Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 929 (PNJ)

Deepak Kashyap & Pushpa v. State of UT Chandigarh

2013-07-25

Mehinder Singh Sullar

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- As illogical as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency of husbands to harass and treat their wives with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry, culminating into their deaths, otherwise than under normal circumstances at the first instance and sequelly, the frequency of relatives of the deceased involving all other relatives of husbands in criminal cases of dowry death, in order to wreak vengeance, have been tremendously increasing day-byday adversely affecting the basic social fabric of the society. Moreover, leaving the Courts in lurch to separate the grain from the chaff (evidence) as regards the main accused husband & his relatives are concerned. The case in hand is the burning example of such like cases. 2. The epitome of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that the marriage of Anita, daughter of complainant Mam Chand Katoch (PW7), was solemnized with appellant Deepak Kashyap son of late Basti Ram on 19.7.1998, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Chandigarh. Her father was stated to have given sufficient dowry beyond his capacity at the time of marriage, but the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles. On 14.8.1998, she had gone to her parental house on account of black month (Kala Mahina). She was upset. She disclosed the reasons of her depression that Deepak Kashyap (husband), Pushpa (mother-in-law), Pardeep Kumar and Vinod Kumar brothers-in-law (Devars) used to demand a new car and gold ornaments on the eve of Karva Chauth. She was stated to have also disclosed that Madhu Chandel, Indu Sharma sisters-in-law (Nanands) and their husbands Shamsher Singh Chandel & Vijay Sharma respectively, had been frequently visiting her matrimonial home and taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry articles. Initially, Anita remained in her matrimonial home till 13.8.1998 and thereafter went to her parental house on 14.8.1998. On 21.9.1998, she came to her matrimonial home with her brother Rakesh Katoch (PW9) and his wife. After leaving Anita to her matrimonial home, they left for their village in Himachal Pradesh. Initially, Anita remained in her matrimonial home till 13.8.1998 and thereafter went to her parental house on 14.8.1998. On 21.9.1998, she came to her matrimonial home with her brother Rakesh Katoch (PW9) and his wife. After leaving Anita to her matrimonial home, they left for their village in Himachal Pradesh. It was claimed that at that time, they had given gold set containing necklace, ear rings, one chain, one ring, five suits for Anita, two suits for her motherin- law, two suits for her husband, two sarees for her sisters-in-law, clothes for her brothers-in-law and other customary gifts/articles to the accused. 3. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 10.10.1998 at about 9 A.M., his nephew Sandeep reached the village in Himachal Pradesh of the complainant and told that Anita has died. Thereafter, they came to Chandigarh and identified her dead body in General Hospital. 4. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that his daughter Anita has committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and other pointed relatives in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. Thus, they have committed the offence of dowry death. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PD) of complainant Mam Chand Katoch, the present criminal case was registered against appellants Deepak Kashyap (husband), his mother Pushpa (mother-inlaw) and his other indicated relatives (acquitted accused), by means of FIR No.166 dated 11.10.1998 (Ex.PD/1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A and 120- B IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh in the manner depicted here-in-above. 5. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellants and acquitted accused to face the trial for the offences in question. 6. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellants and acquitted accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC by the trial Court. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 7. 6. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellants and acquitted accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC by the trial Court. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 7. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellants and acquitted accused, examined PW1 Kulbir Singh Gill, Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, who prepared the inquest report (Ex.PA) after reaching the spot i.e. House No.1645/1, Sector 40, Chandigarh. PW2 Constable Yash Pal prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PB) of the place of occurrence. PW3 Constable Ganga Parshad has stated that the sealed parcel of clothes of the deceased, which was handed over by the doctor, was handed over by him to SI Labh Singh. The same was taken into possession. PW4 Constable Harjinder Singh has proved the photographs (Ex.P7 to Ex.P12) and the negatives (Ex.P1 to Ex.P6). PW5 HC Baljit Singh has deposed that on 12.10.1998, five sealed parcels with the sample seal of CMO were deposited in the Malkhana through C.Ganga Parshad. On the same day, SI Labh Singh handed over to him one gold necklace (Haar), one pair of Kantas (ear rings) having white pearls, one gold ring (gents), one pair of topas (gold) and other articles, vide entry in register No.19 (Ex.PB/1). PW6 Varinder Kumar, Printer has produced the marriage card (Ex.PC) & envelope (Ex.PC/1). PW8 SI Jaspal Singh on receipt of writing (ruqqa) (Ex.PD), recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PD/1). 