VIRBHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an unfortunate and disturbing phenomenon that has recently arisen in many parts of our country that instances of bride killing are alarmingly on the increase. If society should be ridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardly crimes of this nature are detected and the offence brought home to the accused, the courts must deal with the offender most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment. The case before us is one of its kind. While, in the vast majority of such cases, the harassment and killing of the bride is traceable to the abominable and pernicious practice of demanding and extracting dowry and the failure on the part of the bride's parents to adequately satisfy the greedy demands of the husband's people, the reason for the torture and murder of the innocent wife in the present case was that she was considered an "inauspicious" girl. That was for the reason that she did not. bear children for four or five years after the marriage and even though thereafter, she conceived twice and successively gave birth to two male babies, both those babies did not survive beyond a few weeks or days. Having branded the young wife as inauspicious, the selfish animal nature in the husband and his parents came out in the form of their determination that the husband should remarry after doing away with the obstacle in the shape of his existing wife. That led the husband and his mother to commit the dastardly murder of the young wife in a most gruesome fashion.

(2.) Sileti Singh, his wife, Smt. Gyani Devi, and his son, Virbhan Singh, were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Etawah, charged with the murder of Smt. Gyani, the wife of Virbhan Singh, in furtherance of the common intention of all of them, by intentionally causing death by beating the deceased and then hanging her with a rope. The deceased was married to Virbhan Singh about 9 years prior to the time of the occurrence. She did not give birth to any child for about five to six years after marriage. According to the prosecution case, the husband of the deceased and his parents used to harass her and beat her on this account and they used to say that they would get the second marriage performed for Virbhan Singh. In or about the seventh year after the marriage, the deceased gave birth to a male child but that child, survived only for about 9 or 10 months. Thereafter, the ill-treatment of the deceased at the hands of the husband and his parents is said to have commenced again. A few months prior to the occurrence, the deceased gave birth to another male child but that baby too died within 6 or 7 days of its birth. This precipitated matters and the deceased is said to have been branded as an "inauspicious" woman, who could no longer be retained in the family. According to the prosecution, she used to make complaints of severe harassment by the accused to her sister, Shrimati Ram Kumari (P.W. 1), who too was married to a person in the same village - Nangla Incha. On 14th August 1968 at about 5-00 p.m., Shrimati Ram Kumari had gone to the house of the deceased with an intent to meet her but she was told by the husband, Virbhan Singh and his mother that the deceased had gone with the father-in-law to obtain some medicine. The next morning, P. W. 1 heard a general rumour in the village that her sister had been killed. Thereupon, she called her husband's younger brother, Krishna Gopal (P. W. 4) and again went to the house of the accused along with him. She found Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, in the house and she asked them to show her the dead body of the deceased. At first they refused but on a hue and cry being raised by her, they showed her the dead body lying in a room in a swollen condition, emitting a foul smell. On 15th August 1968, at about 9-30 a.m., Sileti Singh lodged a report at the Police Station Jaswantnagar to the effect that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself with rope. Sub-Inspector Netrapal Singh (P. W. 11) went to the place of occurrence and held an inquest on the dead body with the assistance of panchas. Most strangely, in spite of the body being in a fairly advanced state of decomposition, thereby clearly indicating that the death had taken place along time prior to the report given by Sileti Singh, which should have normally aroused serious suspicion in the mind of any reasonable person about the version of suicide given by him, the Sub-inspector and the panchas were inclined to record the cause of death, as suicide by hanging and close the case without any further investigation. However, Ram Kumari (P. W. 1) and her brother-in-law, Krishna Gopal (P. W. 4) strongly protested and demanded that the body should be sent for post-mortem and due to their persistence, the request was acceded to. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Lakhotia on 15-8-1968 at 5-30 p.m. In the opinion of the doctor, the death had taken place between one and a half to two days prior to the time of his examination, i.e. between 5-30 p.m. on 13-8-1968 and 5-30 a.m. on 14-3-1968. The post-mortem report disclosed that there were the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased.

(3.) The Sessions Judge found, on a careful and analytical consideration of the evidence, that the death of the deceased was caused as a result of the injuries inflicted on her by the accused, followed by asphyxiation resulting from the deceased having been hung by her neck by the accused. He found all the accused guilty of the offence of murder, convicted them under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced the three of them to undergo imprisonment for life. In the appeal filed, by, the three accused, the High Court confirmed the finding that the case was not one of suicide but one of calculated murder, the hanging by rope being part of the process of the deceased being put to death by her assailants. The High Court, however, took the view that the presence of Sileti Singh at the time of the commission of offence was not established beyond doubt and hence it acquitted him giving him the benefit of doubt. The conviction of Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, under Section 302 I. P. C. was confirmed, by the High Court. This appeal has been preferred by the aforementioned two accused.