Balwant Singh & Ors vs State Of H.P

The appellants-accused were tried for offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. Accused

No.1 Balwant Singh was father-in-law, accused No.4-Kanta

Devi was mother-in-law, accused No.3-Ravinder Singh was

brother-in-law and accused No.2-Anup Singh was husband of

Renu Bala (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). The

deceased was daughter of one Gurdayal Singh and Kamla

Devi. She was married to A-2, Anup Singh on July 6, 1992 in

accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals. After few days of

her marriage, when Renu Bala visited the house of her

parents, she complained as to how accused persons were

treating her with cruelty by putting demands for refrigerator

and scooter as dowry. It was alleged that on January 5, 1993,

Kamla Devi, mother of Renu Bala came to know from Tilak

Raj, her brother-in-law that Renu Bala was admitted in a

2 hospital at Gagret. She, therefore, along with Tilak Raj went to

the hospital, but Renu Bala was not there, and they came to

know that Renu Bala was taken to Patohar Kalan, the village

where the accused were staying. Both of them then went to

the residence of the accused and found Renu Bala lying dead

in verandah of the house of the accused and none of the

accused was there. Kamla Devi suspected foul play that her

daughter Renu Bala was either killed or was compelled to

commit suicide by consuming poison on account of their

unlawful demand of dowry by the accused and by treating her

with cruelty. She, therefore, lodged a report with the police

Ex.PW-3/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') at Police Station, Una,

which was registered as formal F.I.R. vide Ex.PW-11/A. After

registration of the case, the investigation started. The police

went to the spot, prepared inquest report and rough spot map

of the place where dead body of Renu Bala was found. The

Investigating officer also took into possession vomit of Renu

Bala and the clothes worn by her at the time of vomiting prior

to her death. Two letters, which were produced by Devinder

3 Singh, were also taken in possession. Postmortem was

conducted by Dr. Vijay Kumar Raizda, which revealed that

Renu Bala was having pregnancy of fourteen to sixteen weeks.

He reserved his opinion regarding cause of death till receipt of

report of Chemical Analyser. After receiving the report, Dr.

Gurcharan Singh opined that cause of death was peripheral

circulatory failure due to aluminum phosphide which was

sufficient cause of death in natural course of events. Further

investigation was conducted by ASI, Jarnail Singh, who

obtained two letters produced by Gurdyal Singh, father of

deceased Renu Bala. He submitted a report under Section 173

of the Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Una, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions

Judge, Una, vide his order dated April 25, 1994.

After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State

as well as learned defence counsel, a charge was framed

against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the IPC and they were

asked as to whether they plead guilty.

4 The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and

claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 16

witnesses. After the prosecution evidence was closed

statements of the accused persons were recorded in terms of

the Section 313 of the Code. Six witnesses were examined to

establish their innocence. From the suggestions put during

cross examination the accused persons tried to make out a

case that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and frustrated

by her life she committed suicide. The trial court as noted

above held the accused persons guilty of offences punishable

under Section 498A and 306 IPC while directing acquittal of

the charge in terms of Section 304-B IPC. In appeal after

referring to the evidence High Court came to hold that the

offence under Section 306 is not made out.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there

is no evidence of any overt act by A-3. The letters Exh.PW-5/A

5 and PW-5/C show that there was no demand of dowry but

there was improper treatment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out

that having held that the appellants were not guilty of offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC there is no scope for

convicting the appellants under Section 498A IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand

supported the judgment of the High Court.

Section 498A reads as follows:

"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation - For the purpose of this section 'cruelty' means -

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or

6 danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

7. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger

to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the

woman are required to be established in order to bring home

the application of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined

in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498A.

Substantive Section 498A IPC and presumptive Section 113B

of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective

statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is

to be noted that Sections 304B and 498A, IPC cannot be held

to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two

distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential

to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The

7 Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of `cruelty'. In

Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning

of `cruelty'. But having regard to common background to

these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of `cruelty'

or `harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation

to Section 498A under which `cruelty' by itself amounts to an

offence. Under Section 304B it is `dowry death' that is

punishable and such death should have occurred within

seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in

Section 498A. A person charged and acquitted under Section

304B can be convicted under Section 498A without that

charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is

established, there can be a conviction under both the

sections. (See Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of

Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A IPC and

Section 113B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude

past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113B of

the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a

woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from

the date of marriage.

8 The above position was highlighted in M. Srinivasulu v.

State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2007 SC 3146).

8. On analyzing of the evidence it is clear that there is no

material to establish the guilt of A-3 i.e. brother-in-law of the

deceased. Consequently he stands acquitted of the charge. So

far as other three accused persons are concerned, the

accusations have been established by the evidence of PWs 3, 4

and 5, the documentary evidence and the exhibited letters and

the convictions recorded so far as they are concerned cannot

be faulted.

9. It is to be noted that the High Court has imposed

sentence of one year. Considering the age of the father-in-law

and mother-in-law (A-1 and A-4) and the period of sentence

already undergone by them while upholding the conviction the

sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The

appeal stands dismissed so far as A-2 is concerned.

9

10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, September 29, 2008

10