Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1985 (PNJ)

Harmesh v. State Of Punjab

2010-07-08

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. This is an appeal filed against the judgment/order of conviction and sentence dated 18.5.1999 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide which all the three accused/appellants, namely, Harmesh, Lallu and Bachho were convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section of 34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.6.1997, HC Piara Lal posted as Police Post Incharge, G.R.P. Kotkapura, saw a dead body of a female floating in the water tank. He informed SHO Ravinder Kumar, PW7, about this incident, who partly prepared the inquest report, Exhibit PD, and also informed the father of the deceased through a person of inlaws family of the deceased. The father of the deceased namely Sarban, PW-2, identified the dead body as that of his daughter namely Angoori Devi. SHO Ravinder Kumar, PW7, visited the spot and recorded the statement(s) of Sarban, father of the deceased, Exhibit PF, and other witnesses. He prepared the finally inquest report, Exhibit PF. As per the statement of Sarban, Exhibit PF, the deceased was married to Harmesh Lal, accused/appellant No. 1. The other appellants Lallu and Mrs. Bachho were father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, respectively. It is further stated that Sarban, PW2, gave dowry in the marriage of his daughter Angoori Devi (since deceased) according to his capacity. From this wedlock, one son and one daughter were born. The accused/appellants asked the deceased to bring money from her parents to start some business. Sarban, PW2, fulfilled their demand according to his capacity. However, the accused were not still satisfied and they started maltreating her to bring more money and dowry. Due to this maltreatment, the deceased started living in her parental home. With the intervention of the respectables, the deceased came back to her matrimonial home on the undertaking given by the accused that they would not harass her in future to bring more money from her parents. Despite the above assurance, all the accused again started maltreating the deceased and demanded more money from her parents. Ten days prior to the occurrence, she (the deceased) again visited her parental home and told this fact to her father and relatives that the accused were demanding Rs. 10,000/-. Sarban, PW2, could not fulfill this demand. Despite the above assurance, all the accused again started maltreating the deceased and demanded more money from her parents. Ten days prior to the occurrence, she (the deceased) again visited her parental home and told this fact to her father and relatives that the accused were demanding Rs. 10,000/-. Sarban, PW2, could not fulfill this demand. However, he insisted Angoori Devi, the deceased, to live in her in-laws house. She again went back to her matrimonial home after telling his father that if she is again maltreated or tortured by her in-laws then she will commit suicide by jumping into the well. Consequently, the deceased committed suicide due to the continuous cruelty and harassment by the accused persons for not fulfilling their demand of dowry. 3. On the basis of statement of Sarwan, PW-2, formal FIR No. 14 dated 17.3.1998, Exhibit PF/1, was registered under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused. The accused were arrested on 20.3.1998. 4. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned and put to stand trial and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide order dated 15.6.1998. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari charge sheeted all the accused for the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 1.8.1998 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. 7. PW1-Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicines G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot deposed that on 14.6.1997 at 4.25 P.M. he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Angoori Devi. He opined that the case of death in this case was asphyxia as a result of drowning, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He handed over the dead body to the police alongwith its belongings. He further stated in the cross-examination that no mark of violence was found on the dead body of the deceased. 8. PW-2-Sarban, father of the deceased, reiterated the version as given in his statement, Exhibit PF. 9. PW3-Roshan Lal deposed that he was the middle man in the marriage of deceased Angoori Devi with Harmesh, the accused/appellant No. 1. He further stated in the cross-examination that no mark of violence was found on the dead body of the deceased. 8. PW-2-Sarban, father of the deceased, reiterated the version as given in his statement, Exhibit PF. 9. PW3-Roshan Lal deposed that he was the middle man in the marriage of deceased Angoori Devi with Harmesh, the accused/appellant No. 1. He further stated that from this wedlock one son and one daughter were born. After the marriage, the accused persons started demanding cash/money from Angoori Devi, the deceased and she used to tell him about the said demands. He further stated that about ten days prior to the occurrence, she visited Raikot and told him that the accused persons were demanding Rs. 10,000/- in cash from her. He alongwith the deceased went to parental house of Angoori Devi, the deceased, where she narrated the entire incident to her parents. In the cross-examination, he stated that he remained with the deceased at Jakhal for 2-3 days. 10. PW-7, S.I. SHO Ravinder Kumar prepared the final inquest report, Exhibit PD, of the dead body of Angoori Devi. He recorded the statement of Sarban, PW-2, father of the deceased at the Railway Station, Faridkot. He sent ruqa to the Police Station, G.R.P. Faridkot., on the basis of which, FIR, Exhibit PF/1 was recorded under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC by Baldev Singh, ASI. He arrested all the accused. 11. PW11-Kamal Kumar, Commandant, P.R.T.C., Jahan Khelan, District Hoshiarpur deposed that he conducted the inquiry in the present case and submitted his report, Exhibit PL. 12. After completion of the prosecution examination, the accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in and pleaded their false implication the present case. In defence, the accused examined DW1-Bant and DW2- Shiv Dayal. 13. DW-1, Bant, stated that the accused/appellant No. 1 never maltreated the deceased. He further stated that the parents of appellant No. 1 did not reside with appellant No. 1. 14. DW-2, Shiv Dayal, stated that the marriage of appellant No. 1 was solemnised in a simple manner, in which only 4-5 utensils were given in dowry as is the custom in their community. He was Sarpanch of his village and was related to both the parties. 14. DW-2, Shiv Dayal, stated that the marriage of appellant No. 1 was solemnised in a simple manner, in which only 4-5 utensils were given in dowry as is the custom in their community. He was Sarpanch of his village and was related to both the parties. In cross-examination, he stated that accused/appellants were not demanding dowry from the complainant side. 15. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 4.6.1999. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that ingredients of Sections 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the accused/appellants have been convicted and sentenced, are missing. There is no evidence regarding any demand of dowry and this fact is further corroborated by the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses. There was not even an inkling about demand of money or articles. 