Delhi High Court
Gajinder Pal Singh & Anr vs State on 17 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 08.09.2014
Judgment delivered on : 17.09.2014
+ CRL.A. 398/2006
GAJINDER PAL SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.Rajat Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP.
+ CRL.A. 574/2006
AJINDER PAL SINGH ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP.
+ CRL.A. 660/2006
PRATAP SINGH ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP
+ CRL.A. 681/2006
RAMA DEVI ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP.
Crl. Appeals No.398/2006, 574/2006, 660/2006 & 681/2006 Page 1 of 30
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 There are five appellants before this Court. These appeals are
directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated
05.05.2006 wherein the said appellants had been convicted under
Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
and each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7
years for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC; no separate
sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 498-A of the
IPC.
2 This is a case of dowry death. Ajinder Pal Singh is the husband of
the deceased Neetu. Pratap Singh is her father-in-law and Rama Devi is
her mother-in-law. Gajinder Pal Singh and Pooja are the brother-in-law
and sister-in-law respectively of the victim.
3 Record shows that Ajinder Pal Singh and Neetu had been married
on 19.02.2003 as per Hindu rites. The date of the incident is 21.11.2003
i.e. within almost 9 months of the marriage of the parties. The victim
had died by hanging. She was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her
bedroom in the matrimonial home. The death was within 7 years of her
marriage. It was an unnatural death.
4 The version of the prosecution is that there were constant dowry
demands which were meted out to the victim by the accused persons
which had led to this unfortunate incident. Record reflects that in this
intervening period of about 9 months, the victim had gone to her
parental home at Kanpur on 3-4 occasions. Further version of the
prosecution is that for the first about 10-12 days, there was nothing
untoward; she then visited her parental home where she disclosed that
her in-laws were making the demand of a car. On 13.04.2003, her father
had come to Delhi and had given Rs.50,000/- to appellants Pratap Singh
and Rama Devi, the in-laws of the victim. This was in the presence of
the other accused. Thereafter, on repeated demands, in the first week of
August, another sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the father of the victim.
On 22.10.2003, Shalinder Singh, the uncle of the victim (resident of
Delhi) received a call from the victim, who stated that she was being
harassed for more money and her husband told her that in case the
money was not paid, she would have to go back to her parents‟ house.
On 17.11.2003, the victim was assured by her parents that money would
be paid to her in-laws after making the necessary arrangements. On
19.11.2003, the deceased telephoned her father informing him that her
mother-in-law Rama Devi and her sister-in-law Pooja had threatened her
that in case she was not able to get the money from her father, she would
be killed. On 21.11.2003, the unnatural death of Neetu was reported. As
noted supra, she had died by hanging from the ceiling fan in her
matrimonial home.
5 This in brief was the version of the prosecution.
6 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution of whom PW-8
Ravinder Singh Chauhan was the father of the victim. The mother of the
victim namely Smt. Rekha was examined as PW-9. Both the parents of
the victim had also given their statements to the SDM which had been
proved in their versions as Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-9/A respectively.
These statements had been recorded by the SDM Mohd. Ali Ashraf
(PW-12) on 22.11.2003. He had also recorded the statement of accused
Ajinder Pal Singh on an earlier date i.e. on 21.11.2003 and which had
been proved as Ex.PW-12/B. Shalinder Singh, the uncle of the victim
(chacha) who was a resident of Delhi and who had first received
information about the death of the victim was examined as PW-10.
Information about the incident was recorded in the local police station
vide DD Ex.PW-14/A and investigation was marked to ASI Arjun Singh
(PW-14) who reached the spot along with constable Hanuman Singh
(PW-11). Crime team was summoned to the spot. Photographs were
taken by HC Surender Kumar (PW-1) proved as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-
1/12 and negatives of which were proved as Ex.PW-1/13. The exhibits
which were seized from the spot included a ligature rope and a stool.
