Rajinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2007

RAJINDER SINGH ...APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENTS

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15 OF 2007

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

These two appeals are directed against the common

judgment dated 9th December, 2005 passed by the learned

Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh in two separate Criminal Appeal Nos. 392SB

of 1995 and 151SB of 1995, whereby the learned Single

Judge dismissed the appeals preferred by the accused

and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the

Additional Session Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

2.The appellants were tried for offences under

Sections 498A , 304B and 201/34 IPC and after

hearing the parties the learned Additional Session

Judge, Jagadhri by its judgment dated 22nd

February, 1995 convicted the appellant Rajinder

Page 2

2

Singh for the offences under Sections 498A , 304

B and 201 IPC whereas other appellants, namely,

Surinder Singh, Pritam Singh, Gurvinder Singh were

convicted for offences under Section 201/34IPC.

AccusedAppellant Rajinder Singh was sentenced to

undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a

fine of Rs.500/ for offence under Section 498A

IPC, in default of payment of fine, he had to

undergo further RI for six months; for offence

under Section 304B IPC he was sentenced to

undergo RI for a period of seven years and for the

offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentence to

undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a

fine of Rs.500/ in default of payment of fine, he

was to undergo further RI for a period of six

months. The other accused, namely, Surinder Singh,

Pritam Singh and Gurvinder Singh were sentenced to

undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a

fine of Rs.500/ each for the offence under

Section 201/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine

they were to undergo RI for a period of six

months. Accused, Madan Lal had been acquitted by

that judgment.

During the pendency of the appeal before the High

Court, appellantPritam Singh died and his case got

Page 3

3

abated. Thus the case was confined to rest of the

accused.

3. The case of the prosecution against the accused

appellant Rajinder Singh is that Santosh Kaur,

daughter of Nahar Singh was married with the

accusedappellant on 22nd April, 1992. Sufficient

dowry articles were given. On 11th December,

1992, accusedappellant left his wife Santosh Kaur

in her parents house for one month when Santosh

Kaur told her father Nahar Singh that her father

inlaw; Pritam Singh, husbandRajinder Singh,

brotherinlaws; Gurvinder Singh and Surinder

Singh and Madan Lal, brotherinlaw of her husband

has been harassing her for bringing less dowry.

She also told that they were demanding

Rs.25,000/ and asked her to bring that amount

when she came back to her inlaw's house on Lohri.

Nahar Singh was not in a position to pay the

amount demanded and assured his daughter that he

might arrange some money when she would go back to

herinlaw's house. On 15th January, 1993, when

Sukhbir Singh, brother of Santosh Kaur, was taking

her to herinlaw's house, his fatherNahar Singh

told him to make the accused understand that some

money would be sent by 20th January,1993 and that

they should not harass her. He also informed this

Page 4

4

fact to Sucha Singh, Sarpanch of the village.

Finally, money could not be arranged by 20th

January, 1993. On 24th January, 1993, one Pritam

Singh came to the house of Nahar Singh and

informed him that his daughterSantosh Kaur had

died during the intervening night of 23rd/24th

January, 1993 and she had also been cremated in

the morning of 24th January, 1993. On 25th

January, 1993, Nahar Singh, Sucha Singh, Sukhbir

Singh and some other family members went to

Mamliwala to the house of the accused and after

verifying the facts, lodged a report before Police

Station, Chhachhrauli. A case was registered and

accused were sent for trial.

4. After trial, case was found to be proved against

Rajinder Singh for the offence under Sections 498

A,304B and 201 IPC and against Surinder Singh,

Pritam Singh and Gurvinder Singh for the offence

under Section 201/34 IPC; hence they were

convicted for the same whereas Madan Lal was

acquitted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

no demand of dowry and threat was ever made to the

deceased or her family members. In fact no

complaint in this regard was ever made by the

complainant or the deceased or by anybody else to

Page 5

5

the police. No letter was written by the deceased

about the demand of dowry or cash. Therefore, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further

submitted that the Court below failed to consider

the fact that the cremation was never done

secretly. Cremation ceremony was attended by

persons very much close to the complainant family.

The deceased Santosh Kaur never complained to

anybody at neighborhood about herinlaws or

about torture or harassment or demand of dowry or

cash by them. Therefore, the present case was a

false and concocted story made by the prosecution.

Further, according to him PW2, Nahar Singh,

father of the deceased in his deposition stated

that his daughter after marriage never complained

about the accusedappellant.

7. Learned counsel for the prosecution per contra

relied upon the evidence and submitted that the

ingredients necessary for the application of

Section 304B IPC were established beyond

reasonable doubt. Therefore, the presumption under

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act arises

and hence it is proved that the accusedappellant

caused the dowry death.

