CRIMINAL APPEAL None on 19 July 1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

Criminal Appeal S- 987-SB of 1998Date of Decision : November 17, 2010

Balwan and another

....Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :Mr. D.S.Bishnoi, Advocate

Mr. Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J.

Vide judgment and order dated 15/16.10.1998 learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Hissar, convicted the appellants underSection 304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorousimprisonment for seven years. They were also convicted under Section498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for oneyear and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine,to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both thesentences were ordered to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution, complainant Chhotu Ramwent to P.S.Bhuna and made statement before the police on 19.7.1996at 2 PM to the effect that marriage of Parwati alias Pari, aged 22/23years, daughter of his brother Ramji Lal, was solemnized about 1-1/4

years with Balwan in accordance with Hindu rites. Ramji Lal gavedowry beyond his capacity. After the marriage she went to the house ofher husband and when she returned to the house of her father, she toldher family members while weeping bitterly that her husband Balwan andmother-in-law Tulsi taunted her that she had brought a ramshackle bedwith small sized mattress and her father did not give scooter in thedowry and the articles given in dowry were inadequate. They alsothreatened her that if she did not bring scooter from her father, it wouldnot be safe for her to live in their house. After about one and a halfmonth when appellant Balwan came to their house for taking Parwatiback, the parents of Parwati told him that at that moment they did nothave enough money for purchasing a scooter but promised to give hima scooter at the next harvest. Parwati was persuaded to go with herhusband to his house where she was kept nicely for sometime but theappellants again started harassing her in connection with their demandfor scooter. When her brother Hanuman went to the house of appellantBalwan, Parwati told him that her life was in danger and she would notbe allowed to live until a scooter was given to Balwan. Thereafter,Hanuman brought Parwati to his house, where Parwati told her parentsand relatives about her harassment. The parents of Parwati did not sendParwati back to the house of her husband for a considerable time.Thereafter, Balwan accompanied by a few of his relatives, came to thehouse of parents of Parwati and under the pressure and assurance of therelatives of Balwan that she would not be harassed by anybody, she was

sent by her parents with Balwan to his house. On 18.7.1996, Hanuman,alongwith Suraj Bhan, husband of Parwati's sister, went to the house ofBalwan, where Parwati told them that the appellants were in the habit ofgiving beatings to her daily and she was not even given food in time.The appellants had made her life very difficult. When Hanuman offeredto take Parwati with him to his house, the appellants picked a quarrelwith him and did not allow her to accompany Hanuman. Hanuman andSuraj Bhan narrated the incident to their relatives. On 19.7.1996, thecomplainant, alongwith Hanuman, Jagdish, Ran Singh, Ram Singh andDewan, went to the village of the appellants for enquiring about thesafety of Parwati and when they reached the farm house of appellantBalwan, they found dead body of Parwati hanging from the ceiling of aroom with the help of a plastic rope. After leaving Ran Singh and RamSingh near the dead body, the complainant went to Police Station Bhunafor giving information to the police. On the basis of the aforesaidstatement, FIR No. 141 dated 19.7.1996 under Sections 498-A/304-Bread with Section 34 IPC was registered by ASI Om Parkash.

During the course of investigation, ASI Om Parkashalongwith other police officials and one photographer went to the houseof the appellants, where the dead body of Parwati @ Pari was hanging.After taking photographs of the dead body, it was sent to Civil Hospital,Fatehabad, where Dr. P.L.Verma and Dr. D.M.Bansal conducted thepost-mortem and in their opinion, the death occurred owing to asphyxiaas a result of hanging and the hanging was ante-mortem. The death had

occurred 12 to 14 hours before post mortem. On 20.7.1996, theappellants were produced before ASI Om Parkash by Sadhu Ram,Sarpanch and they were arrested. Dowry articles were also taken intopossession by ASI Om Parkash and deposited with the MHC.

Upon completion of investigation, presentation of challan,followed by its commitment to the Court of Sessions, the appellantswere charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-AIPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1Constable Mahavir Singh, PW2 Dr. P.L.Verma, PW3 Sanjeev Kumar,photographer, PW4 Kulbhushan, Patwari, PW5 Nihal Singh, SI/SHO,PW6 complainant-Chhotu Ram, PW7 Hanuman, PW8 ASI Om Parkashand PW9 Constable Vijender Singh.