The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Lalit
(PW-3) on 23.11.2003; it was proved as Ex.PW-3/A. The death was due
to hanging. Ligature marks were ante-mortem; time since death was
reported to be two days.
7 In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.PC, all the accused pleaded innocence. Their defence was that they
had been falsely implicated; this was an unfortunate case where the
victim had taken her own life because of her personal problems. She
was not happy because she was an M.A. Pass and her husband had only
studied up to the 9th standard; he was also not good looking; the
difference in their mental set up used to keep the victim depressed which
had led to this incident.
8 In defence, three witnesses were examined. Ganga Singh (DW-1)
was the father of appellant Pooja (sister-in-law of the deceased). His
version was to the effect that his daughter was happy in her matrimonial
home (where deceased Neetu was also married) and there was no
occasion for the family to have made dowry demands upon Neetu.
Smt.Bimla was examined as DW-2. She claimed herself to be a
neighbor who used to frequently visit the house of the accused where
Neetu was living. Her version was that Neetu was not happy primarily
because of the difference in the educational qualification of herself and
her husband. Harvinder Singh, the nephew of the accused Pratap Singh
was examined as DW-3. He was living in a room on the first floor of the
matrimonial home of the parties. His deposition was also to the effect
that Neetu was unhappy because of difference in the educational
background between herself and her husband; he otherwise did not
notice any abnormality in her behavior.
9 The aforenoted oral and documentary evidence had been taken
into account by the trial Judge to order a conviction against all the
accused persons under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC.
10 On behalf of appellants Ajinder Pal Singh, Pratap Singh and
Rama Devi arguments have been addressed in deep detail by counsel
Ms.Anu Narula. On behalf of Gajinder Pal Singh and Pooja, arguments
had been addressed by Mr. Rajat Sharma. The gist of the arguments is
by and large same. Learned counsel for the appellants have drawn
attention of this Court to the testimonies of PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10.
Submission is that they are the star witnesses of the prosecution but in
their entire version, none has been able to show that the victim was
unhappy or harassed to such an extent for dowry demands that she
would have taken her life on that count. Submission being reiterated that
although this was an unfortunate incident but it was primarily for the
reason that the victim was unhappy with her marital status; she was an
educated girl having qualified at the post-graduate level and could not
connect with her husband who had not even qualified the 9th standard.
She was beautiful and the appellant was not good-looking. This was the
additional reason for the victim to remain tense and unhappy. Another
line of argument adopted by the learned counsel for the appellants is that
in February, 2003, the victim had received a telephone call from some
person who had a close friendship with Neetu and this was yet another
reason for the tension in her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the
appellants had fairly admitted that this line of defence had been taken
only in the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.PC and apart from that, there is no expounding of this defence either
through cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution or even at
the stage when the evidence was led in defence. Thus, in this
background the foremost submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that allegations, if any, of dowry harassment are vague and
general; they are in omnibus; they are not specific. In the absence of any
specification and the demands being only general in nature, conviction
cannot be founded under the aforenoted provisions of law. To support
this submission reliance has been placed upon 2014 (3) JCC 1573 (SC)
Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka , II(2003) DMC
206 (SC) Hira Lal & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, I (2013)
DMC 700 (SC) Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) Vs. State of A.P.Rep. by Public
Prosecutor and II (2007) DMC 108 (SC) Hazarilal Vs. State of M.P.
