Judgment:
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the following facts :
Kamlesh and Shiela daughters of Umed Singh-PW 3 were married to accused Ram Chander and his younger brother Suresh respectively about five years prior to the incident, which took place on 4th March, 1986 at 5 a.m. Kamlesh went to her in-laws house after one year of the marriage, whereas Shiela the younger sister went to her-laws' house after three years of her marriage. Two girls namely Pinki and Banti were born to Kamlesh. As per the prosecution case, after Shiela had shifted to her in-laws' house, the accused started making a demand for a TV set, Tape recorder and Flour grinding machine and also started harassing both the sisters for bringing inadequate dowry. Umed Singh-PW 3 the complainant, thereafter, summoned Ram Chander to his house and told him that he was not in a position to fulfil their demands of a TV set and Tape recorder but a Flour grinding machine was, nevertheless, given to him. Still dissatisfied with what they had received, both the accused continued to harass their wives. Kamlesh and Shiela returned to their parental home about two months prior to the incident and informed their father Umed Singh of all that had transpired, who once again summoned Ram Chander to his house and hold him that he was not in a position to meet his demands but offered to give him his bullock-cart. This offer was accepted by Ram Chander, who then returned to his house alongwith Kamlesh and Shiela. On 3rd March, 1986, both the accused gave a beating to the sisters and again told that they should meet their demands for a TV set and a Tape recorder or they should return to their parental home. During the night intervening of 3 / 4th March, 1986, both the sisters decided to commit suicide because of continuous harassment caused to them by the accused and at about 5 a.m. the next morning, Kamlesh alongwith her two children and Shiela simultaneously jumped into a well and whereas the first three were drowned, Shiela-PW 4 was taken out alive by the villagers. This, information was conveyed by Shiela to her father Umed Singh-PW 3 who then accompanied by various other persons went to Police Station, Sampla on 5th March, 1986 and recorded his statement Ex. PM. Prior to the recording of the FIR however, S.I. Phool Singh had reached the village at about 10.30 a.m. on receipt of the information regarding the incident, but Shiela who had been taken out of the well and was badly shaken refused to get her statement recorded and told the S.I. that she would make her statement after the arrival of her father. However, as Umed Singh did not happen come to her village the whole day, she went to her parental village alongwith her brother and it was on 5th March, 1986 when she returned with her father that the FIR Ex. PM was recorded in the manner mentioned above. After completion of the investigation, the accused Ram Chander and his mother Dhan Kaur were charged Under Sections 498-A/306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial.
2. The prosecution in support of its case relied upon the evidence of PW 1 Dr. Farmed Bansal, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the three dead bodies on the relevant date and had opined that the death was caused by asphyxia due to drowning, PW 3 Umed Singh the complainant and father of the deceased Kgmlesh, PW 4 Shiela, PW 5 Chand Kaur mother of Kamlesh and Shiela, who also corroborated the story with regard to the harassment suffered by her daughter at the hands of the accused; PW 6 Phool Singh Sub-Inspector, who had partly investigated the case and PW 7 Om Parkash Sub-Inspector, the other Investigating Officer.
3. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They admitted the factum of marriage of the two brothers with the two sisters but stated that they had been falsely involved in the case by the police at the instance of Umed Singh. They also stated that Kamlesh and Shiela had been living happily in their matrimonial home and that no demand for dowry had ever been made. They further stated that on 4th March, 1986, in the morning, while the rest of the family members of the house were away, Suresh was seen by his wife Shiela indulging in sexual intercourse with Kamlesh and being ashamed of what she had done, Kamlesh had jumped into a well with her children whereas Shiela also got nervous and had followd suit. In support of their case, the defence also examined Suresh aforesaid, the brother of Ram Chander accused as PW 1 who corrborated the story put forth by the defence.
4. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case stood proved from the evidence of PW 3 Umed Singh the complainant, PW 4 Shiela one of the victims of the incident and PW 5 Chand Kaur; that the delay in lodging of the FIR stood explained; that the story with regard to the demand for dowry also stood proved by the evidence of the witnesses; that the defence story with regard to the reasons as to why Shiela had jumped in the well did not sound credible and having held as above convicted and sentenced both the accused as under :
Under Section 498-A, IPC
Smt. Dhan Kaur to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay afine of Rs. 250/- (two hundred and fifty) only.Ram Chander to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fineof Rs. 250/- (two hundred and fifty) only.In default thereof both the accused to undergo R.I. for six months.
Under Section 306, IPC
Smt. Dhan Kaur to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- (two hundred and fifty) only.Ram Chander to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- (two hundred and fifty) only.In default of payment of fine, both the accused to undergo R.I. for six months.
5. Mr. Kapoor, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that the story with regard to the demand for dowry stood falsified by the evidence of Shiela PW 4 herself inasmuch as that in the opening part of her statement, she had admitted that no demand for dowry had been made. He further urged that once it was found that no demand for dowry had been made, the reason for the suicide would also disappear because as per the prosecution case, it was due to the persistent demands for dowry and harassment caused thereby that had forced the two sisters to take such drastic steps.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on this aspect, I find that the assertion of the learned Counsel lacks merit. The evidence of PW 3 Umed Singh the complainant, PW 4 Shiela and PW 5 Chand Kaur conclusively proves that the demand for dowry had been made and even the statement of Shiela PW 4 if read as a whole clearly points out that a demand for dowry had been made. It is to be borne in mind that something extraordinary had happened which led the two sisters to take the steps that they did.
7. It has also been argued by Mr. Kapoor that he delay in lodging of the FIR falsified the prosecution story and that as the report had been lodged after deliberations, it had lost its significance. The Trial Court had also noticed this argument and had given a finding that the FIR could not have been lodged promptly because Shiela was living in a hostile atmosphere and was waiting for the arrival of her father Umed Singh-PW 3 to come to her village so that she could mad e her statement in his presence. The scenario has to be seen from with me eyes of Shiela PW 4. Kamlesh and her two children had been admittedly fished out dead from the well and Shiela though taken out alive must have been in a state of extreme shock and horror stricken by all that had happened. In this situation, it was but natural for her to have declined to give her statement to the police till such time as she was able to have courage on the arrival of her father Umed Singh PW 3. To my mind, therefore, the delay in the lodging of the FIR stands fully explained.
8. It has next been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that independent prosecution witnesses had not been examined and had been given up and as such, the prosecution must suffer on that count.
9. This argument, to my mind, is misplaced. In a dispute involving close family members, independent witnesses are seldom forthcoming. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that independent witnesses are not available these days and me prosecution has to call upon close relatives or friends to come in support of its case.
For the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that no fault can be found with the judgment of the Trial Court. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.