Soran Singh vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 1445 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                      Judgment Reserved on : 10th March, 2010
                      Judgment Pronounced on: 16thMarch, 2010

+                         CRL APPEAL NO.713/2007

        SORAN SINGH                                ..... Appellant
                 Through:           Mr.S.N. Gaur, Advocate

                                    versus

        STATE                                    ..... Respondent
                      Through:      Ms. Richa Kapoor, A.P.P.

                          CRL APPEAL NO.706/2007

        RAKESH                                     ..... Appellant
                      Through:      Mr.S.N. Gaur, Advocate

                                    versus

        STATE                                    ..... Respondent
                      Through:      Ms. Richa Kapoor, A.P.P.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                       Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                                                                 Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Rakesh husband of deceased Mamta and his father

Soran Singh have been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 498A IPC as also for the offence punishable

under Section 304-B IPC.

2. That deceased named Mamta committed suicide in

her matrimonial house somewhere around 10:00 PM at

19.05.2005 is not in dispute and learned counsel for the

appellant very fairly conceded to said fact. The deceased

hung herself from the neck using a saree and the post mortem

report Ex.PW-9/A duly proved by Dr.Arvind Kumar PW-9 and

the opinion of the said doctor establishes the fact of Mamta

suffering a suicidal death. That Mamta and Rakesh got

married on 13.02.2005 is also not in dispute, being a fact

deposed to by Mohan Singh PW-2, Maya Devi PW-4, Rai Singh

PW-6 and Purshotam PW-3 being the brother, mother, father

and uncle (fufa) of Mamta and not disputed by the appellants

when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

3. Thus, out of the three ingredients required to be

proved by the prosecution entitling the prosecution to the

benefit of the presumption contemplated by Section 304-B IPC

and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872; shifting

the burden upon the appellants to prove their innocence, two

ingredients stand admitted, being that, the deceased died

otherwise than under normal circumstances and that the death

was within seven years of the marriage.

4. The debate before the learned trial Judge and in the

appeal was, whether it was established that soon before her

death the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty in

relation to a demand for dowry. That is to say, whether the

suicide by the deceased was driven by cruelty towards the

deceased to extract dowry from her parents.

5. We note that two other co-accused, being Rakesh‟s

sister and her husband, have been acquitted by the learned

trial Judge.

6. The parents of the deceased as also her brother

and her uncle have all deposed that the appellants used to

trouble Mamta on account of dowry and that inspite of

whatever was given to Mamta and Rakesh at the time of

marriage, a demand for a two-wheeler conveyance and Rs.1

lac persisted. They deposed that Mamta used to frequently

complain to them of being harassed by the appellants. Muted

inculpatory statements qua Rakesh‟s sister and her husband

were also made by the witnesses.

7. Save and except pointing out to us the difference in

the language used by the four witnesses qua the demand of

dowry, nothing of substance was shown to us to discredit the

testimony of the witnesses save and except to urge that

keeping in view the social profile of the parties the social

custom of not trying to resolve the dispute with the elders of

the community sitting as Panchas not having been resorted to,

evidences that no such problem existed.

8. The said argument merits no deep consideration for

the reason Rakesh and Mamta got married on 13.02.2005 and

within seven months of the marriage Mamta committed

suicide on 19.09.2005. So short is the time span that there is

every reasonable probability that before inviting the

intervention of community elders, the family members of

Mamta tried to reason it out with the appellants. It does

happen that before exposing the family problems to the world

at large, an attempt is made to evolve in house consensus.

9. The testimony of the four afore-noted witnesses

establishes beyond a shadow of doubt that Mamta was

subjected to harassment on account of dowry. But whether

the same were mere taunts or took the form of physical

beating is not clear for the reason the four witnesses have

deposed that Mamta used to cry before her family members

stating that she was being harassed on account of non-

payment of Rs.1 lac and a two-wheeler scooter. What acts

constituted harassment have not been narrated.

10. Thus, the problem which needs to be addressed is,

what is the effect of an incident which took place, concerning

Mamta and her father-in-law, probably 3-4 days prior to

18.09.2005?

11. It be noted that Mamta committed suicide at

around 10:00 P.M. on 19.09.2005.

12. The incident, as told by Mamta to her father,

brother and uncle pertains to Mamta being sexually harassed

by Soran Singh, her father-in-law. The three witnesses have

used different expressions while deposing in court as to what

Mamta told them, but each of them speaks unanimously and

so does Mamta‟s mother that all of them went to the

matrimonial house of Mamta on 18.09.2005 in the evening

because Mamta had contacted her parents over the telephone

and had urgently required them to meet her at her

matrimonial house. As per the three witnesses, Mamta told

them that her father-in-law had attempted, (to use the

colloquial expression) to act fresh with her. As deposed to by

Mohan Singh PW-2, Mamta‟s brother, as told to all of them by

Mamta, her father-in-law had caught her hand. Rai Singh PW-

6, Mamta‟s father, also deposed that Mamta complained of her

father-in-law catching hold of her hand and molesting her.