Submission being reiterated that non-specific and bald allegations
cannot attract a conviction; judgment cannot be passed on surmises and
conjectures. The second submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that it has come on record that the father of the victim was
a salaried person and was only earning Rs.7,000/- per month; the
question of his being able to pay such huge amounts as dowry (version
of the prosecution that Rs.50,000/- was paid on two different occasions)
and even at the time of marriage, Rs. 2 lacs were given, is wholly
unbelievable. Submission being that PW-8 has admitted that he has five
children; he had not withdrawn money from any bank to pay this
amount of Rs.50,000/- on the aforenoted two occasions; from where, he
gathered this money has not been explained. The prosecution has failed
to discharge its primary onus; in these circumstances, the presumption
contained in Section 113 (B) of the Evidence Act is also not available to
the prosecution. On behalf of the appellants Gajinder Pal Singh and
Pooja, it has been pointed out that there is not an iota of evidence
against them in the entire version of the parents of the victim; they have
not attributed any role to them. Moreover, Gajinder Pal Singh and Pooja
had a separate kitchen and they were not sharing it with the victim and
her husband. Reliance has been placed upon II (2007) DMC 612 (DB)
State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.; submission being that there is a
tendency by the complainant to get all relatives of the husband and his
family roped in even when there is no evidence against them. The
conviction against all the appellants is ill-founded; it is liable to be set
aside.
11 Learned APP for the State has refuted these allegations.
Submission being that the testimony of the parents of the victim
examined as PW-8 & PW-9 as also of her uncle "chacha" (PW-10) is
fully cogent and coherent; they have categorically stated that
Rs.50,000/- was given on two different occasions in lieu of the demands
made by the in-laws of the victim. Her harassment was acute; this had
led to the unfortunate incident. The incident of 19.11.2003 when the
deceased made a telephone call to her father narrating the additional
demands by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and stating that if these
demands are not met, she would be killed was the support taken by the
prosecutor to submit that these demands were immediately before the
unfortunate incident and qualified as "soon before her death" as is the
language used in Section 304-B of the IPC. Submission is that on all
counts, the impugned judgment is not liable to be interfered with.
12 Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.
13 The star witnesses of the prosecution are the parents of the victim,
namely Ravinder Singh Chauhan and Rekha examined as PW-8 and
PW-9 respectively as also the paternal uncle of the victim namely
Shalinder Singh Chauhan who was examined as PW-10. The FIR had
been registered on the statement of PW-8. He had on oath deposed that
his daughter was married to appellant Ajinder Pal Singh on 19.02.2003
at Kanpur. Her matrimonial home was at L-43, Chankya Place,
Janakpuri, Delhi where Neetu was staying along with her husband, her
father-in-law Pratap Singh, mother-in-law Rama Devi, brother-in-law
Gajinder Pal and sister-in-law Pooja. At the time of marriage Rs.2 lakhs
in cash, T.V., double bed, almirah and certain other articles were given.
Neetu stayed in her matrimonial home for about 10-12 days and then
came to Kanpur to meet her parents. She stayed there for about 20-25
days. After returning to Delhi she made a call to her father (PW-8)
telling him that her husband and her in-laws were demanding a car and
money. On 13.4.2003 PW-8 came to Delhi and gave Rs.50,000/- to the
father-in-law and mother-in-law of Neetu in the presence of other co-
accused persons. In May 2003 Neetu returned to Kanpur to stay with
the family for a few days. She was accompanied by PW-10. She stayed
there up to July, 2003 and again returned back to Delhi on 19.7.2003.
While in Kanpur she disclosed that she used to be beaten by her in-laws
for not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. On her return
to Delhi, she informed her parents that she was being harassed again for
more money. PW-8 came to Delhi in August, 2003 and gave another
sum of Rs.50,000/- to her father-in-law and mother-in-law in the
presence of the other accused persons. Prior to Diwali i.e. on
22.10.2003 Neetu had called PW-10 (resident of Delhi) informing him
that she was being pressurized by the demand of more money. PW-10
spoke to accused Ajinder Pal Singh. Ajinder Pal Singh informed PW-10
that in case the money was not paid up Neetu would be sent back to her
parents‟ house. PW-8 went to his daughter‟s house and brought her
back before Diwali. He assured her that demand of her in-laws would
be fulfilled and he would arrange for the money to be paid to her in-
laws. Neetu returned to her matrimonial home on 17.11.2003. On
19.11.2003 PW-8 received a call from Neetu informing him that her
mother-in-law (Rama Devi) and sister-in-law (Pooja) had threatened her
that if she would not be able to get the money from her father, she would
be killed. On 22.11.2003, PW-8 learnt about the unnatural death of his
daughter. He received this information through his brother (PW-10).