8. Sequelly, the next to note is the testimony of PW10 SI Labh Singh, Investigating Officer, who has testified that on 10.10.1998 on receipt of a telephonic message that a lady has committed suicide, he along with other police officials reached the spot and noticed the dead body of Anita hanging with a fan in a room on the first floor of H.No.1645/1, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. He got snapped the photographs of the dead body and of the spot. He also called the Executive Magistrate there. PW1 K.S.Gill reached there and inspected the hanging dead body. The inquest report (Ex.PF) was prepared by him. PW1 also verified the inquest report (Ex.PA). After completing all the formalities at the spot, the dead body of Anita was taken to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh for post mortem examination, where the complainant made his statement (Ex.PD). PW1 K.S.Gill reached there and inspected the hanging dead body. The inquest report (Ex.PF) was prepared by him. PW1 also verified the inquest report (Ex.PA). After completing all the formalities at the spot, the dead body of Anita was taken to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh for post mortem examination, where the complainant made his statement (Ex.PD). He made his endorsement (Ex.PD/3) and sent the same to police station through constable Virinder Kumar for registration of the case. On 11.10.1998, he again went to the spot and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PG) and arrested the accused. On the same day, the articles were taken into possession, vide recovery memo (Ex.PH). He further stated that on 12.10.1998, six sealed parcels were handed over to him by constable Virinder Kumar. The same were taken into possession, vide recovery memo (Ex.PJ). Subsequently, accused Deepak produced a gold chain, which was taken into possession, by virtue of memo (Ex.PK). He recorded the statements of the witnesses. 9. Likewise, complainant Mam Chand Katoch, while appearing as PW7, has deposed as under:- “I had total five children. The name of the eldest child i.e. son Manohar Chand age 36 years, then Indu age 33 years, Anita deceased, Rakesh aged 26 years and Jatinder aged 22 years. My daughter Anita deceased was married to Deepak Kashyap present in the Court on 19.7.1998 according to Hindu rites and ceremony. After the marriage, my daughter resided with accused Deepak as his wife in H.No.1645/1, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. I had spent according to my capacity at the time of marriage of my daughter Anita deceased with accused Deepak. My daughter Anita was left at my residence by her Dewar (brother-in-law) namely Pardeep on 14.8.1998 considering the month starting from 14.8.1998 as “Kala Mahina” (Black month). My daughter started living depression. I asked the cause of depression from my daughter who told me that her mother-in-law Pushpa Kashyap accused, her husband Deepak, brother-in-law Pardeep and Vinod were demanding a new car and gold ornaments as further dowry. Besides them she also told that her sistersin- law and sisters-in-law husbands also taunted her as and when they visited the family of the accused present in the Court. The accused present in the Court had also demanded the further dowry from my daughter on the occasion of Karva Chauth as this fact was also disclosed by my deceased daughter to me. The accused present in the Court had also demanded the further dowry from my daughter on the occasion of Karva Chauth as this fact was also disclosed by my deceased daughter to me. My daughter remained in my house from 14.8.1998 to 21.9.1998 and during this period neither her husband nor any member of his family came to see my deceased daughter. Thereafter on 21.9.1998 when we sent our daughter Anita with my son we had also handed over to my daughter a golden set containing a necklace, ring and ear rings and one golden chain. Five ladies suits, two ladies suit to mother-in-law, two suits to accused Deepak, one pant shirt each to the brother-in-law of my deceased daughter. Two sarees to the sisters-in-law of deceased Anita and Rs.101/- each to the husbands of the sisters-in-law of my deceased daughter, one VIP attachee-case, one Alfa attache case, 12 steel glasses were given to my daughter. My son who had accompanied my daughter to the house of her in-laws on 21.9.1998 was asked by me to give “Sargi” one day before Karva Chauth. Thereafter, we had gone to Himachal Pradesh on 21.9.1998 in the evening. On 10.10.1998 my Bhanja (sister’s son) gave an information to me in village Maila, District Kangra that my daughter had died. This message was received at 9.00 p.m. On this, we reached Chandigarh by hiring a van and went to general hospital, Sector 17, where the body of my daughter was identified. The FIR was lodged by me on the same day i.e. 11.10.1998. My daughter has been compelled by the accused present in the Court namely Deepak, Pushpa, Pardeep, Vinod, S.S.Chandel, Madhu Chandel, Indu Sharma and Vijay Sharma. The complaint Ex.PD was made by me to the police. This bears my signature. I had also supplied the list of dowry articles which is Ex.PE which were received by me back through the Court from the accused persons. I had also handed over 15 photographs to the police. However, their negatives are with me which I produce on the file. The photographs are Ex.P13 to Ex.P27 and their negatives are Ex.P28 to Ex.P42.” 10. The last to note is the testimony of PW9 Rakesh Katoch, who has corroborated the statement of his father complainant (PW7) on all vital counts. However, their negatives are with me which I produce on the file. The photographs are Ex.P13 to Ex.P27 and their negatives are Ex.P28 to Ex.P42.” 