Purshotam PW-3 has also deposed likewise but with a further

addition that when appellant Soran Singh was confronted with

what Mamta told them, Soran Singh stated that he had no evil

intention and was only looking at a mole on Mamta‟s face.

13. All the four witnesses unanimously deposed that on

19.09.2005, in the morning, Mamta and her brother Mohan

Singh PW-2 spoke over the phone and Mamta told her brother

that her in-laws were in a hurdle and were discussing

something and she feared that if they learnt that she had once

again spoken with her parents they may beat her.

14. The same day around 10:00 in the night Mamta

committed suicide.

15. It may be noted that the socio economic profile of

Mamta‟s family and that of her in-laws is not too healthy. Her

father-in-law Soran Singh is a junk dealer. Her father Rai Singh

is a rickshaw puller. The families live in a slum area.

16. It is apparent that something had disturbed Mamta

to the extreme. What was that?

17. Section 304-B IPC reads as under:

"304-B Dowry Death.

(1) 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.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life"

18. „Soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or

harassment‟ is the lynch pin of the third limb of Section 304-B

IPC.

19. Proximity of time, between harassment or cruelty

motivated by the desire of dowry and death, is not to be

measured with reference to hours or days. As held in the

decision reported as Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab 2000 Crl.LJ

2993 (SC) the expression „soon before' is not synonymous with

the term „immediately before‟ and is opposite of the

expression „soon after' as used and understood in illustration

(a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

20. If the cruelty or harassment and demand for dowry

being the foundation for the cruelty or harassment, is shown to

have persisted, it shall be deemed to be soon before death

unless intervening circumstances show the non existence of

such treatment or any other cause which compelled the victim

to take a drastic step terminating her life.

21. Evidence brought on record in the instant case

points towards that the deceased was under immense mental

strain on 18th on account of some overt acts directed towards

her and committed by her father-in-law which she perceived as

an affront to her dignity.

22. But the question arises what would be the position

in law if it is shown that the demand for dowry and harassment

on account thereof was also persistently a source of torture to

Mamta. The question then to be answered would be whether

the ammunition which exploded was the harassment due to

dowry demand or whether the ammunition which exploded

was the act of sexual harassment or whether the act of sexual

harassment was the spark and what exploded as ammunition

was the harassment on account of dowry?

23. Nobody can answer this question with 100%

accuracy save and except Mamta herself and since we cannot

call her from her grave, we must answer the question with

reference to what is treated by the law of evidence as proved.

The Indian Evidence Act defines the expression proved as:-

"Proved"- "A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists."

24. What is proved in the instant case i.e. if we may say

so with respect to the prudent man, is that Mamta was

continuously harassed on account of a persistent demand for

dowry and additionally her father-in-law had an evil eye on

her; at-least Mamta thought so. Thus, it can safely be said

that Mamta‟s troubled mind which led her to commit suicide

was certainly influenced by the fact that she was being

harassed for dowry and thought that to get herself rid of the

problem, was to leave the world of living. The act of sexual

harassment by her father-in-law would be, at best, an

aggravating circumstance but would not mitigate the

gravamen of the seriousness of dowry demand and

harassment to fulfill the demand.

25. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established

the commission of the offence under Section 304-B IPC by the

appellants. We concur with the conclusion arrived at by the

learned trial Judge, but not on the process of reasoning

followed by the learned trial Judge.

26. On the issue of sentence we find that in the

decision reported as 1994 6 SCC 727 Hem Chand vs. State of

Rajasthan the Supreme Court held that the legislature has

provided minimum sentence of 7 years for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B IPC, which may extend to

imprisonment for life and that the extreme sentence should be

in rare cases and not in every case.

27. Noting that the acts of Soran Singh the father-in-law

of Mamta did contributed to the tension of Mamta, requiring

Rakesh to be visited with a sentence less than his father,

affirming the conviction of the appellants for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B IPC, we are of the opinion that

the sentence imposed upon the appellants requires to be

modified, in that, Rakesh should suffer RI for 7 years and his

father Soran Singh for 10 years.

28. The appeal stands disposed of modifying the

sentence imposed upon the appellants. Appellant Soran Singh

shall suffer RI for a period of 10 years for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B IPC and shall suffer

imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Appellant Rakesh shall

suffer RI for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable

under Section 304-B IPC and shall suffer imprisonment for a

period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section

498-A IPC. The sentences upon both the appellants shall run

concurrently. The appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of

Section 428 Cr.P.C.

29. The appellants are in jail. We direct a copy of this

decision be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar to be

made available to the appellants.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE

MARCH 16, 2010 'nks'