Bhawani Singh, A.C.J.
1. Through this petition, the judgment of acquittal recorded by Sessions Judge, Kangra, in Sessions Case No. 11/91, dated 26.3.1992, is sought to be assailed by the State. The accused were tried for offences under Sections 498-A/304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having subjected deceased Krishna Devi to cruelty in order to meet their unlawful demand for dowry and the death having taken place within seven years of her marriage with accused Jagroop Singh in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution case runs as follows :
2. The accused are husband (Jagroop Singh), father (Balbir Singh), mother (Satya Devi) and sister Bimla Devi. The ' deceased was married to accused Jagroop Singh in the year 1982. On 6.7.1988, she consumed some poison at the house while the accused were working in the fields nearby. This fact was noticed by the younger son of accused Balbir Singh, who had come to the house to take water. He found the deceased lying on the bed and immediately thereafter called other members of the family who rushed to the place. The deceased was shifted to the hospital at Dada-Siba immediately in an ambulance arranged by the family. It happened at 7.05 p.m. and stomach wash of the deceased was undertaken with plain water and the contents thereof were preserved. Thereafter, the deceased was referred to District Hospital, Dharamshala, for expert treatment after giving her first-aid at Dada-Siba hospital. However, she expired on 7.7.1988.
3. Shri Harbans Singh, brother of the deceased, informed the police at Police Station, Dehra, alleging that soonafter the marriage, the accused used to harass the deceased on account of less dowry articles. He also stated that the accused used to demand huge money and the deceased was being subjected to cruelty in case the amount was not given. Accordingly, a case under Section 304-B read with Sections 34 and 408-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. The police started investigation. It recorded the statements of various witnesses. At the instance of the accused, a small 'shishi', containing the alleged poison, was also taken into possession. The body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis. The handwriting of the accused was sent for comparison to Assistant Government Examiner, Questioned Documents, Shimla. Then, on completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kangra. The accuseds were charged for the aforesaid offences. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial commenced but ended in the aforesaid acquittal of the accused. After examining the evidence of the witnesses recorded in this case, the trial Judge found that the prosecution case against the accused remained completely unsubstantiated. It also found that the relation witnesses of the complainant had not only made improvements in their versions in the Court but could not be depended upon for having taken U-turn in their depositions against the accused although the evidence pointed out that the relations between the couple were not strained before the death of the deceased. Further, the demand for dowry was not supported by any evidence at the stage when the marriage had taken place nor at the various stages following it. The Trial Court found substance in the explanation of the accuseds, their conduct and recorded also that the relations between the deceased and the accused were cordial and there had not been any demand for dowry neither at the time of marriage nor subsequent thereto. The deceased was living happily with accused Jagroop Singh and his family and it could be that she had taken the poison just by mistake since this kind of insecticide is normally kept by an agriculturist family to which the accused belonged, as there was no doubt about it. Further, the demand for Rs 30.000/- was not by way of dowry but was by way of loan payable soonafter This demand was made since accused Jagroop Singh had to spend money on the marriage of his sister that was arranged all of a sudden and to this marriage, the brother of the deceased was also cordially invited. In these circumstances, the Trial Court concluded in favour of the accused. However the State has sought to challenge the findings recorded in this case by seeking leave from this Court. The appeal is barred by time by 23 days, therefore, notice of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1028 of 1992) was issued on 22.10.1992. In pursuance of this notice Ms. Bandana Lakhanpal, vice Shri K.D. Sood, has appeared in defence of the accused. I propose to deal with the case on merits to examine whether there is substance in the contention of Shri M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, that the findings recorded by the Trial Court ought to be set-aside since they are not supported by evidence which has not been correctly appreciated by the trial Judge.
4. There is no doubt that the deceased was married to accused Jagroop Singh in the year 1982. Out of the wedlock, the couple had two female children. It is also an admitted position that on 6.7.1988 the deceased took some poison as a result of which she was lying in the bed where she was noticed by the younger son of accused Balbir Singh, who had come to the house to take water. The other family members rushed to the house from the fields nearby when informed about this state of the deceased It has also been established by evidence that the family members immediately arranged for an ambulance and shifted the deceased to the hospital at Dada-Siba at 7.05 p.m. where her stomach was washed and first-aid was given to her. It has been recorded by Dr. S.N. Sharma (P.W. 3) that the deceased was brought to the hospital by accused Jagroop Singh in ambulance. He has also recorded that he was told by the relations that the deceased had been given water to drink and deshi ghee to eat.