PW-8 along with his wife PW-9 came to Delhi. On reaching their
daughters‟ matrimonial home they saw that the body of their daughter
had already been removed. The dead body was identified. PW-8 gave
his statement (Ex.PW-8/A) before the SDM on 23.11.2003.
14 PW-8 was subject to a lengthy cross-examination. He stuck to
his stand. He reiterated that he had reached Delhi on the intervening
night of 21.11.2003 and 22.11.2003. His statement was recorded by the
SDM on 23.11.2003 at about 11.00 a.m. He admitted that at that point
of time he was earning a salary of Rs.7000/-. He had five children
including Neetu. She was an M.A. and appeared in her B.Ed.
examination but did not clear it. He volunteered that he had his own
work of screen printing in the name of Chauhan Brothers. He admitted
that he was told that Ajinder Pal Singh was Inter pass and not 9th fail.
His daughter had done a diploma in Teacher Training. Accused Ajinder
was working as a tailor and was dealing in export business. The house
at Janakpuri was owned by Ajinder Pal Singh and his family. It was a
double storey house situated on a 70-80 sq. yard plot. PW-8 admitted
that the accused lived at the ground floor. His business was being
carried out on the first floor. There was a joint kitchen. There were four
rooms on the ground floor, including one store and one baithak and one
pooja room.
15 The appellant was present in Court; he was queried on the site
plan Ex.PW-13/B as also the room in his occupation at the relevant time.
He admitted that out of four rooms, one was in his occupation, baithak
was being used as a bedroom by his parents, and the third room was in
the occupation of Gajinder and his wife Pooja and the fourth room was a
pooja room. He was carrying on his business on the first floor which
comprised of one hall.
16 PW-8 denied the suggestion that his daughter was not harassed
and troubled for dowry or that dowry demand was not made by the
accused upon her. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW-8/A
(recorded before the SDM) but no improvement could be pointed out in
that version. PW-8 denied the further suggestion given to him that
Neetu was not happy in the matrimonial home because of the
mismatched marriage and not being compatible with her husband as she
was an M.A. and the accused had not even completed the 9th standard.
He denied the suggestion that he had not given Rs.50,000/- on two
occasions or that he had not given Rs.2,00,000/- in cash at the time of
marriage of his daughter with Ajinder.
17 PW-9 was the mother of the victim and the wife of PW-8. She
fully corroborated the version of PW-8. She also testified on oath that
Neetu was being harassed by her in-laws for bringing un-sufficient
dowry; demand for car and money in lieu of the car had been made; her
husband (PW-8) had gone to her daughter‟s house and had given
Rs.50,000/- on 13.4.2003 and another sum of Rs.50,000/- was given to
them in the first week of August, 2003; their daughter had come to their
house along with her uncle (PW-10) on the occasion of Diwali and she
returned to her matrimonial home on 17.11.2003. On 19.11.2003, PW-8
(her husband) received a call from Neetu informing him that if the
money was not paid she would be killed. On 21.11.2003, PW-9 and her
husband learnt about the unnatural death of her daughter; they reached
Delhi. In her cross-examination, she reiterated her statement which had
been recorded by the SDM on 23.11.2003. She was confronted with this
statement wherein both the payments of 13.4.2003 and August, 2003 of
Rs.50,000/- on each occasion had been mentioned. PW-9 in her cross-
examination admitted that in May, 2003 her daughter had also appeared
in her examination for Nursery Teacher Training in which she had taken
admission in July, 2002. She admitted that her daughter stayed at
Kanpur where she informed her (PW-9) about the maltreatment meted
out to her for not bringing enough dowry. She was not sure if Ajinder
Pal Singh was 9th pass or fail; she admitted that her daughter was happy
with them at Kanpur. She stated that Neetu never complained to her that
she did not like the boy they had chosen for her i.e. Ajinder. She denied
the suggestion that because of her higher education qualification Neetu
was not happy with Ajinder and this was the reason which had led her to
commit suicide.
