RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDERWATI and Saroj, two daughters of Balwan son of Rati Ram, resident of village Ghikada, were married to two brothers named Ram Kishan accused appellant and Satyawan, respectively, 13.4.1984. Around 5.00 A.M. on 7.11.1988, nearly 4 years and 7 months after her marriage, Inderwati died otherwise than under normal circumstances by drowning in the well of Ganga Ram son of Jawahara, resident of village Ghudan. Suraj Bhan, eldest brother of Ram Kishan, reported it to be a case of accident. Balwan Singh, father of the deceased, however, reported it to be a case of drowning death on 12-11-1988. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the father of the deceased thus :-

(2.) VIDE its impugned judgement dated 4-10-1989, learned trial court convicted Ram Kishan accused of the commission of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, but absolved him of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that cruelty and maltreatment was alleged in respect of demands for more dowry and not to pressurise her to commit suicide. In respect of conviction, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, Ram Kishan accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years was awarded to him for his conviction under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to convicted accused appellant were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved from his conviction and sentences aforesaid, Ram Kishan accused-appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 408 S.B. of 1989 in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellant referred me to the observations made in Wazir Chand and another v. State of Haryana, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 109 (SC) : 1989 CAR (SC) 109 and urged that drowning of Inderwati deceased in the well can either be termed as accident pure and simple or at the most intentional and determined suicide by the deceased. It can in no circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, be termed as dowry death, occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances. The argument is wholly without merit and the authority cited does not support it. In the authority cited, it was a burn case, occurring before the enactment of, Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of suicide note and absence of kerosene smell from the clothes of the bride, it was held, "Admittedly medical aid having been proved to have been made available by the in-laws, it cannot be said with certainty that it was a case of suicide." Both, the father-in-law and the bridegroom, were, however, held guilty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.