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both theappellants stated that they had been implicated falsely in the case.Marriage of Parwati with Balwan was simple. At the time of marriage,Balwan was living with his parents in their house situated within theabadi of village Dhani Sanchla. After the marriage, Balwan and hisparents constructed a small farm house in their fields. Balwan was theonly son of his parents. He had four sisters, out of whom two weremarried. Parwati wanted Balwan to live separately from his parents andsisters. Initially, Balwan agreed to this proposal. Parwati used to pickup quarrels on that account. Balwan then shifted to the residential house

situated in the village abadi alongwith the dowry articles. He, however,insisted for a joint mess with his parents and sisters. Parwati did notlike it and she frequently quarrelled with him on this score. Shecommitted suicide out of rage and anger when Balwan insisted inmaintaining his relations with his parents. The relatives of Parwati wereinformed about her death. They came to their house and gave beating tohis father and thereafter, one of the relatives of Parwati lodged a reportwith the police against them. In defence, the appellants examinedDW1 Suraj Bhan and DW2 Munshi Ram.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and goingthrough the evidence available on the record, the trial Court believed theprosecution version and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced theappellants, as mentioned above.

During the pendency of the appeal, appellant-Tulsi died.Information in this regard was supplied by learned counsel for theappellants on 18.8.2010, who sought time for placing on record herdeath certificate. While adjourning the proceedings, learned Statecounsel was directed to verify the aforementioned fact. On 17.9.2010,learned State counsel placed on record an attested copy of deathcertificate as well as report made by SHO Police Station, Bhuna, whichwere taken on record. In view of the same, learned counsel for theappellants stated that the appeal of appellant-Tulsi stood abated. Herappeal was, accordingly, disposed of.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with theirable assistance, scanned the evidence.

Learned counsel for appellant-Balwan has submitted thatneither any dowry was ever demanded from the deceased or her parentsor any of her relatives, nor the deceased was ever harassed by theappellant in connection with any such demand for dowry. According toPW-6 Chhotu Ram, an amount of Rs.1.50,000/- was spent at the time ofmarriage of Parwati with the appellant and at that time, no demand wasmade by the appellant from the parents and relatives of the deceased. Insuch a situation, it was highly improbable that later-on, the appellantand his mother would start taunting the deceased for bringing inferiorquality of dowry articles, besides not bringing a scooter for theappellant. Further, Chhotu Ram's son-in-law Surjit Singh, who was thego-between in the marriage of the appellant with the deceased wasresident of village of the appellant, but despite the same, neither ChhotuRam nor his relatives ever complained to said Surjit Singh about theharassment of the deceased at the hands of the appellant and his motheron account of inferior quality of dowry articles. It is submitted that nosuch incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had taken place on18.7.1996 but the same was introduced only with the sole purpose ofestablishing the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased.It is also submitted that the reason for the deceased to commit suicide byhanging herself from the ceiling of the house was not on account of anydemand for dowry or harassment in connection thereof, but it was for

the reason that the appellant, being the only son of his parents, had beeninsisting upon the deceased to maintain joint mess with his parents but itwas the deceased herself, who had been insisting upon shifting from thefields so that she might have residence and mess separate from the closerelatives of her husband.

There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was marriedto the appellant about an year and four months before the unfortunateincident took place. On 19.7.1996, when the close relatives of thedeceased went to the house of the appellant in order to enquire about thewelfare of the deceased that they noticed the dead body of the deceasedhanging from the ceiling of the room. The dead body was, thereafter,subjected to post-mortem by PW-2 Dr P.L. Verma, who found a fractureand dislocation of one of the cervical vertebrae and the cause of deathas asphyxia on account of hanging, which was ante-mortem in nature. Itis also not denied that the death of the deceased had taken place in thehouse of the appellant. As regards the circumstances leading to herdeath, PW-7 Hanuman, brother of the deceased, had deposed that whenhe, alongwith his another sister's husband-Suraj Bhan went to the houseof the appellant on 18.7.1996, the deceased complained that no food wasgiven to her and she apprehended that she might be killed. She alsostated that the appellant and his mother were harassing her in order toobtain more dowry and a scooter for the appellant. Merely, becausePW-7 Hanuman had not stated about the incident of 18.7.1996 at thetime of inquest is no ground to hold that no such incident had taken