17. Learned counsel has further submitted that Sarban, PW2, father of the deceased and Lamian, brother of the deceased, did not suspect any foul play in the death of Angoori Devi, rather they categorically stated that the earnings of appellant No. 1 were not sufficient for the livelihood of the appellant No. 1 and his family and as such both of his children used to remain ill. Due to poverty, the deceased left her house. The appellants informed the family members of the deceased in this regard. 18. Learned counsel has further stated the alleged occurrence took place on 14.6.1997, whereas the case was registered on 17.3.1998. Therefore, there is an unexplained delay of nine months. 19. It has further been submitted in the cross-examination of Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, PW1, that Sarban, PW2, voluntarily thumb marked the post-mortem report and at that time there was no protest that the deceased was forcibly drowned in the water tank. 20. Learned counsel has further submitted that since appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were residing in a separate house, therefore, there was no question of harassment or maltreatment of the accused on the part of both the appellants to the deceased. 21. It has further been argued that only interested witnesses appeared in the witness box to depose against the appellants and all other witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. He has further stated that no body from the village of the deceased came forward to depose that there was any demand of dowry. 22. 21. It has further been argued that only interested witnesses appeared in the witness box to depose against the appellants and all other witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. He has further stated that no body from the village of the deceased came forward to depose that there was any demand of dowry. 22. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants. He has further submitted that the case of the prosecution has been fully proved that the deceased committed suicide due to maltreatment meted out to her on account of unfulfilment of their dowry demands. 23. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 24. Admittedly, the deceased, Angoori Devi, died on 14.6.1997, whereas the FIR was lodged on 17.3.1998 after a delay of nine months. This factual aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. The death of a married daughter is an occurrence, which is not taken lightly by any father. In the instant case, silence of the father of the deceased for a long period of nine months goes to establish that the complainant, Sarban, PW2, was convinced that the reasons behind the death of his daughter were not related to any demand of dowry or maltreatment/harassment. Though, the learned Trial Court has tried to cover up the above-mentioned delay by taking help from the facts while observing that the father of the deceased had been sending representations during the period of delay, yet to my mind, the long delay of nine months largely stands unexplained. 25. The testimony of Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, PW1, is very significant. In his cross-examination, the aforesaid witness had deposed that no protest was raised by the complainant at the time of post-mortem examination and the same was voluntarily thumb marked by the complainant. He had further categorically deposed that no person raised any protest before him that Angoori Devi (the deceased) was forcibly drown in the water tank. In his cross-examination, the aforesaid witness had deposed that no protest was raised by the complainant at the time of post-mortem examination and the same was voluntarily thumb marked by the complainant. He had further categorically deposed that no person raised any protest before him that Angoori Devi (the deceased) was forcibly drown in the water tank. The above fact when linked with the evidence of the complainant, Sarban, PW2 that the deceased was being subjected to maltreatment and harassment by her in-laws goes to establish that if the complainant had even a slight apprehension or doubt regarding the accused/appellants involvement in the death of the deceased, he would have raised objection at the first available opportunity at the time of death of his daughter Angoori Devi. However, the fact remained that the complainant voluntarily accepted the post-mortem examination and his silence at that particular point of time is a pointer towards the fact that the complainant himself was convinced of the innocence of the appellant No. 1. 26. The stand of the complainant Sarban, PW2, in his cross-examination, that his signatures as also of his brother and son were obtained on blank papers forcibly by the police, appears to be an after-thought which is not substantiated by evidence on record. 27. Another relevant issue in the instant case is the allegation that ten days prior to the death, the deceased visited her parental home and conveyed them that her in-laws are demanding Rs. 10,000/- in cash. It seems that this allegation does not fit in well in the present facts of the case. The deceased had been married to accused/appellant No. 1 for the last about 6 years. There is nothing on record to suggest that the demand of dowry was raised soon after the marriage and in the subsequent years of the marriage. Moreover, in the earlier part of the examination-in-chief, the complainant, Sarban-PW2, has stated that dowry demands started one year after solemnisation of marriage between the deceased and the appellant No. 1. Thereafter, the complainant straightway brings into picture the alleged demand of dowry, which is stated to have been made just ten days prior to the death of the deceased. Moreover, in the earlier part of the examination-in-chief, the complainant, Sarban-PW2, has stated that dowry demands started one year after solemnisation of marriage between the deceased and the appellant No. 1. Thereafter, the complainant straightway brings into picture the alleged demand of dowry, which is stated to have been made just ten days prior to the death of the deceased. If the above statement of the complainant is accepted to be true even that also it does not fit in and establish the case of the prosecution because admittedly, the marriage took place about 6 years back. If the dowry demand started one year after that even then the routine and usual course adopted by the Rural Communities is to convene panchayat(s) of brotherhood to resolve the matter between the parties. However, neither in the examination-in-chief of the complainant nor in the statement of Roshan Singh, PW-3, any such step has been narrated. There is no reference to the effect that any effort was made to resolve the matter between the parties. 28. From the precision of the statements of complainant Sarban, PW2 and Roshan Singh, PW3, it appears that both of them have deposed on tutored lines and as such their deposition is not inspiring enough so as to be believed. 29. The appellants come from the poorest strata of the society. There is enough evidence on record that there used to be no income in the family. The deceased could not withstand continuous deprivation and hunger and took the extreme step of ending her life. 30. In the light of above discussions, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 18.5.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, is hereby set aside. The appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.