Sandeep Tomar vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 17126 P&H

CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M)                                             -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M)
                                Reserved on 09.12.2022
                                Date of Decision:19.12.2022

Sandeep Tomar No.SS433024A                                 ...Appellant

                                   Versus

State of Punjab                                            ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present:- Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate, and Mr. G.S. Badal, Advocate, and Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Sumeet Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate, and Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Advocate, for the complainant.

SUKHVINDER KAUR J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2015

of learned Additional Sessions Judge Fazilka, vide which the Stridhan i.e.

gold ornaments and other articles given in the marriage of Shweta Singh

deceased with accused-appellant Sandeep Tomar, were ordered to be

released on sapurdari to Ram Naresh Singh complainant, the father of

deceased Shweta Singh.

2. The brief relevant facts are that on 10.07.2013 when the

Investigating Officer along with other police officials was present at Civil

Hospital, Abohar, then Ram Naresh Singh, father of deceased Shweta Singh

got recorded his statement to the Investigating Officer. He stated that he

had solemnized marriage of his daughter Shweta Singh with Sandeep Tomar

1 of 7

CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M) -2-

on 12.02.2013. He had given a draft of Rs.10 lacs at the time of marriage to

Sandeep Tomar and draft of Rs.10 lacs at time of shagun, gold ornaments

valuing at Rs.5 lacs to his parents and besides that he had given the

household articles consisting of TV, Fridge, AC, Bed and furniture and had

spent Rs.5 lacs on the meals, at the time of marriage. He further stated that

after few days of marriage, the parents in-law of his daughter i.e. mother-in-

law Padma Tomar, father-in-law Mangal Singh and husband of his daughter

Sandeep Tomar started taunting his daughter for bringing less dowry and for

not bringing any vehicle in dowry and told her to bring Rs.10 lacs in cash

and Duster car from her parents and otherwise they would eliminate her.

When their these demands were not fulfilled, then they started asking his

daughter to get transferred the plot in their name which was in the name of

her parents. His daughter used to tell about it to his wife Rani on phone, but

had firmly asked her not to disclose anything to the complainant (her

father). On 08.07.2013 at about 4.45 PM, he talked to his daughter on the

phone, who told him that Sandeep Tomar had been beating her and had been

asking her frequently, that why she had not brought Rs.10,00,000/- and the

vehicle and why she was not getting the plot transferred in his name.

Afterwards at about 9.30 PM on the same day, his wife also talked to his

daughter on the phone and his daughter apprised his wife also, regarding the

above said facts and his wife then had told him about the same. He was of

the firm belief that her husband Sandeep Tomar, father-in-law and mother-

in-law were responsible for the death of his daughter Shweta Singh and

action be taken against them. From statement of the complainant prima

facie offence under Section 304-B IPC was found to have been committed,

which resulted into the registration of the present FIR No.126 dated

2 of 7

CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M) -3-

10.07.2013, under Section 304-B/34 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar,

against the accused.

3. After trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge Fazilka, vide

judgment dated 21.07.2014 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC

and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with

fine of Rs.10,000/-.

4. Against the above-said judgment dated 21.07.2014, the

appellant filed an appeal No.CRA-D-1339-DB-2014 before this Court and

the same was admitted by this Court vide impugned order dated 27.08.2014.

5. Thereafter on 20.10.2014, the complainant Ram Naresh Singh

filed an application for releasing the dowry articles given by him in the

marriage of her daughter Shweta Singh, which was allowed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide impugned order dated 14.08.2015.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-accused and

learned State counsel and have also gone through the record minutely.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that

the impugned order dated 14.08.2015 is patently illegal, erroneous in law,

against facts and evidence on record. The trial Court has erred in passing the

impugned order because term 'Stridhan' literally means woman's property

and it is constituted of those property, which she receives by way of gifts

from her relatives, which include mostly movable property such as

ornaments, jewellery, dresses. He has argued that the trial Court has not

appreciated that as per Section 15 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,

after death of wife, her belongings shall devolve upon her children and

husband. He has also contended that he is owner of the ornaments/articles

which were recovered by the police from his house and the same cannot be

3 of 7

CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M) -4-

released in favour of the complainant and the impugned order dated

14.08.2015 is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for

the State that these ornaments/articles had been given by the complainant at

the time of marriage of his daughter Shweta Singh deceased with the

appellant. By relying upon the judgment passed in Balbir Singh Vs. State

of Haryana, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 371, and State by Belakavadi

Police Vs. Mallesha, 2002(3) RCR (Criminal) 157, he has contended that

the complainant being father of the deceased Shweta Singh was entitled to

receive the same and the impugned order does not call for any interference.

