Devinder
Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab [2005] Insc
506 (26 September 2005)
Arun
Kumar & A.K. Mathur Arun Kumar, J.
This
is yet another case of unnatural death of a young lady about two years after
her marriage. The name of the deceased is Neelam Kaur. The appellants are Devinder
Singh, her husband, Swaran Singh, her father-in-law and Pritam Kaur, her
mother-in-law. The trial court has held that Neelam Kaur died an unnatural
death. Her dead body was found lying in the kitchen of the matrimonial home
smeared with kerosene oil all over the body. A stove, a match box and a plastic
can were also found near the body.
According
to the trial court, it is a case of suicide. The appellants were convicted for
offence under Section 304B, IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for ten
years to the appellant No.1 and seven years each to appellant No.2 and
appellant No.3. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants and
maintained the judgment of the trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of
the accused persons.
The
case of the prosecution is that the deceased was being taunted and harassed on
account of dowry related demands by the appellants which led her to taking her
own life. The appellants have denied this allegation. The deceased left behind
a son who was at the time of the incident aged about 15 months. Further it is
established from medical evidence of P.W.1 Dr. G.P.S. Bedi who conducted the
post-mortem that she was about 12 weeks pregnant at the time of the incident.
For a woman of that young age and having a small child of 15 months old and
another in her womb, to take a step of taking her own life, needs great
determination and suggests her life would have been made really difficult. She
took the extreme step of ending her life because the behaviour of the accused
persons must have become unbearable for her. The main ingredients of Section
304B IPC are:
(a) death
of a woman
(b) caused
by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than normal circumstances
(c) within
seven years of her marriage
(d) it
is shown that soon after her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry.
In the
present case, all the above ingredients are satisfied except that there is
argument about the last ingredient about cruelty or harassment in connection
with demand for dowry. It is a case of death of a woman, caused by burns i.e.
it is an unnatural death and the death has taken place within seven years of
the marriage. Thus, the argument in the present appeal centers around only the
last ingredient i.e. whether there was cruelty or harassment on account of
demands for dowry.
In
this connection, it is to be noted that the lady who could be the best person
to speak about such demands, as the demands were allegedly made to her, is no
more, the only remaining evidence can be that of the parents of the deceased to
whom she would be supposed to mention about such demands in order to ascertain
if they could meet the same. Jagir Singh, the father of the deceased has
appeared as P.W.5. He has stated that all the three accused started
ill-treating his daughter about a year after her marriage and had been taunting
her that she had brought less dowry. They demanded colour T.V., a fridge and a
cooler besides ornaments. He further stated that they had given threats that if
she did not brings those items, she would be done to death. He has given
specific instances of such demands. According to him about two months prior to
the incident, his daughter was turned out from their house by the accused
persons after giving her a beating. The lady returned to the house of her
parents and told them about the incident. Jagir Singh convened a panchayat of
respectable persons of the locality viz. S/Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Sohan Singh and Darshan
Singh and took them to the house of the accused along with his daughter. All
the accused persons were present in the house when these people reached there.
The accused were told that in view of the poor financial position of the father
of the girl he was not able to meet their demands still he assured that
whatever could be possible within his means he will continue to do. With this
assurance he left his daughter with the accused persons.
Again,
a month earlier to the incident, the victim was sent back to her parents' house
by the accused persons after being given some beating with instruction to bring
the items which were demanded by them. Jagir Singh told that he sent his
daughter back alongwith his wife to the house of the accused with cash of
Rs.1200/- and five ladies suits. His wife left her daughter in the house of the
accused and came back. This was followed by the incident which took place on
9.4.1993 at about 11/11.30 a.m. Jagir Singh learnt about the incident at about 2.30 p.m.. The information was given by the wife of elder
brother of Devinder Singh, A.1. After getting this information Jagir Singh and
his wife immediately left for Hoshiarpur and on reaching the house they saw the
dead body of their daughter lying in the kitchen with burn injuries.
It is
worth noting that the incident of panchayat being held and the three panchas
being taken to the house of the accused persons is admitted by DW 6 Dharam
Singh who is defendant's own witness. He said in his cross- examination that it
is however, correct that her father had brought the panchayat of respectables
to the house of accused about two months earlier to the incident. From this,
the learned counsel for the appellant argued that this shows that the dispute
stood settled/compromised and thereafter there could be no question of making
allegation of dowry related demands. While making this argument, the learned
counsel forgets that Jagir Singh, father of the deceased stated again that
about a month prior to the incident, the girl had been turned out of the house
after being beaten with instructions to bring the demanded articles from her
parents. That would show that the dowry related demands by the accused persons
continued, otherwise there was no reason for the young wife to take the extreme
step of ending her life specially when she had a young son about 15 months old
and another child in her womb. We have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of
Jagir Singh.
In our
view, the trial court rightly observed that a father will not take panchayat of
respectable persons to the house of in-laws of her daughter without her having
problem in living there peacefully. This fact which is admitted by Dharam
Singh, DW-6, a witness produced by the accused persons, supports the prosecution
case that there were demands in connection with dowry made by the accused
persons. The prosecution has produced Sukhdev Singh, one of the panchas as
P.W.6. He corroborates the version of Jagir Singh about the dowry demands and
the panchayat. From these facts, the conclusion is inescapable that the accused
made demands for dowry from the deceased and made her life miserable. It became
unbearable for her to face the accused persons in such circumstances and she
had to ultimately take her life. The High Court has affirmed the findings of
the Sessions Court. We find no reason to differ with the view taken by the
courts below. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Back