18 Shalinder Singh Chauhan, the uncle of the victim and resident of
Badarpur (Delhi) was examined as PW-10. He had also deposed on the
same lines as PW-8 and PW-9. He being a close relative had in fact
accompanied Neetu to Kanpur on her first visit there after her marriage
and also at the time when she had gone to meet her parents at the time of
Diwali. It was PW-10 himself with whom she had returned back to her
matrimonial home on 17.11.2003. PW-10 has deposed that at the time
of marriage his brother had given cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and other
household articles like T.V. , Double Bed, Sofa, Almirah etc. Neetu had
gone to visit her parents at Kanpur and had stayed there for 10-12 days.
When she returned to her matrimonial home her in-laws started torturing
her and began demanding money, car and cash. Neetu talked to him
over the telephone. PW-10 told his brother about the demand; pursuant
thereto PW-8 had on two occasions gone to Delhi i.e. on 13.4.2003 and
in August, 2003 to pay Rs.50,000/- on each occasion to the in-laws of
Neetu. He admitted that in April, 2003 Ajinder had gone to bring Neetu
back to the matrimonial home. The attitude of the in-laws even after did
not change. She was beaten for bringing insufficient dowry. Neetu had
accompanied PW-10 to Delhi on 19.7.2003. On 22.10.2003 PW-10
received a call from Neetu informing him that she was being excessively
harassed for bringing more money. PW-10 had accompanied Neetu
from Delhi to Kanpur and then on 17.11.2003 took her back to her
matrimonial home. On 21.11.2003 he received a telephone call from
Ajinder informing him that his niece had hanged herself. PW-10
informed his brother PW-8. PW-8 along with his wife (PW-9) came to
Delhi. In the lengthy cross-examination PW-10 remained cogent,
coherent and consistent. He reached the house of the accused persons
at about 3.30 p.m. in the evening of 21.11.2003 after having learnt about
the incident at about 12.30 p.m. He admitted that he had accompanied
Neetu to Kanpur on 3-4 occasions; he did not know the educational
qualification of Ajinder but he was doing an export business and
managing this export unit in the first floor of the residence. He admitted
that Bimla Pandtani (DW-2) had attended the marriage of his niece.
19 Investigation of this case was marked to PW-14 who had been
accompanied by PW-11; they had reached the spot where the ligature
rope (rassi) cut into two pieces was taken into possession. The crime
team had taken photographs of the scene. The said photographs have
been perused. Perusal of these photographs reflects that apart from the
ligature marks upon the neck of the victim there appear to be no other
injuries. This was corroborated by her post mortem report Ex. PW-3/A.
In the bedroom there was a double bed and a plastic stool was lying next
to it. The victim was wearing her „Mangal Sutra‟ and jewellery articles
at the time of the incident. The medical report had evidenced the death
by hanging. The SDM who had recorded the statement of the parents
of the victim, had also before that i.e. on 21.11.2003 recorded the
statement of the accused Ajinder. This has been proved as Ex.PW-12/B.
In this statement the accused had narrated that at the time of the incident
i.e. around 12.00 noon he was not in the house. He had gone out of the
house in search of work. When he returned back to the house he found
the door of his bedroom bolted from inside; he opened the latch (Kundi)
through the window and on unlatching the door he found that his wife
was hanging from the ceiling fan; he put her on the bed. He called his
elder brother Gajinder Pal Singh; the rope was cut open and Neetu was
put on the bed. Her parents were informed.