10. The last to note is the testimony of PW9 Rakesh Katoch, who has corroborated the statement of his father complainant (PW7) on all vital counts. The prosecution has also placed reliance on copy of list of dowry articles (Ex.PE), recovery memo of photograph & marriage card (Ex.PE/2) and copy of post mortem report (Ex.PL) in documentary evidence. 11. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants and acquitted accused were recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, appellant Deepak Kashyap has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following manner:- “I am innocent. No one demanded any dowry. No one from my relative troubled or harassed to Anita. Nothing was concealed and that it was known that I was employed as driver. In fact firstly talk for marriage between Vinod my brother and Anita was started but failed. It appears Anita was not happy with her marriage with me and it was done against her wishes by her parents. Anita even did not allow me sex with her. I used to go for my work in the morning and came back in the evening. It was a simple marriage and only minor traditional gifts were given in marriage by either sides. No demand was ever made. I was only living with Anita at house No.1645/1, Sector 40, Chandigarh. The house was so closed to the house of parents of Anita and she frequently visited her house no.3365/2, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh, but she was not given respect in her parents house because of the presence of step-mother and children from her in that house. Pardeep never went to leave her parental place due to Kala Mahina or any other occasion. Likewise step brother Rakesh Katoch and other step brothers did not visit our house on any occasion. Rather none visited in our house on any occasion. Further I may say that other cause of frustration of Anita appears to be that she wanted to attend the Barsi of her grand mother but she was not taken by her parents. None came for giving any Karva Chauth.” 12. Rather none visited in our house on any occasion. Further I may say that other cause of frustration of Anita appears to be that she wanted to attend the Barsi of her grand mother but she was not taken by her parents. None came for giving any Karva Chauth.” 12. Similarly, the other accused have also adopted the same line of defence. The appellants, in order to prove their defence, have examined Dr.Rajnish Kumar as DW1, Manga Ram son of Krishan Dutt as DW2, Kuldip Singh Clerk as DW3, Kishan Chand as DW4, Om Parkash son of Jagat Ram as DW5, Harinder Singh son of Gurbachan Singh as DW6 and produced on record copy of zimni (Ex.DA), copy of medical record of Pushpa appellant (Ex.DB), lists of voters (Ex.DC & Ex.DE), voter card of Vinod Kashyap (Ex.DD), certificate (Ex.DF) issued by Parasher Nursing Home and certificate (Ex.DH) regarding admission of appellant Pushpa. This is all the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties. 13. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, accused Pardeep Kumar, Vinod Kumar brothers-in-law (Devars), Madhu Chandel & Indu Sharma sisters-in-law (Nanands) and their husbands Shamsher Singh Chandel and Vijay Sharma respectively, were acquitted. At the same time, appellants Deepak Kashyap (husband) and Pushpa (mother-in-law) were convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short “RI”) for a period of seven years, to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of three months each for the commission of offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC and to undergo RI for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to further undergo RI for a period of one month u/s 498-A IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, by way of impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 7.6.2001 by the trial Judge. 14. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present appeal deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 16. That is how I am seized of the matter. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present appeal deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 16. As indicated here-in-above, the appellants were charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 304-B & 498-A IPC. Section 304-B IPC postulates that “Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.” Similar is the provision of offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC as well. 17. Therefore, a conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions, as also so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 396] : 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 877 and Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 892, would reveal that the prosecution is legally required to prove the following essential ingredients before invoking the provisions of sections 304-B and 498-A IPC:- (i) The death of wife should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) Such death should have been occurred within seven years of the marriage; (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. 18. 18. At the same time, the distinction between the required volume and appreciation of relevant evidence brought on record by the prosecution in dowry death case against the main accused & husband on the one hand and his relatives on the other hand, was considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324(1), which was subsequently followed in a line of judgments, wherein it was ruled that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry death. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. 