5. The deceased was referred to District Hospital, Dharamshala, for specialised treatment. However, she could not survive, with the result that she collapsed on 7.7.1988. The matter was reported to the police by Harbans Singh brother of the deceased. Autopsy of the body of the deceased was conducted on 7.7.1988 at about 3 p.m. by Dr. R.K. Mahajan (P.W. 2) and Dr. Mrs. D. Chakra. It was identified by accused Jagroop Singh. The relevant part of the examination by these doctors is that the contents of the stomach were taken for chemical analysis and the report received from the Chemical Examiner to Government of Punjab pointed out the use of organo phosphorus group of insecticide, therefore, according to the doctor the death had occurred on account of organo phosphorus poison. While giving evidence in the Court, Dr. R.K. Mahajan (P.W. 2) has admitted that organo phosphorus compound is an insecticide extensively used in agriculture and horticulture operations to kill bugs, flies and prevents other eatables from destruction. He also states that this poison is sometimes taken accidentally and a person can die even if the gas coming out of it is inhaled by a person or tablets are eaten accidentally. From the medical evidence, it can safely be held that the deceased died on account of organo phosphorus poison. Now, the question is why she took it Whether she took it for reasons asserted by the prosecution or for other reasons recorded by the trial Judge. In order to examine this question, the relevant evidence may now be seen, examined and made use of to record findings in this case.
6. Harbans Singh (P.W. 4) has stated about the marriage of the deceased with accused Jagroop Singh about six years back. He states that on the day of the marriage, his maternal uncle Shri Balwant Singh came to his house and informed that accused Jagroop Singh was demanding one sofa-set on the occasion of the marriage. In order to meet this demand, his elder brother Jagdish Ram went to Hoshiarpur and brought one sofa-set which was given in the marriage of the deceased. Three months later, the deceased came to the house and complained against her in-law for bringing less dowry. After about four years, his brother Gurbachan Singh, brought the deceased to Delhi, where she remained for about four months. She stayed at the house of one Amar Singh where she also narrated about the behaviour of the accused. About 15 days before her death, the deceased came to his house and told that the sister of accused Jagroop Singh was going to be married and she had been asked to bring good clothes and other articles by her in-laws. Thereafter, according to him, his uncle Sansar Chand had received a telephonic message about me death of the deceased and he went straight to Police Station, Dehra, and lodged the report. However, he did not state to the police that at the time of the marriage, the accused (Jagroop Singh) was demanding one sofa-set nor has he said anything about other articles like TV, VCR etc. which the other witnesses of the prosecution have stated in this case. He admits that accused Jagroop Singh is in Army and that he had come on leave on account of his sister's marriage and he had met the accused on this occasion. He has also admitted that accused Jagroop Singh was posted in Uri Sector in J & K. He has also admitted that none of his family members ever reported to the Panchayat or Lambardar or called the bradari on the issue of the alleged maltreatment of the deceased by her in-laws. He also admits that the deceased was taken to Delhi since accused Jagroop Singh was in Army at that time but denies that she was brought back by the accused, which fact stands proved in this case through other evidence. It is also proved that the deceased could not be taken to Uri Sector since residential accommodation was not available to accused Jagroop Singh.
7. The other witness of the prosecution is Jagdish Chand (P.W. 5). He is brother of the deceased. He has improved the version of Harbans Singh (P.W. 4) by stating that the accused was demanding TV, VCR etc. and that Jagroop Singh had threatened to marry someone else and kill the deceased. He has also exaggerated the matter by stating that in the month of April, 1988 accused Jagroop Singh came to his residence and demanded Rs. 30,000/-. He gave him Rs. 20,000/- and promised to give Rs. 10,000/-lateron. He proves letter Ex. P.W. 1/A pertaining to the demand of Rs. 10,000/-. He states that he gave Rs. 20,000/- to accused Jagroop Singh with the hope that the deceased would live peacefully in the latter's house. This letter (Ex. P.W. 1/A) has been taken into possession by the police vide memo. Ex. P.W. 5/A. He states that from Delhi he reached Dada-Siba on 8th July, 1988, where the police met him.
