Vs. State of Haryana  Insc 842 (22 November 2006)
B. Sinha & Markandey Katju Markandey Katju, J.
appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court dated 24.2.2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 1827 of 2002.
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased Pushpa was the third daughter
of PW-10 Dilbag Singh. She was married to appellant Surender in village Aasan
in the year 1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At that time, Dilbag
Singh had given sufficient dowry but the appellants were not satisfied with the
dowry given. They started harassing her. In order to make them happy, PW-10 Dilbagh
Singh used to give some money to his daughter Pushpa whenever she visited him
but the demand of the appellants remained always on the increasing side. They
used to beat her. Smt. Pushpa used to tell to her father about the atrocities
committed upon her, whenever she visited him.
about two and half years of the marriage, Pushpa had given birth to a daughter,
namely, Garima and at that time also, PW-10 Dilbag Singh had given sufficient
gifts but the appellants were not satisfied.
three months back, the appellant Surender went to PW-4 Sombir, maternal uncle
of Pushpa, with a demand of Rs. 80,000/- for purchase of a tractor, but PW-4 Sombir
refused to oblige him and informed about it to Dilbag Singh, who also told him
not to oblige Surender as he and his father would spend the amount on liquor.
further averred that after their demand was not fulfilled, the appellant and
his relatives became more harsh towards Pushpa and started beating her. Pushpa
then came to village Khudan and apprised about the cruelty of her in-laws towards
her to her father PW-10 Dilbag Singh. She remained in her parental house for
about three months and was then taken back by Surender, appellant, only ten
days prior to the occurrence, after giving assurance that she would be treated
nicely in the matrimonial home.
23.4.2002, PW-2 Prem wife of Dilbag Singh received a telephonic message at
about 6/7 P.M. through PW-3 Krishan that Pushpa had ended her life by
committing suicide by hanging.
receipt of this information, PW-10 Dilbag Singh along with his wife, PW-2 Prem,
brother-in-law Sombir PW-4 and others reached village Aasan and found the dead
body of Pushpa lying in the room of first floor of their house. Broken pieces
of her bangles and her chappals were also lying there.
FIR, Ex. PH, was registered upon the statement, Ex. PG of PW-10 Dilbagh Singh.
PW-12 Ram Kishan, ASI, investigated the case. He got the dead body of Pushpa
photographed by PW-7 Raj Pal, photographer. He also prepared inquest report, Ex.PC.
took into possession the broken bangles in a box, Ex. P7 and chappals Exs. P-5
and P-6 by making separate sealed parcels vide recovery memo Ex. PD. He also
prepared a rough site plan, Ex. PK of the
place of occurrence and sent the dead body for post mortem examination with
police application, Ex.PA.
Dr. Mahesh Parkash, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt.
Pushpa and gave his report, Ex. PB. He stated that the cause of death of Smt. Pushpa
was due to asphyxia and congestion as a result of hanging, which was ante-
mortem in nature and the time between injury and death was within few minutes
and between death and post mortem examination was within 12 to 48 hours. He
further stated that Smt. Pushpa was carrying pregnancy of 28 weeks and on
cutting, a male foetus had come out.
Constable Samit Kumar prepared scaled site plan, Ex. PF. The appellants were
arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up by PW-6
ASI Vijay Singh.
was initially put up in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, who
vide her order dated 2.8.2002, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
made out a prima facie case, the appellants were charged under Sections 498A
and 306/34 IPC vide order dated 23.8.2002, to which they pleaded not guilty.
order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations of the
prosecution and pleaded false implication. Surender, appellant, in his
statement stated that he and his wife Pushpa lived separately from his parents
and Pushpa had committed suicide as she was mentally perturbed due to
pregnancy. He next stated that he did not harass her on account of demand of
dowry. He further stated that there was no demand of dowry from his parents. Vikram
and Sahbo wife of Vikram, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also
denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that their son Surender
and their daughter-in-law Pushpa were living separately from them and they had
never harassed Pushpa on account of dowry, nor any demand of dowry was ever
made from her and Pushpa committed suicide due to mental tension owing to
pregnancy. However, they did not lead any defence evidence.
hearing learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his judgment dated 19.10.2002 found the
appellant and his parents Vikram and Sahbo guilty and convicted them under
Sections 306/34 and 498-A/34 IPC and sentenced them vide order of even date.
by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court. The
High Court allowed the appeal of Vikram and Sahbo and acquitted them, but it
upheld the conviction of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
an admitted fact that Smt. Pushpa was married to Surender, appellant, in the
year 1994 and she committed suicide by hanging on the night of 23.4.2002. The
case of the prosecution is that Pushpa was being harassed by the appellants on
account of demand of dowry and due to that harassment, she was compelled to
commit suicide. PW-2 Prem wife of Dilbag Singh stated that her daughter Pushpa
was married with Surender son of Vikram, resident of village Aasan in the year
1994 and they gave dowry to him according their capacity. After about two years
of her marriage, Pushpa had given birth to a daughter. She further stated that
the appellants, namely, Vikram, Surender and Sahbo started harassing her
daughter, Pushpa for bringing inadequate dowry.
