. She must have thought to enjoy a happy and comfortable married life. Had she not been subjected to torture and cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, right from the inception of her marriage until her death she would have been the last lady to die by burning herself. The ingredient that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, in connection, with the demand of dowry, soon before her death, by Karma, accused, was, thus, also proved. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 24. The next question, that arises for consideration is, as to whether, the demand of Rs. 50,000/-made by Karma husband of the deceased from her parents, for going abroad, fell within the definition of dowy or not. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as under:- “2. 24. The next question, that arises for consideration is, as to whether, the demand of Rs. 50,000/-made by Karma husband of the deceased from her parents, for going abroad, fell within the definition of dowy or not. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as under:- “2. Definition of “dowry”-In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dowry or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Laws (Shariat) applies.” 25. The definition of dowry extracted above, clearly speaks of any property or valuable security. A sum of Rs. 50,000/-demanded by Karma, accused, from the parents of the deceased, for going abroad, was not as a loan, but in connection with the relationship of marriage. The demand of Rs. 50,000/-, thus certainly fell within the purview of dowry. In Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (3) RCR 625 (S.C.), Hem Chand, appellant, married deceased Saroj Bala, on 24.5.1982. He demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-for purchasing a plot, from his in-laws. He again repeated that demand on 20.5.1987. Saroj Bala deceased brought a sum of Rs. 15,000/-and paid the same to Hem Chand with a promise that the balance amount would be remitted by her father soon. On 16.6.1987 at about 11.15 a.m. the deceased died of strangulation i.e. to say that she died otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage. The accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence, punishable under Section 304B I.P.C., holding that the demand fell within the definition of dowry. The appeal filed by Hem Chand, in the High Court was dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by him, in the Apex Court, was also dismissed. However, the sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to him, was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. In Koshalya Vs. The appeal filed by Hem Chand, in the High Court was dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by him, in the Apex Court, was also dismissed. However, the sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to him, was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. In Koshalya Vs. State of Punjab 1994 RCR (P&H) 48, (Division Bench) the demand was made by the husband, from her in-laws, through his wife, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-for opening a shop. Another demand of Rs. 50,000/-, was made by him, for purchasing the articles, to be exhibited, for sale, in the said shop. When the parents of the bride failed to fulfill such a demand, she was subjected to cruelty, as a result whereof, she died, on account of burn injuries. The trial Court, convicted the accused holding that such a demand fell within the ambit of dowry. The appeal filed by the accused, was also dismissed by this Court. If the demand of cash amount for the purchase of a plot, for buying a shop, and for purchasing articles for exhibiting in the same, as held in the aforesaid authorities, could fall within the definition of dowry, then certainly, the demand of Rs. 50,000/-, raised, in the present case, by Karma, accused, for going abroad, could certainly be said to be falling within the ambit of dowry. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 26. The Counsel for the appellants, however, placed reliance on Appasaheb and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 3 SCC (Crl.) 468, and Hari Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2002(3) RCR (Crl.), 541 (DB), to contend that demand of Rs. 50,000/-by Karama, accused, from the parents of the deceased, for going abroad, did not fall within the definition of dowry. In Appasaheb and another's case (supra), demand was made by the accused from the parents of the deceased, to meet some urgent domestic expenses, or for purchasing manure. In these circumstances, it was held that this demand did not fall within the definition of dowry. In Hari Singh's case (supra), demand from the in laws was made by the accused, for the construction of house. It was held that such demand could not be termed as demand of dowry. In these circumstances, it was held that this demand did not fall within the definition of dowry. In Hari Singh's case (supra), demand from the in laws was made by the accused, for the construction of house. It was held that such demand could not be termed as demand of dowry. The facts of the aforesaid authorities, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. No doubt, demand of small amount, on account of some financial stringency, or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses, or for purchasing manure, does not fall within the definition of dowry, but, in the instant case, the demand was not raised for meeting small domestic expenses, and purchasing manure. In view of the observations made in Hem Chand's case (supra), decided by the Apex Court, that demand of money made for the purchase of a plot from the parents of the deceased falls within the definition of dowry, no help, can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellants from Appasaheb and another's and Hari Singh's cases (supra). The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 27. Now coming to the liability of Channa Ram brother of Karma, accused and Fauja Ram, father-in-law of the deceased, it may be stated here, that they did not commit any offence. Only Karma, accused, husband of the deceased, could be said to be the beneficiary of the demand of scooter, in the shape of dowry, and demand of Rs. 50,000/-for going abroad, from the parents of the deceased. His brother and father, could not be said to be the beneficiaries of such demands. There is no specific allegation, against against both these accused, that they also demanded the scooter and the money for sending Karma, accused, abroad, from the parents of the deceased. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the bride dies, in the house of her in laws, under unnatural circumstances, then no love is lost between the parents of the deceased, and her inlaws family. The parents of the deceased, in such circumstances, are out and out, to rope in as many members of the inlaws family of the bride, as they could possibly do. The parents of the deceased, in such circumstances, are out and out, to rope in as many members of the inlaws family of the bride, as they could possibly do. Since Karma, accused, was the sole beneficiary of the aforesaid demand of dowry, he could only be held liable, for the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court was, thus, wrong in recording conviction and awarding sentence to Channa Ram, and Fauja Ram, accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants to the extent, referred to above, being correct is accepted. 28. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 29. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, qua Karma, accused (now appellant), being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, are liable to be upheld. 30. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, qua Channa Ram and Fauja Ram, accused (now appellants), being not based, on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, are liable to be set-aside. 31. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by Karma, appellant, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, qua Karma, are upheld. If Karma, appellant, is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 32. The appeal filed by Channa Ram and Fauja Ram, appellants, is accepted. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, qua them, are set-aside. They shall stand acquitted of the charge, framed against them. If Channa Ram and Fauja Ram, appellants, are on bail, they shall stand discharged of their bail bonds. If they are in custody, they shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case. 33. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment qua Karma, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and qua Channa Ram and Fauja Ram, in accordance with law, and submit compliance report, within 02 months. 34. 33. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment qua Karma, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and qua Channa Ram and Fauja Ram, in accordance with law, and submit compliance report, within 02 months. 34. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and the compliance report is sent within the time frame, to this Court. 35. The Registry is directed to keep track that the directions are complied with, within the stipulated time. The papers be put up within 10 days, of the expiry of the time frame, whether the report is received or not, for further action.