8. Sub-Inspector Sant Ram (P.W. 21) has admitted in his statement that on 8.7.1988, he was present at Dada-Siba where Jagdish, Gurbachan Kishan Chand, Inder Singh and Durgi Devi had also come. They never told him anything nor he asked them. These witnesses had come to the Police Station on the next day and raised protest against him. This means, Jagdish Chand (P.W. 5) may have met the Police but did not tell them anything about this allegation. His statement, as a matter of fact, was recorded after three days. He has admitted that accused Jagroop Singh never talked about sofa-set with him. This fact was disclosed by his marternal uncle in the house. His statement that he told the police about accused Jagroop Singh's demand of sofa-set at the time of marriage, do not find mention in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He states that whenever the deceased used to visit his house, she used to complain that her in-laws were demanding dowry articles like TV, VCR and scooter etc. This was stated to him by the deceased about five to six times. He narrated this fact to his other brothers, but when he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where this fact has not been stated, this witness had no answer. This is the nature of evidence given by this witness.
9. Further, Smt. Durgi Devi (P.W. 6) is the mother of the deceased. She has supported the allegation of other witnesses relating to the demand of dowry by the accused. She has introduced one more fact suggesting that the accused was asking for Rs. 10,000/-, which fact does not find mention in statement Ex. DA. She admits that the deceased had given birth to two female children and the deceased wanted one male child. She has also admitted that on account of the second female child, the deceased was very unhappy. She has admitted that accused Jagroop Singh brought the deceased from Delhi to his place.
10. Gurbachan Singh (P.W. 7) is the brother of the deceased. He states that it was Balwant Singh who told him that the accused was demanding one sofa-set and that the deceased was being maltreated by her in-laws on account of less dowry. This fact was stated to him by the deceased also. He also states about the taking of the deceased to Delhi and her stay over there for four months. He has also made numerous improvements in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as recorded by the Trial Judge in para 11 of the judgment.
11. Pushpa Devi (P.W. 8) is another witness of the prosecution. She is sister of the deceased. Like other witnesses mentioned above, she has also made serious deviations and improvements in her statement before the Court, thereby shifting her stand from what she has said in her version recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. Balwant Singh (P.W, 9) talks about the demand of sofa-set by the accused and its purchase from Hoshiarpur. He admits that when he reached Dada-Siba and met the police, he could not state this fact to it.
13. The last witness of the prosecution on this point is Inder Singh (P.W. 10). On the question of recovery of shishi, the prosecution has produced Gauri Ram (P.W. 12). However, he has not supported it in his examination-in-chief but when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the shishi was produced by the accused but when cross-examined by the defence Counsel, he admitted that the shishi was found in the lawn. Therefore, this witness is thoroughly of useless character.
14. Dr. B.A. Vaid, Assistant Government Examiner, Shimla (P.W. 1), has said about the handwriting in Ex. P.W. 1/H, saying that it was in the handwriting of accused Jagroop Singh. Inquest report (Ex. P.W. 14/B) has been proved by the prosecution in this case. Then, others are the formal police witnesses stating about the time-to-time action taken by it and progress of the case and filing of it in the Court. This is the evidence of the prosecution in this case.
15. Now, I take note of the explanation of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the accused have denied the commission of any offence. I hey have said that they have been falsely implicated after the death of the deceased, otherwise their relations with the deceased had been quite cordial. They have denied that they ever demanded dowry and subjected the deceased to cruelty. It is relevant to quote the explanation of accused Jagroop Singh, in particular, in extenso. He admits that he was married to the deceased and that sofa-set was given to him in marriage, but it was not demanded by him. On the fourth day after the marriage, he joined his Unit in the Army and came back after one year. He has denied that he maltreated the deceased on account of dowry articles. He admitted that he requested Jagdish to advance, loan to him for the marriage of his sister and that Jagdish gave him Rs. 20,000/- for this purpose. He also admits the writing of the letter (Ex. P.W. 1/A) by him. According to him, the relation witnesses have deposed against him since they felt angry on account of the death of the deceased, otherwise during the life-time of the deceased, all of them were happy with him. He did not demand any dowry articles from the deceased. The deceased had asked him to take her to the place of his posting but he could not do so due to lack of family quarters and and assured her that as and when he got suitable posting with family quarters, he would take her. The deceased gave birth to second female child as a result of which she was under tension. He used to pacify her by saying that a female child was equally good and helpful like the male child. On the day of incident, he inquired from her as to what she had consumed and she had told him that instead of medicine, she had taken something else. He immediately sent his younger brother to bring the ambulance and took her to the hospital. She became unconscious and from Dada-Siba hospital, she was taken to District Hospital, Dharamshala, as advised by the doctor. The present case has been planted against him after the death of the deceased at the instance of his brother-in-law.