3-4 months prior to the occurrence, Vikram had sent his son Surender to her
brother PW-4 Sombir at village Ritholi, asking him to make payment of Rs.
80,000/- as they wanted to purchase a tractor, but her brother did not fulfill
their demand and he sent information to her. She further stated that when her
brother Sombir failed to fulfil the demand of Surender, appellant, then they
started harassing Pushpa more vigorously and even started giving beating to
her. When the appellants gave Pushpa severe beating, Pushpa left for her
parental house and stayed with her parents for about three months, and at that
time she was pregnant. She further stated that thereafter Surender, appellant,
came to take Pushpa with her and he promised not to harass Pushpa. On his
assurance, Pushpa was sent with him and after ten days of sending Pushpa with
him, she received a telephonic message at the residence of Krishan at about 6/7
PM that Pushpa had committed suicide by hanging. She further stated that on
24.4.2002, she along with Krishan, Sombir and her husband Dilbag went to
village Aasan and found Pushpa hanging in the room of the first floor and her
bangles were broken and chappals were also lying there.
stated that Smt. Prem was his sister and she was married in village Khudan with
Dilbag Singh. He further stated that Pushpa was the daughter of his sister Prem
and had studied upto middle class and was married to Surender in the year 1994.
He further stated that Surender, appellant, along with his parents started
harassing Pushpa on account of bringing inadequate dowry and she was being
taunted that she was not taking interest in the household affairs. He next
stated that she was shunted out of her matrimonial house on one or the other
pretext. She gave birth to a female child after two and half years or three
years of her marriage. He further stated that the appellants used to raise
demand for bringing cash from her parents and about five to six months prior to
her death, Surender, appellant, had come to him and demanded Rs. 80,000/- for
purchasing a tractor. He consulted his brother-in-law, Dilbag Singh, who told
him that he would not be responsible for re-payment as Surender and his father
were habituated to take liquor. He next stated that when demand of Rs. 80,000/-
was not met, then they started harassing Pushpa and beating her and she was
thrown out of the matrimonial home and she lived with her parents for 3 months
and then ten days prior to the occurrence, she was sent to the matrimonial home
with Surender, appellant, on his assurance that they would not harass Pushpa.
To the same effect is the statement of PW-10 Dilbag Singh, father of the
letter, Ex. PE, has been produced on record during the cross-examination of PW-4 Sombir.
He stated that his sister had received this letter and she had handed over this
letter to him about 2-3 days of its receipt. A perusal of this letter shows
that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had stopped saying anything to Pushpa
but her husband, Surender, had given severe beating to her to the extent that
she had become incapacitated and was unable to walk.
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no offence has been made
under Section 306 IPC because there is nothing to show any intention to abet or
urge the deceased to commit suicide. We do not agree. As observed by the High
Court in the impugned judgment, "to instigate means to goad, urge,
provoke, incite or encourage someone to do an act. It is not necessary that
express words should be used in order to instigate.
offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who
abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted".
come in the evidence of PW-2 Prem, PW-4 Sombir and PW-10 Dilbag Singh that the
deceased Pushpa had been harassed due to the demands of dowry. About six months
prior to the occurrence, the appellant visited the house of Sombir, the
maternal uncle of the deceased where Pushpa had studied upto class VIII, and
demanded Rs. 80,000/- for purchase of a tractor.
when PW-4 Sombir refused to pay the amount, Surender started beating the
deceased and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial house and went to
her parents' house where she stayed for about three months. Thereafter she was
taken back by the appellant with the assurance that he will treat Pushpa well,
but ten days thereafter she committed suicide. It has come in evidence that Surender
gave beating to Pushpa to such an extent that she became unable even to walk.
deceased Pushpa was pregnant at the time of the suicide and we agree with the
High Court that a young pregnant women having a child in the womb would not
ordinarily commit suicide unless she was compelled to do so. We also agree that
she would not have felt depressed if she had not been harassed on account of
demand for dowry.
also come in evidence of PW-10 Dilbag Singh, father of deceased Pushpa, that
when the demand for dowry was not met, Pushpa was beaten and she had injury
marks when she came to the house of her father.
the courts below have held against the accused and we fully agree with the
reasoning given in the judgment by the courts below.
is, thus, no merit in this appeal. Hence it is dismissed accordingly.