Page 6

6

8. The admitted position in the present case is that

the deceased was married with the accused

appellant on 22nd April, 1992. She died in the

night intervening by 23rd/24th January, 1993. The

cremation of the dead body was done in the morning

of 24th January, 1993 without waiting for the

parents of the deceased. Pritam Singh(PW7)

stated in his deposition that about about 12.00

noon, he was standing on the bus stand of

Khizrabad and was talking with some people. Then

he came to know that Santosh Kaur, daughterinlaw

of Pritam Singh had died and was cremated. Then

he told this fact to Nahar Singh(PW2), father of

the deceased who stayed in the Village Kotian. On

the next day, PW2 alongwith Sucha Singh and

other persons went to Village Mamliwala and

verified the fact that Santosh Kaur had died and

has also been cremated. The distance between the

villages Mamliwala and Kotian was not so much and

it was only about 1718 kms. It was winter season;

month of January but it has not been made clear

why the accusedappellant cremated the body of

the deceased in the early morning of 24th January,

1993 without even calling the parents of the

deceased which shows that there was something

which the accusedappellant wanted to conceal.

Page 7

7

9. As per statement of Nahar Singh(PW2), Sukhbir

Singh(PW3) who were the father and the brother of

the deceased, accusedappellant Rajinder Singh

left deceased in her parents' house for about one

month in December, 1992. PW2 stated that her

daughterSantosh Kaur told him that her fatherin

law; Pritam singh, husband, Rajinder Singh,

brotherinlaws; Gurvinder Singh and Surinder

Singh and Madan Lal, brotherinlaw of her husband

were harassing her for bringing less dowry. She

also told that they were demanding Rs.25,000/

and told her to bring that amount when she came

back on Lohri. Nahar Singh(PW2) was not in a

position to meet the said demand at that stage. He

assured his daughter that he would arrange some

money and give her by the time she leaves back to

her matrimonial house. On 15th January, 1993, his

son Sukhbir Singh took Santosh Kaur to herinlaws

house. He told him to make the accused understand

that they would pay some money by 20th January,

1993 and they should not harass her. This fact was

also informed to Sucha Singh, Sarpanch of the

village. But the money could not be arranged by

20th January, 1993 and after about 34 days, i.e.

on 24th January, 1993, Pritam Singh (PW7) came to

PW2 and told about the death of Santosh Kaur

Page 8

8

whose death took place during the intervening

night of 23rd/24th January, 1993.

10. Sukhbir Singh (PW3), brother of the deceased also

corroborated the statements made by his father Nahar

Singh(PW2). He stated that the deceased told them that

her husband Rajinder Singh, brotherinlaws; Gurvinder

Singh and Surinder Singh, fatherinlaw; Pritam Singh

and Madan Lal, brotherinlaw of her husband were

harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. He

further told that they were demanding Rs.25,000/.

PW3 then told her sister that they would pay the

amount by 20th January, 1993. Then on 15th January,

1993 he took her sister to the house of herinlaws and

came back next day after telling his sister that the

amount of 25,000 will be paid by 20th January, 1993.

PW3 further stated that the accused were harassing

his sister even prior to 11th December, 1992. He also

stated that on hearing about her death, he alongwith

his father, Pritam Singh (PW7), Sucha Singh, Sarpanch

of the village, went to the village Mamliwala. They

found the accused weeping and it was found that the

dead body of his sister had already been cremated

before they reached there. Then his father reported

the matter to the police.

11. Pritam Singh(PW7) stated that on 24th January,

1993 he came to Khizrabad to see his brotherinlaw.

Page 9

9

At 12.00 noon while standing on the bus stand of

Khizrabad, he heard some people talking that Pritam's

Singh dautherinlaw Santosh Kaur died and had been

cremated. Therefore, he told this fact to Nahar

Sing(PW2) at Kotian. Then on next day he came to the

village Mamliwala alongwith 10 other persons where they

came to know that Santosh Kaur had been cremated. Then

all of them went to Police Station and lodged the

report.

12. Nar Singh (PW9), SHO, Police station

Parakhpur, stated that on 25th January, 1993 he

was posted as SI/SHO of Police Station,

Chhachhrauli. On that day, complainant (PW2) came

to police station and lodged the FIR (Ex.P.B.). He

recorded statement, inspected the spot and the

place of occurrence and took into possession the

clothes of the deceased vide memo(Ex.P.E.) which

was stained with “vomiting and latrine”. Clothes

were sealed into a parcel with the seal of the 6

B.R., which was handed over to Sucha Singh(PW4).