16. In defence, one Smt. Anjana Kumari (DW-1) has been examined in addition to some other witnesses. This witness is living in the neighbourhood of the accused. She has stated that accused Jagroop Singh is employed in the Army any is an agriculturist with reasonable holdings. She further states that the deceased used to visit her house quite often but there was no complaint whatsoever from her side, more particularly relating to the demand of dowry by the accused from the deceased. On the day of incident, the accused were working in the fields and they came to the house when called. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance.
17. Devinder Kumar (DW-3) has proved about the use of ambulance No. HPK-1792 in this case.
18. From the evidence extracted above, it is not difficult now to draw the following conclusions. Accused Jagroop Singh was married to the deceased about six years back from the date of incident. They had two female children. On account of the second female child, in place of a male one, the deceased was dejected and unhappy. The accused explains this. He had been consoling her that female child is as good as a male child. However, the fact remains that the deceased was not happy and was under tension. Now, the question is whether it was the accused (Jagroop Singh) or any of his family members who were responsible for the deceased's having taken the extreme step of consuming the poison or she did it of her own or by mistake. There is no want of evidence pointing out that the couple had been living quite happily. In case the deceased had gone to Delhi to stay with her brother, that was not on account of any kind of maltreatment administered to her by the accused or any demand of dowry from their side. It was a time when accused Jagroop Singh was in Army. This fact finds support from the evidence that when he came on leave, it was he who brought her back from Delhi. Then in the family also, she was at her house while all other family members had gone to work in the fields. They came immediately on hearing from the younger son of accused Balbir Singh that the deceased was lying in the bed. An ambulance was immediately sent for and the deceased was shifted to the nearby hospital at Dada-Siba. Even before shifting her to the hospital, an attempt was made to revive her by giving her water and deshi ghee normally used in such cases in villages. At Dada-Siba hospital, stomach wash of the deceased was resorted to. On the advice of the doctor, she was shifted to District Hospital, Dharamshala, to secure specialised treatment, but she could not servive. Before drawing the conclusion, it is relevant to notice here that there is evidence disclosing that the deceased was in a position to talk in the hospital for sometime and she talked to her husband and admitted that she had taken something else in place of the medicine, therefore, she should be saved. The pity is that no effort was made to record her statement during this time either by the police or by the doctor. Had it been done, the truth about the matter could have easily surfaced, leaving noting to guess. However, it can safely be said that the circumstances clearly demonstrate that the deceased had taken the poison either by accidentally or she was frustrated on account of the birth of the second female child, but she did not take it on account of the behaviour of the accused. This kind of poison is normally available in agriculturist families, it it used as an insecticide for the preservation of crops. It was not atleast procured by the accused. There is no evidence that the taking of this poison by the deceased was preceded by some kind of quarrel in the family or demand of dowry by the accused or maltreatment/ harassment of the deceased by the accused.
19. There is great deal of substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the family was living happily but the situation took U-turn on the death of the deceased. In case certain articles were given by the parents at the time of the marriage of the girl, it cannot be inferred that they were demanded by the accused. Further, there is no evidence pointing out that the subsequent demands and the harassment of the deceased from the side of the accused, as alleged by the prosecution, was reported to the Panchayat, police, village elders or the relations of the deceased. This means that everything was alright and the two families were living cordially. Another fact to be noticed is that the accused had demanded some loan from Jagdish which was readily given since accused Jagroop Singh wanted it to be spent on the marriage of his sister which was arranged suddenly and he had to make arrangements for this marriage. It was by way of loan and this fact is clear from his letter (Ex. P.W. 1/A). This letter further invites cordially Jagdish to the marriage. All this speaks volumes about the innocent conduct of the accused and it is unfortunate that this kind of incident was later given the colour of a demand by way of dowry. This has been rightly appreciated and the conclusion of the trial Judge rejecting it is correct and is affirmed.
20. From the aforesaid discussion of the matter, it can very well be said that the conclusion of guilt against the accused is not at all possible. Look at the examination of the case by the trial Judge. So comprehensively and meticulously it has been undertaken before holding the scales in favour of the accused. The evidence has been correctly appreciated and it cannot be said that there has been any flaw in this regard, resulting in erroneous findings being recorded.
21. I have made serious efforts to examine the matter once again with the kind assistance offered to me by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides. I see hardly any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the trial Judge in this case. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this case and the prayer of the State for seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is liable to be rejected, which I hereby do.
Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1028/92.
Since I have examined the case on merits, this application deserves no consideration.