19. Again the same very view was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3235] : 2010(7) SCC 667 and it was held as under (paras 30 to 36) :- “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. 35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society. 36. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.” 20. Above being the legal position & evidence on record, now the core controversy, though important, that arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether all the essential ingredients of the offences in question are complete or not ? 21. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.” 20. Above being the legal position & evidence on record, now the core controversy, though important, that arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether all the essential ingredients of the offences in question are complete or not ? 21. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the prosecution was successful in proving all the essential ingredients as regards main accused appellant Deepak Kashyap (husband), is concerned. At the same time, it has miserably failed to prove any specific role or overt-act in respect of appellant Pushpa, mother-in-law of the deceased, in this relevant connection. She deserves the benefit of doubt and acquittal as well, for the reasons depicted herein- below. 22. It is not a matter of dispute that Anita committed suicide in her matrimonial home within a period of three months of her marriage. The initial two premises stand established on record. However, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution has led sufficient and reliable evidence to establish the indicated 3rd & 4th ingredients i.e. soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with and on account of dowry articles by whom or not? 23. As is evident from the record that marriage of Anita was solemnized with appellant Deepak Kashyap on 19.7.1998, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Chandigarh. Initially, she remained in her matrimonial home till 13.8.1998 and went to her parental house on 14.8.1998 on the eve of black month (Kala Mahina). She remained there from 14.8.1998 to 20.9.1998 and again returned to her matrimonial home on 21.9.1998. She committed suicide on 10.10.1998. The complainant (PW7) has vaguely stated that although he had spent according to his capacity at the time of marriage of Anita, but she remained under depression. He asked the cause of depression and she told that appellants Deepak Kashyap (husband), Pushpa (mother-in-law), Pardeep Kumar, Vinod Kumar brothers-in-law (Devars), Madhu Chandel, Indu Sharma (sisters-in-law) and their husbands Shamsher Singh Chandel & Vijay Sharma respectively were demanding a new car and gold ornaments as further dowry on the occasion of Karva Chouth. He asked the cause of depression and she told that appellants Deepak Kashyap (husband), Pushpa (mother-in-law), Pardeep Kumar, Vinod Kumar brothers-in-law (Devars), Madhu Chandel, Indu Sharma (sisters-in-law) and their husbands Shamsher Singh Chandel & Vijay Sharma respectively were demanding a new car and gold ornaments as further dowry on the occasion of Karva Chouth. He has further maintained that on 21.9.1998, when Anita had gone to her matrimonial home, he gave golden set, five ladies suits, other customary gifts and clothes etc. Although PW9 has also so stated, but, to my mind, possibly, no implicit reliance can be placed on their self serving statements and interested evidence because no cogent evidence is forth coming on record to prove that appellant Pushpa (mother-in-law) was residing in the same house No.1645/1, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh, where Anita committed suicide. It has also come in the evidence of DW1 Dr.Rajnish Kumar that one street/stray dog had bitten appellant Pushpa and she came to her clinic on 2.10.1998. He gave injections of Rabipur and Tetanus toxoid to her. DW5 Om Parkash has stated that he was posted as Dispenser in Prashar Clinic, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, owned by Dr.Kailash Prashar. On the prescription of the doctor, he gave injections of Rabipur/Tetanus toxoid to Pushpa on 5.10.1998 and 10.10.1998 at Solan, vide prescription slip (Ex.DH) and certificate (Ex.DF). DW2 Mangat Ram has also deposed that appellant Deepak Kashyap was residing with his wife in a separate house, bearing No.1645/1, Sector 40-B Chandigarh. No other member of his family was residing with them. 24. That means, it is established from the evidence on record that appellant Deepak Kashyap (husband) was residing with her (deceased) at the time of the commission of the offence. On the contrary, it is proved on record that appellant Pushpa was residing at Solan, soon before the present occurrence. She is an old and infirm lady of 80 years of age. In that eventuality, the question of demand of dowry by her soon before the death of Anita pales into insignificance as asserted by the prosecution. Moreover, almost similar allegations were attributed to acquitted accused i.e. Pardeep Kumar, Vinod Kumar, brothers-in-law (Devars), Madhu Chandel, Indu Sharma sisters-in-law (Nanands) and their husbands Shamsher Singh Chandel & Vijay Sharma respectively by PW7 & PW9 as are assigned to appellant Pushpa (mother-in-law). Moreover, almost similar allegations were attributed to acquitted accused i.e. Pardeep Kumar, Vinod Kumar, brothers-in-law (Devars), Madhu Chandel, Indu Sharma sisters-in-law (Nanands) and their husbands Shamsher Singh Chandel & Vijay Sharma respectively by PW7 & PW9 as are assigned to appellant Pushpa (mother-in-law). The trial Court did not believe that part of the story of the prosecution and acquitted all other relatives in the manner described here-in-above. 