Ex.P.E. was attested by Sucha Singh(PW4) and

Sukhbir Singh(PW3). Thereafter he went to the

place of cremation and prepared the rough site

plan of the cremation ground (Ex.P.M.). The ash

and bones were taken into possession vide recovery

memo (Ex.P.E.) which was also attested by PW4

Page 10

10

and PW3. Statements of PW3 and PW4 were

recorded (Ex.P.N.). He arrested the accused. The

parcel of clothes and ash & bones were sent to

forensic laboratory.

No contradiction could be found during the cross

examination of prosecution witnesses.

13. The accused in their examination under Section 313

Cr.P.C. admitted the factum of marriage but denied the

allegation relating to demand of dowry. In reply to

question no. 14, accusedRajinder Singh stated that his

wife Santosh Kaur died a natural death on account of

heavy vomiting and loose motions. He also stated that

they neither demanded any dowry nor pressurized her to

bring Rs.25,000/ from her father and that they were

falsely implicated in the case.

14. Admittedly, Santosh Kaur died in the

intervening night of 23rd/24th January, 1993 and

she was cremated in the early morning of 24th

January, 1993. The distance between Village

Mamliwala and Kotian was not much and it was just

1718kms. It was the month of January and winter

season, the necessity of the accusedappellant to

cremate the dead body within few hours of death

in the early morning of 24th January, 1993 without

informing the parents of the Santosh Kaur has not

been explained. The Police took into possession

Page 11

11

the ash and bones from the cremation ground and

clothes of the deceased and sent the same to the

Deputy DirectorcumAssistant Chemical Examiner to

the Government of Haryana, F.S.L. Madhuban. As per

report an “Organo Phosphorus Pesticide” was

detected on the salwar stained with dirty brown

material, one printed lady's shirt stained with

dirty brown material and one green coloured woolen

shawl of the deceased. As per report of F.S.L. (Ex

P.L.1), the bones were found of the human being.

Therefore, it is clear that Santosh Kaur died

other than under normal circumstances. The

accusedappellants have also failed to explain the

presence of an “Organo Phosphorus Pesticide” in

the vomiting of the deceased.

15.Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve

the burden of prosecution to prove guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt but where the

prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from

which a reasonable inference can be drawn

regarding the existence of certain other facts and

the accused by virtue of special knowledge

regarding such facts fail to offer any explanation

then the Court can draw a different inference.

16. The ingredients necessary for application of

Section 304B IPC and the applicability of Section

Page 12

12

113B of the Evidence Act was discussed by this

Court in State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram, (2008)12

SCC 51. In the said case, this Court held as

follows:

“11.The ingredients necessary for the

application of Section 304B IPC are: 1. that the death of a woman has been

caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;

2. that such death has been caused or has occurred within seven years of her marriage; and

3. that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry.

12. Section 113B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before her death a woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person who is accused of causing her death then the court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. The presumption under Section 113B is a presumption of law and once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients mentioned therein it becomes the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.

13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B, Evidence Act shows that in order to prove the charge of dowry death, prosecution has to establish

Page 13

13

that the victim died within 7 years of marriage and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death and such cruelty or harassment was for dowry. The expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the victim and decide whether there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry, the act of cruelty or harassment and the death.”

17. In the present case, the prosecution proved that

the death of Santosh Kaur has occurred otherwise than

under normal circumstances. Such death has occurred

within a period of 9 months of her marriage i.e. much

before seven years. The statements of PW2 and PW3 are

trustworthy and they stated that Santosh Kaur was

subjected to harassment by her husband and other

accused relatives in connection with demand for dowry

just prior to death. The prosecution having established

essential ingredients, it becomes the duty of the Court

to raise a presumption that the accused caused dowry

death.

18. In the present case, the accused has failed to

explain as to why he was in a hurry to cremate the

deceased in the early morning of 24th January, 1993

while she died in the mid night of 23rd/24th January,

1993 i.e. within few hours. The village of deceased's

parents was just 1718kms far from the village of the

accused but the reason as to why they were not informed

Page 14

14

about the incident on the same day and why the accused

had not waited for them to come is not explained. The

accused has also failed to explain as to why according

to the F.S.L. Report, an Organo Phosphorus Pesticide

was found in the vomiting of the deceased. Therefore,

the Trial Court rightly drew an inference that the

accusedappellants were guilty of the offence for which

they were charge.

19. Hence, we find no merit in these appeals.

These are accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds of

the appellants are cancelled. They shall surrender

within a period of two weeks to undergo the

remaining sentence.

………………………………………………………………………………J. (A.K.PATNAIK)

………………………………………………………………………………J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 3,2013.