20 In the statement of Ajinder recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
the defence set up by him was that his wife was having problems in
Delhi and she was always wanting to go back to Kanpur on one pretext
or the other. She never liked him. She was an M.A. He is only a 8th
pass. On 28.02.2003 when she was about to go to Kanpur, a telephone
call had come which was received by Ajinder. The person on the other
line informed Ajinder that he would not allow Neetu to remain with
him; such telephone calls used to come and after receiving such
telephone calls Neetu used to become tense. Relevant would it be to
note that this defence which has been put forth in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not find mention either in the cross-examination
of the witnesses of the prosecution or even at the stage of defence
evidence. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant has candidly
admitted that this line of defence was never elaborated upon.
21 We shall now examine the witnesses in defence.
22 DW-1 (Ganga Singh) was the father of appellant Pooja i.e. the
sister-in-law of the victim. His version was to the effect that his
daughter was happy in the matrimonial home and since the matrimonial
family of Neetu and Pooja was the same it would be difficult for him to
perceive that any dowry demand was made upon Neetu as no demand of
dowry had been made upon his daughter. DW-2 was Bimla who had
attended the marriage of Neetu with Ajinder but her testimony is not
relevant beyond that extent, as even presuming that she was on visiting
terms with the family of the accused, it is unconceivable that she would
know as what was going on in the bed room of Ajinder and Neetu. In
her cross-examination, she admitted that Neetu was never seen cooking
meals in the house. After wishing „Namaste‟ she would go back in the
room. She was aloof. DW-2 made a categorical statement that the
accused persons had not demanded a car or T.V. Even presuming that
she was a visitor in the house of the accused it would be difficult to
believe that these private conversions or facts would have been
disclosed to a neighbor. Not only would it be a social stigma on the part
of the family of Ajinder to disclose to DW-2 that they had been making
such illegal demands of dowry upon the family of Neetu, logic and
common sense negatives that private discussions would have been
disclosed to her. DW-3 was the cousin of Ajinder who was living in a
room on first floor. His testimony is to the effect that in his presence no
demand of any dowry was made. Obviously, he was a cousin of the
accused and living on the first floor having separate kitchen from the
others. It would be difficult to perceive that demand if any made by the
accused would have been made in his presence. These conversations
could have taken place in the privacy of the family.
23 The facts as borne out from the evidence established that Neetu
had died in unnatural circumstances; this was within seven years of
marriage. Record, in fact, discloses that the victim died within nine
months of marriage. She had married on 19.02.2003. The incident had
occurred on 21.11.2003. The incident had occurred in the matrimonial
home of the victim. It was in her bed room. It was day time. It was a
Friday. The accused was admittedly working from the house having his
export unit in the first floor. Even presuming, his contention that he had
gone out of the house looking for work and was not at home at the time
of incident to be correct, it would be difficult to believe that her in laws
(appellants Pratap Singh and Rama Devi) who occupied the baithak next
to her bedroom, did not hear any shriek or cry from the victim in her
attempt to hang herself from the ceiling fan.
24 Relevant would it be to note the Observation Memo
(Ex.PW-14/B). It shows height of the fan as 10 feet 3 inches from the
floor of the room. The double bed is about 21 inches in height. A
plastic stool has also been depicted in the observation memo. The plastic
stool on a perusal by the naked eye evidences it to be a light weighted
stool. The victim was about 5 feet 1 inch in height. It would be difficult
to perceive a situation that such a light weight stool put on the double
bed could stand the weight of a fully grown adult lady who thereafter
hanged herself from the ceiling fan. Presuming that this was the factual
position-Would this have been possible in one single effort? The victim
would have made several efforts and some kind of noise would have
emanated. This was bound to be heard in the adjoining room of her in-
laws. Time was about 12.30 p.m. It was mid afternoon and the month
was November. The conclusive opinion on the cause of death was
hanging with a ligature rope. It was an unnatural death. The role of her
in-laws cannot be ousted. This Court, however, need not dwell any
further into details of this unnatural death.
25 To establish the ingredients of offence under Section 304B of the
IPC what the Legislature requires is that the death must be unnatural.