place on 18.7.1996. While conducting the inquest, the InvestigatingOfficer is required to collect material so as to find the cause of death. Heis not required to incorporate the minute details of the occurrence. Afterrecording the FIR, PW-8 ASI Om Parkash had left the Police Station forthe spot and had taken the photographer with him. PW-3 SanjeevKumar, photographer, has deposed that after going to the spot, he hadtaken two photographs of the dead body which was hanging from theroof. Those photographs were taken by him on 19.7.1996 at about 3.30PM. While filling the columns of the inquest report, ASI Om Parkashnoted that there was a ligature mark, which was almost complete,around the neck of the deceased and the apparent cause of death washanging. The statement made by complainant Chhotu Ram on the basisof which FIR was registered, was also incorporated in the body of theinquest and a specific mention was made therein about the incident of18.7.1996. PW-7 Hanuman had identified the dead body to be that of hissister Parwati and, accordingly, he appended his signatures on the saidreport. However, no statement, much less a detailed statement, wasmade by PW-7 Hanuman at the time of inquest proceedings. Evenwhile appearing as PW-7, Hanuman stated that when the police came tothe spot and conducted the inquest proceedings, he attested the inquestreport, besides signing the same. Therefore, the testimony of PW-7Hanuman cannot be ruled out of consideration.

It was consistent case of the prosecution that soon after themarriage of the deceased with the appellant, the latter, alongwith his

mother, had been harassing the deceased for bringing inadequate dowry.When she could not meet their demand, she was even deprived of food.She had been, time and again, informing her close relatives about herharassment. This treatment continued up to the last breath of thedeceased as a day before i.e. 18.7.1996, she complained to her closerelatives about her being beaten. When PW-7 Hanuman wanted to takeher with him to his house, the appellant and his mother picked up aquarrel and did not allow her to accompany Hanuman. After returningto their house, Hanuman and Suraj Bhan narrated about the incident totheir family members and on the following day, complainant ChhotuRam, alongwith a couple of his family members, went to the house ofthe appellant to enquire about the welfare of the deceased but onreaching the farm house of the appellant found the dead body of Parwatihanging from ceiling of the room.

In view of the above, the prosecution has been able toestablish that the appellant had treated the deceased with cruelty inconnection with demand of dowry and the appellant was responsible forcausing dowry death.

In his defence, the appellant had examined two witnesses.DW-1 Suraj Bhan deposed that after he was informed that the deceasedhad committed suicide by hanging, he went to theDhaniof the appellantin the fields, where father of the appellant asked him to inform theparents of the deceased about the incident. On receipt of informationform him, the complainant, alongwith others, reached theDhaniof the

appellant. When the parents of the deceased demanded the return of thedowry, a dispute arose between them and the appellant wherein father ofthe appellant suffered injury. In cross-examination, he stated that fatherof the appellant was taken to City Hospital, which was a private hospitaland the doctor did not issue any prescription slip. There is, thus, nocorroboration to his testimony that the father of the appellant hadsuffered injury at the hands of the complainant party.

Similarly, DW-2 Munshi Ram, who happened to bematernal uncle of the appellant testified that the appellant and hismother used to treat the deceased with love and affection. He also statedthat the appellant used to live in the house situated in the residential areaof the village at the time of solemnization of his marriage but after themarriage, he alongwith his wife and parents started living in a housesituated in the fields. The deceased started insisting upon setting up aseparate house. She went to her parents and lived there for six months.He himself went to the house of complainant so as to persuade thedeceased to join the society of her husband. When the parents of thedeceased came to the house of the appellant, the household goods weredivided. The household goods belonging to the deceased were given toher, who, however, dumped the same in a separate house. Even,thereafter, the appellant and the deceased maintained common messwith the parents of the appellant and there was a promise to set up aseparate kitchen after a week or so. In cross-examination, he testifiedthat he went to the house of the appellant for persuading the deceased

to return to the house of the appellant six months before her death andat that time, the parents of the deceased did not tell him that theappellant and his parents were treating the deceased with cruelty andeven no assurance was asked from him. He denied the suggestion thatthe appellant and his mother had been giving beatings to the deceasedand turning her out of the matrimonial home on account of non-fulfilling the demand of dowry. Apparently, DW-2 Munshi Ram hadcome to shield his sister Tulsi and nephew Balwan from the crimecommitted by them. In case, the household goods stood separatedbetween the appellant and the deceased, on the one hand and the parentsof the appellant, on the other, the deceased could have started livingseparately. On the other hand, the deceased and her husband continuedto maintain common mess with the parents and other family members ofthe appellant. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellant onthe basis of testimonies of DW-1 Suraj Bhan and DW-2 Munshi Ram.

In view of the aforementioned, no case is made out for anyinterference in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by thetrial Court qua appellant-Balwan. His appeal is without any merit and,therefore, dismissed.

November 17, 2010ajay-1/pds.

( T.P.S. MANN )JUDGE