25. Meaning thereby, very very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to appellant Pushpa (mother-in-law of the deceased). No specific role or overt-act or demand of dowry except the vague allegation of demand of car. She was not going to be benefitted from the car meant for husband of the deceased. Hence, to my mind, it would not be safe to convict her in the absence of any acceptable evidence of specific demand of dowry or overt-act. Her case does not fall within the parameter and Bench mark set out by Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgments. As the possibility of false implication of appellant Pushpa by the complainant in this case in order to wreak vengeance, cannot be ruled out, therefore, she deserves the benefit of doubt as well. 26. Be that as it may, but, as regards the role of appellant Deepak Kashyap (husband) is concerned, although there is a legal presumption as contemplated u/s 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, but still, there is a positive evidence of cruelty against him. 27. Ex facie, the cosmetic arguments of learned counsel that the deceased did not like her match/husband and since her father did not take her to village Maila to attend the Barsi (Chobiasi) ceremony of her grandmother, so, she committed suicide on account of depression, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well and deserve to be ignored for more than one reason. 28. At the first instance, there is no cogent evidence on record that Anita did not like her husband. Secondly, if she had not liked the match, then, she would and ought to have objected to it and lodged protest before her marriage. There was no occasion for her to commit suicide after about three months of the marriage on account of disliking of her husband. Secondly, if she had not liked the match, then, she would and ought to have objected to it and lodged protest before her marriage. There was no occasion for her to commit suicide after about three months of the marriage on account of disliking of her husband. Moreover, it is highly improbable to believe that an educated woman would commit suicide on such trivial issue of not taking her to attend the Barsi ceremony of her grand-mother, as projected by the learned counsel for the appellants. Thus, the contrary submissions of learned counsel for appellants “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 29. Not only that, appellant Deepak Kashyap is the main accused and husband of the deceased. He was the person, who alone was residing with her in the matrimonial home, where she committed suicide in the same very house. It was so stated by PW7, PW9 and DW2 that he was residing with the deceased in H.No.1645/1, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh and no other family member was residing in that house. In that eventuality, it was his duty to explain the reasons for her suicide, which he has utterly failed to do so in this behalf. There is a positive and acceptable evidence of PW7 and PW9 on the record that appellant Deepak Kashyap demanded the dowry articles and the car from her parents. This demand of car is directly relatable to him as no other person was going to be benefitted in this respect. 30. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. The unnatural conduct of appellant Deepak Kashyap raises an accusing finger towards his guilt. The evidence on record would reveal that he did not accompany the deceased, when she had gone to her parental house on 14.8.1998. It was his brother Pardeep Kumar, who accompanied her to her parental house. During her stay from 14.8.1998 to 20.9.1998, appellant Deepak Kashyap never visited there. So much so, he did not visit there to bring her back to matrimonial home. It was her brother Rakesh Katoch (PW9), who took her to matrimonial home on 21.9.1998. Thus, preceding on these premises, it can safely be inferred that appellant Deepak Kashyap was not happy with the deceased and used to treat her with cruelty. So much so, he did not visit there to bring her back to matrimonial home. It was her brother Rakesh Katoch (PW9), who took her to matrimonial home on 21.9.1998. Thus, preceding on these premises, it can safely be inferred that appellant Deepak Kashyap was not happy with the deceased and used to treat her with cruelty. Hence the legal presumption is applicable and prosecution has duly proved the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. 31. Therefore, if the crux of the totality of the facts & evidence, emitting from the record, as discussed here-in-above is put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that it was appellant Deepak Kashyap (husband) alone, who had demanded the car, dowry articles, harassed and treated the deceased with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. In this manner, he has committed the offence of dowry death and the trial Court has rightly convicted him for the indicated offences. 32. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 33. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal is partly accepted. The impugned judgment of conviction, relatable to appellant Pushpa (mother-in-law), is set aside. Having extended the benefit of doubt, she is acquitted of the charges framed against her. At the same time, the appeal of appellant Deepak Kashyap (husband) is hereby dismissed as such. Consequently, the impugned judgment of his conviction & order of sentence are maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of appellant Deepak Kashyap forthwith and commit him to jail to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence. Needless to mention that the necessary compliance and procedural consequences would naturally follow. ---------0.B.S.0------------