Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 641 (PNJ)

Karambir v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-27

A.N.JINDAL

body2010
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Karambir, Krishan and Dhanpati the appellants/accused (herein referred as the accused) were prosecuted for the offences under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for torturing and harassing Kanta Devi (deceased) for non satisfaction of their demands of dowry and causing dowry death. On trial, all the accused were convicted for all the aforesaid offences, except, Dhanpati who was acquitted under Section 201 of the IPC. Krishan and Karambir were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under Section 201 of the IPC and all accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each under Section 304-B IPC. All the accused were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498- A IPC. 2. The brief facts, as culled out from the record are that Ran Singh had two daughters namely Kanta and Raj Bala. He married them to Karambir and Sanjay sons of Krishan accused. Immediately, after marriage both the daughters were despatched to the house of the accused, but after their return only Kanta was sent to their house being major, whereas, Raj Bala was not sent being minor and she was to be sent later on after her Muklawa Ceremony. After marriage the accused started demanding scooter and fridge from the deceased. Ran Singh in his statement dated 3.05.1994 Ex:PB, before ASI Chand Mohammad stated that whenever Kanta visited them disclosed to her mother that all the three accused were demanding scooter and fridge in dowry. However, Kanta was made to understand and was sent back. After 1 1/2 years of marriage Kanta was blessed with a son, thereupon, Satish son of the complainant had gone with the gifts to their house, at that time also, the accused had placed the demand of scooter and fridge and threatened that if they had not met the demand as committed by them, they will not rehabilitate their daughter. One and a half month prior to the death, Kanta came to him and told that the accused were demanding Rs. 10,000/- and she also complained that she was beaten many times on that account. At this, the complainant by paying her Rs. 5,000/- persuaded her, and sent her back. One and a half month prior to the death, Kanta came to him and told that the accused were demanding Rs. 10,000/- and she also complained that she was beaten many times on that account. At this, the complainant by paying her Rs. 5,000/- persuaded her, and sent her back. After 4-5 days, he along with Raj Singh Sarpanch and Hari Singh Panch went to the house of the accused and persuaded them not to harass her, however, they continued pressing upon their demand of fridge and scooter.. On 3.05.1994, he sent Satish to enquire about the well being of Kanta at her in-laws house. On return Satish informed that Karambir disclosed to him that Kanta had expired due to abdominal pain and they had already cremated her yesterday i.e. 2.05.1994. At this, he along with Raj Singh and Hari Singh went to the village Gangdawa to enquire about the death of his daughter, whereupon, they came to know that KantA had committed suicide by hanging herself. 3. On the aforesaid statement made by Ran Singh before ASI Chand Mohammad on 3.05.1994, FIR No. 124 Ex:PB/2 was registered under Sections 304-B, 201 IPC against the accused. 4. The case was investigated, the accused was arrested. Investigating Officer prepared the site plan Ex:PF. On 5.05.1994, Krishan and Karambir were arrested. Krishan was interro gated by the Investigating Officer and bones and ashes of Kanta were recovered from the cremation ground and were taken into posses- sion vide memo Ex:PD-l. On 12.05.1994, he also arrested Dhanpati. After recording the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, the challan was presented against them. Finding prima facie case against the accused, they were charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B as well as Section 304-B read with Section 201 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined Mohinder Singh Drafts- man PW-1, who had prepared the site plan Ex. P-A with correct marginal notes, ASI Ma- habir Singh PW-2 who had taken the Ruqa from ASI Chand Mohammed with endorse- ment Ex. PB/1 and recorded formal FIR Ex. PB/2 at the police station. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined Mohinder Singh Drafts- man PW-1, who had prepared the site plan Ex. P-A with correct marginal notes, ASI Ma- habir Singh PW-2 who had taken the Ruqa from ASI Chand Mohammed with endorse- ment Ex. PB/1 and recorded formal FIR Ex. PB/2 at the police station. PW-3 Ran Singh father of the deceased Kanta had narrated all the details regarding the harassment, torture of her daughter at the hands of the accused, on account of demand of dowry and in the shape of the articles as well as cash. He had also stated about his visit to the village of the accused after coming to know about the death of Kanta. Satish PW-4 also corroborated the testimony of his father, qua the aforesaid as- pects of the case. Hari Singh PW-5 is the member Panchayat, who stated that Ran Singh had informed him about the demand of dowry made by the accused and he also nar- rated about this occurrence while stating that on 3.05.1994, while coming to know about the death of Kanta, they had gone to village Gangdawa, where they were informed that Kanta had committed suicide and was cre- mated by the accused. He is a witness to the recovery of the bones and ashes of Kanta from the cremation ground. Chand Moham- mad PW-6 ASI is the Investigating Officer of the case. After tendering into evidence affida- vit Ex.PK of Constable Mahesh Kumar, re- port of the FSL Ex.PL prosecution closed the case. 6. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused de- nied all the incriminating circumstances ap- pearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Krishan and Dhanpati pleaded that they had nothing to do with the demand of dowry and they never treated Kanta with cruelty as were living separate from their son Karambir. 7. In their defence, they examined Tej Ram DW-1 Sarpanch who disclosed that Kanta died due to stomach pain, the intimation with regard to which was sent to Kantas parents. They reached village Gangdawa and performed the last rites of Kanta in the presence of her parents. He further added that Karambir was living separate from his parents for about 11/2 years of his marriage. They reached village Gangdawa and performed the last rites of Kanta in the presence of her parents. He further added that Karambir was living separate from his parents for about 11/2 years of his marriage. After scrutinising the evidence, the trial court recorded the conviction of the accused and sentenced them accordingly in the aforesaid terms. 8. The admitted facts as culled out from the record are that the accused Karambir was married to Kanta in the year 1990, though his brother Sanjay was also married to the sister of Kanta namely Raj Bala but due to her minority she was not sent to the house of the accused. Admittedly, a son was born from the wedlock, after 1 1/2 years of the marriage. Kanta died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage other than in normal circumstances at her in-laws house for the reasons recorded in the later part of the judgment. 9. Now the sole question to determine before me is whether Kanta was treated with cruelty by the accused on account of demand of dowry soon before her death and whethef the complicity of all the accused in the commission of crime is proved? 10. In order to prove the demand of dowry, it may be noticed that a live body of an young girl in her twenties who came in the custody of the accused in the year 1990 could not be traced and was vanished from this world on 2.05.1994. Death at the house of the accused is not disputed, however, naturalness of the death cannot be presumed in any manner for the reason that there was no such history with regard to abdominal pain, chronic disease of the stomach or much less appendicitis and she was neyer taken to the hospital or otherwise, treated for the disease. No such witness was examined, who has been sent to Ran Singh for informing that Kanta was lying ill on account of said disease. Both the witnesses appear to be truthful in saying that they came to know about the suicidal death of Kanta after Satish visited the house of the accused and then they came to the village of the accused. Both the witnesses appear to be truthful in saying that they came to know about the suicidal death of Kanta after Satish visited the house of the accused and then they came to the village of the accused. The story set up by the accused that they had sent Raj Singh of their village i.e. Gangdawa to inform Ran Singh cannot be believed, as Raj Singh had not been examined to prove this fact. Moreover, had the things been so then Karambir or his father could go to inform about the same as the village of Ran Singh was not far away. Thus, the version regarding informing the parents seems to be concocted one. 11. In their statements under Section 313 Gr.P.C. The accused did not disclose if they had informed Ran Singh through Raj Singh. 12. Witnesses Tej Ram DW-1 and Hans Raj DW-2 have not come to disclose as to by whom the deceased was treated for her abdominal pain, no doctor was examined to state that he had treated Kanta for the said disease. There is a reason for the defence witnesses to depose in favour of the accused as Tej Ram who was a Sarpanch of the village, admittedly belongs to the opposite faction. He having interest in favour of the accused for getting their favour in the next elections, would obviously support them. It was opportune time for him to attract the accused to his side. Hans Raj DW-2 is the real uncle of the accused. Therefore, he being interested witness could go to any extent in order to save the accused from the gallows. Furthermore, the conduct of the accused is most unnatural and most undesirable. If the deceased had died due to stomach pain then they must have rushed to the doctor or they have called the doctor at their house but admittedly, she was not taken to any govt, or private hospital. No neighbour was examined to prove the version set by the accused that Kanta died of abdominal pain. Thus, the theory as constructed by the accused that she died natural death due to abdominal pain, appears to be a manufactured one. The fact remain that the deceased died unnatural death for the circumstances created by the accused. 13. No neighbour was examined to prove the version set by the accused that Kanta died of abdominal pain. Thus, the theory as constructed by the accused that she died natural death due to abdominal pain, appears to be a manufactured one. The fact remain that the deceased died unnatural death for the circumstances created by the accused. 