Whether it is homicide or suicide may not really be relevant; death must
have occurred within less than seven years of marriage. The next
essential ingredient is the harassment for dowry which would qualify as
a cruelty within the definition of cruelty as engrafted in the Explanation
of Section 498A of the IPC. Testimonies of PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10
are fully corroborative, cogent and coherent on this score. The victim
had been continuously harassed on demand of dowry. After her visit to
her parental home which was within 10-12 days of marriage, demand for
a car was made and when she returned to the matrimonial home; in lieu
of the car money was demanded. PW-8 and PW-9 have categorically
recited the dates on which sums of Rs.50,000/- each were given on two
different occasions. This was on 13.4.2003 and in the first week of
August, 2003; even thereafter demands and harassment continued. On
22.10.2003 PW-10 received a call from Neetu detailing this harassment
and the further demand raised by her in-laws. Neetu had in fact gone
back to her parents‟ house on the occasion of Diwali. She had returned
back with her uncle (PW-10) on 17.11.2013. On 19.11.2003 the victim
made a call to her father PW-8 informing him that her mother-in-law
Rama Devi and her sister-in-law Pooja had threatened her that in case
she was not able to get money from her father, she would be killed.
This information as depicted supra is nothing but a clear cut indication
of harassment in relation to dowry demand.
26 The definition of dowry encompasses within itself persistent
demands which are made to the parents of the deceased in connection
with the marriage. In the instant case in spite of the family of the
victim having performed a lavish marriage and having paid
Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the in-laws of Neetu along with T.V., double
bed, sofa and fridge etc. they remained dissatisfied and within less than
two weeks of the marriage again started making a demand of car. The
incident of 19.11.2003, when Neetu had called her father informing him
that in case the further demand of money was not met she would be
killed, was proximately connected with the incident which had occurred
within two days thereafter i.e. on 21.11.2003 when the victim had
succumbed to her death.
27 The presumptive evidence as contained in Section 113 B of the
Indian Evidence Act has to be invoked in all those cases where a prima
facie case has been set up by the prosecution evidencing a dowry death.
It was rightly attracted.
28 The defence sought to be probablised by the accused is confused,
conflicting and can be nothing but a concocted stand; if the defence was
bonafide it would have been projected in one track. In the instant case
there are several lines of defence which have been adopted by the
accused. At one instance, the version set up by the accused was that the
victim was receiving telephone calls from February, 2003 from some
unknown person; implication was towards a jilted lover; this defence
was taken up only in the statement of Ajinder recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.PC; it was never elaborated thereafter. Another line of
defence was that the victim was unhappy because of the fact that she
was highly qualified and was an M.A. pass and the accused had not even
qualified 9th standard. This defence had been put to the witnesses in
cross-examination but apparently was lost track of at the time when the
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It
was again revived in the version of DW-2. As noted supra, DW-2, even
presuming that she was on visiting terms with the family of the accused,
would not have known such intricate and private conversations of the
family of the accused especially when the victim, as per her own
statement, was aloof by nature and never used to mix with her. It would
be difficult to believe that DW-2 in her 2-3 visits to the matrimonial
home of Neetu had deduced that Neetu was unhappy because of her
higher educational qualification qua her husband. Parents of the victim
had categorically denied that the victim was unhappy on this count. In
fact cross-examination of PW-9 shows that in April, 2003 Neetu had
gone back to her parents‟ home to give her M.A. examination. She had
taken admission in this course one year ago i.e. in the year 2002.
Ajinder had gone to Kanpur to take her back and brought her back to the
matrimonial home in April, 2003. This has been admitted by PW-10.
This being the situation, it is clear that Neetu was pursuing her M.A.
course with the consent of her husband and in-laws. Had it been a case
where the accused was disgruntled by the fact that his wife was pursuing
a post graduate course or vice-versa that the wife had a superiority
complex qua her husband because of her higher educational
qualification, it would have been evident in their conduct and behavior
and in natural course her husband would not have allowed her to take
the examination, he would also not have gone to pick up Neetu at
Kanpur. This was obviously, not the correct position. The defence was
rightly disbelieved.