9. A perusal of the record reveals that the complainant Ram

Naresh Singh, father of deceased Shewta Singh in his statement Ex.PB

recorded by the Investigating Officer, and while appearing as PW-2 has

categorically stated that he had given a draft of Rs.10 lacs to Mangal Singh

father of appellant Sandeep Tomar, Rs.10 lacs were given in cash to

Sandeep Tomar at the time to tilak ceremony and gold ornaments worth

Rs.5 lacs were also given at the time of tilak ceremony.

10. PW-3 Rani Singh, mother of deceased Shweta Singh has also

deposed to the same effect and has categorically stated that gold ornaments

valuing Rs.5 lacs were given at the time of tilak ceremony which were

approximately 200 gms in weight and the dowry articles consisting of TV,

Fridge, AC, Bed, almirah, dressing table and sofa etc. were also given. She

has also stated that in the tilak they had given Rs.10 lacs in cash and Rs.10

lacs were handed over to Mangal Singh in the shape of draft as demanded

by Mangal Singh. Ex.PA is the recovery memo of ornaments recovered

from the house of appellant Sandeep Tomar. Ex.PC is the memo regarding

4 of 7

CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M) -5-

identification of these gold and silver ornaments by complainant Ram

Naresh Singh and his wife Rani Singh and both of them identified these

ornaments to be those ornaments, which had been given by them in the

dowry to their daughter Shweta Singh at the time of her marriage with

Sandeep Tomar. Ex.PF is the recovery memo of dowry articles, which were

received through consignment (builty), which had been sent by Mangal

Singh the father of appellant from Kanpur. PW-6 SI Raj Kumar has also

stated that he had also collected bills of dowry articles in the name of Ram

Naresh Singh which are exhibited as PAE to PAH.

11. Though the accused/appellant has claimed that he is owner of

these dowry articles, but no material worth the name has been produced on

record by him, to prove his ownership. A perusal of the grounds of appeal

reveals that therein the specific ground has been taken that trial Court had

not appreciated that as per Section 15 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956,

after death of wife, her belongings shall devolve upon her children and

husband.

12. Thus it is quite contrary to the arguments now raised by the

learned counsel for the appellant, wherein now he is claiming the appellant

to be owner of these articles. So once the appellant has taken the plea that

provisions of Section 15 (1) of Hindu Succession Act were to be applied, it

amounts to implied admission on his part that he was not owner of these

articles. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, nothing

has been stated by him about his ownership of these articles.

13. The dispute in this case is with regard to custody of articles of

dowry which were meant for the use of deceased Shweta Singh. The

position with regard to custody of dowry articles is quite different from the

5 of 7

CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M) -6-

position of other property in the hands of deceased. In this context, it is

appropriate to reproduce Section 6(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,

which reads as under:-

"Section 6(3):-

Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section (1) dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to claim it from the person holding it for the time being:-

[Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise, than due to natural causes, such property shall-

(a) if she has no children, be transferred to her parents; or

(b) if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending such transfer be held in trust for such children."

14. In the case in hand also, deceased Shweta Singh died within 7

years of her marriage. There was no issue out of their wedlock. The record

reveals that she died unnatural death other than in normal circumstances.

Thus, the case of the appellant squarely falls within Clause 3 of Section 6 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so as to maintain the custody of dowry

articles with the complainant. The provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961, cannot be overlooked by invoking the provisions of Hindu Law

relating to Succession.

15. In the present case, the record indicates that dowry articles

changed hands at the time of marriage. The trial Court has rightly placed

reliance upon Balbir Singh's case supra, wherein it was held that husband

was not entitled to retain dowry even if he was acquitted and dowry articles

will remain with father of deceased. Reliance can further be placed upon

Mallesha's case (supra), wherein it was held that "Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961- Section 6- Dowry death- Acquittal of accused- Directions issued that

6 of 7

CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M) -7-

dowry articles which changed hands at the time of marriage to be restored to

the family of deceased- This prevents unjust enrichment of accused and is in

consonance with Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act".

16. In the cases supra, the dowry articles were ordered to be given

to the father of the deceased wife, even though the accused husband had

been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt after the trial. But in the instant

case the accused husband has been convicted by the trial Court under

Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife Shweta Singh. So

keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the cases supra also, the

impugned order is a legal and valid order.

17. As no illegality or irregularity has been found in the impugned

order passed by learned trial Court, so it does not call for any interference

and is upheld.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being devoid of any

merits, stands dismissed.

(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO)                        (SUKHVINDER KAUR)
         JUDGE                                     JUDGE

19.12.2022
monika

             Whether reasoned/speaking:       Yes/No
             Whether reportable:              Yes/No




                                     7 of 7