13. Now coming to the other question, whether there was demand of dowry by the accused soon before her death, much stress has been laid with regard to the contradictions brought by the witnesses in their statements with regard to the articles of dowry as demanded by the accused. It has been urged that in the FIR dated 3.05.1994, Ran Singh had got recorded that the accused were demanding scooter and fridge, whereas, in his statement on Oath in the Court he stated that the accused were demanding fridge and cooler whereas, Satish stated to the contrary by disclosing that they were demanding fridge, cooler and T.V. Hari Singh PW-5 also stated that the accused were demanding Scooter and Fridge. Notwithstanding, the fact that there are some contradictions with regard to the articles which were demanded by the accused in dowry but the same do not affect the substratum of the case as all the three witnesses are consistent with regard to the demand of fridge. While going to the worst, it would be believed that the demand of fridge raised by the accused immediately after the marriage, persisted till death. Coupled with the said demand, Ran Singh has stated that after the birth of child, when the deceased was left at the house of the accused, they placed another demand of Rs. 10,000/-, which stands proved by all the witnesses. All the three witnesses have stated that about 1 1/2 month prior to the death of kanta, the accused had also demanded Rs. 10,000/- but the complainant had sent Kanta after paying Rs. 5,000/-. This demand stands fully establishedi on the record and the same could be said soon before her death. Ran Singh has gone to extent that he had given Rs. 5,000/- after borrowing the same from Ramphal son of Prahlad of village Daboda and he had sent Kanta with Rs. 5,000/- on the next day of her coming and Satish had gone to leave her to her in-laws house. Satish has corroborated the aforesaid version in all minute details. Ran Singh has gone to extent that he had given Rs. 5,000/- after borrowing the same from Ramphal son of Prahlad of village Daboda and he had sent Kanta with Rs. 5,000/- on the next day of her coming and Satish had gone to leave her to her in-laws house. Satish has corroborated the aforesaid version in all minute details. Even otherwise, the inconsistencies regarding precise nature of the dowry articles demanded are of little importance. In view of the fact that the accused were making repeated demands, similar observations were made in case Wazir Chand v. State, 1989(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 109: AIR 1989S.C. 378. 14. As regards the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, it may be observed that the witnesses being illiterate and rustic villagers, minor discrepancies were bound to occur in their statements but the same cannot be thrown away for such contradictions as they were the last persons to implicate the accused persons in the false case and they being members of the family were the best persons to explain as to what happened with their family member and what was going on in between the deceased and the accused. In normal human behaviour, the deceased was supposed to explain to her parents as to what was happening in the four walls of her marital house. Thus, Ran Singh and Satish are the best witnesses to explain the circumstances which impelled Kanta to commit suicide consequently it stands established beyond doubt that the accused had been harassing the deceased and maltreating her on account of demand of some articles of dowry at one time and the other articles at the other time and she having been fed up with their treatment at the marital home to such an extent that she found it better to choose the lap of God by giving up the love of her only son aged about 2 1/2 years otherwise, no mother would like to part with her only male child. Thus, the extent of torture from which she was suffering could be assessed from this aspect of the case also. Thus, the extent of torture from which she was suffering could be assessed from this aspect of the case also. The conduct of the accused was most unnatural in as much as they had no respect or regard for the deceased or her parents, they without informing them tried to hush up the matter so that all incriminating evidence which could be used against them to take them to the gallows may not survive. 15. Now coming to the offence, there is a sufficient evidence to implicate all the three appellants-accused for the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC. As regards the offence under Section 201-IPC there is evidence only against Karambir accused that he took Kanta deceased to the cremation ground and cremated her. Therefore, the other accused namely Krishan could also be given benefit of doubt along with Dhanpati qua the offence under Section 201 IPC. 16. Now coming to the quantum of sentence Dhanpati is stated to be 61 years old whereas Krishan was 66 years old at the time of the occurrence whereas Karambir was 25 years old. The occurrence took place in the year 1994. Therefore, they must have grown very old by now as they must be in 80s and in the evening of their life. As such it would not appropriate at this stage to send them to imprisonment and allow them to die by rubbing their bones with the four walls of jail. Therefore, extraordinary circumstances exist qua them for reducing their sentence. However, Karambir appears to be dare devil that he after committing dowry death, destroyed evidence which may be used against him, as such it would be a mockery of justice, if he is extended leniency on the quantum of sentence. 17. Resultantly, this appeal is partly accepted, Krishan is acquitted to the charge under Section 201 of the IPC, however, the appeal qua of these 3 accused for the remaining offences are dismissed. The sentence of Krishan and Dhanpati is reduced to already undergone whereas the sentence qua Karambir son of Krishan is ordered to be maintained. 18. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, for compliance. 19. Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the concerned authority as per rules.