29 This Court is satisfied that the ingredients of offence under
Section 304B and Section 498-A of the IPC have been fulfilled.
30 However, the question which arises for decision in the mind of
this Court is as to who the culprits are? Upon whom has the guilt to be
foisted? Whether it is the entire family of Ajinder i.e. his parents, his
brother-in-law, sister-in-law or whether he alone is guilty of the said
offence?
31 Role of victim‟s husband Ajinder, father-in-law Pratap Singh and
mother-in-law Rama Devi is clear. Versions of PW-8 (father of the
victim) and PW-9 (mother of the victim) are cogent, clear and
categorical on the fact that Neetu had complained of harassment being
meted out to her and demand of money for purchase of a car by her in-
laws and by her husband. On both occasions when Rs.50,000/- each
had been given by PW-8 to the father-in-law of the victim, it was in the
presence of her mother-in-law and Ajinder. Testimonies further disclose
that the other accused persons were also present but noting the
relationship of other accused i.e. Gajinder Pal being the brother-in-law
and Pooja being sister-in-law and both of them living separately and no
specific role having been attributed to either of them (except in the
statement of PW-8 wherein he had stated that his daughter told him on
phone that in case the money was not paid she would be killed and this
threat had been given by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law), there is
no other evidence forthcoming against Gajinder Pal and Pooja. The
solitary incident of Pooja having threatened the deceased which had
been informed by the deceased on telephone to her father would not be
sufficient to sustain a conviction against her. Appellant Gajinder Pal
and appellant Pooja are entitled to benefit of doubt and consequent
acquittal. The other accused persons i.e. Ajinder (husband), Pratap
Singh (father-in-law) and Rama Devi (mother-in-law) are guilty of
having caused the tortuous dowry demand upon Neetu. Their
conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC calls for no
interference.
32 On the quantum of sentence, this Court notes that Ajinder Pal
Singh has undergone incarceration of about 4 years and 4 months;
appellant Pratap Singh has undergone incarceration of about 4 years and
5 months while appellant Rama Devi has undergone about 4 years and
14 days.
33 Learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for leniency in
sentence but she fairly concedes that she does not have any precedent to
substantiate her submission that where a conviction has been made
under Section 304B of the IPC the sentence below the minimum has
been awarded. A Bench of the Supreme Court in II(2014) CCR 658
(SC) Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab has noted that the minimum
punishment provided by law under Section 304 B of the IPC is 7 years
and the sentence of 10 years awarded by the High Court had been
reduced to RI 7 years; noting that the prayer made for reduction of
sentence to the period already undergone cannot be accepted. In that
case the period undergone by the appellant was more than 5½ years,
besides the fact that the appellant had to look after his three children; the
sentence was not reduced below the minimum. In another judgment of
the Apex Court reported in 2012(3) ACR 3276 Ranjit Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, while dealing with submission of learned counsel for the
appellant on leniency on sentence, the Court had again reduced the
sentence to the minimum of 7 years noting the fact that the appellant in
that case had contracted a second marriage.
34 In the instant case, the mitigating circumstance pleaded before
this Court is that the appellant Ajinder has contracted a second marriage
and now he has children out of the second marriage. These facts were
same in the case of Ranjit Singh (supra) as well. Once a conviction has
been ordered in a dowry death under Section 304 B of the IPC, this
Court is not inclined to reduce the sentence which has been engrafted by
the Legislature as a minimum of 7 years.
35 The sentence under Section 304 B of the IPC remains unaltered.
No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 498-A. Benefit of
Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. is granted to the appellants.
36 Appeals are dismissed.
37 Bail bonds cancelled; sureties discharged. Appellants be taken
into custody to serve remaining sentences.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
A/ndn
