NARENDER KUMAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of conviction of Narinder Kumar and Kaushlya Devi, son and mother for an offence under Section 306 IPC with the allegation that they had abetted Parvin Lata wife of Appellant Narinder Kumar to commit suicide. Parvin Lata and Narinder Kumar got married on 26.11.1983. One Kundan Lal was a go -between of this marriage. Parvin Lata started living in her matrimonial house after marriage. It is alleged that the accused started demanding a television set and a refrigerator after one month of the marriage. It is further stated that sarcastic remarks about the height of Parvin Lata being small statured were also made. She was, as such, maltreated, tortured and treated with cruelty. It is further disclosed that after six months of the marriage, deceased Parvin Lata was thrown out of the matrimonial house. Subsequently, respectables of the area got together and matter was reconciled between Appellant Narinder Kumar and his wife Parvin Lata. She was brought back to the matrimonial house with the promise that no demand for dowry would be raised in future. It is then brought out that Ashwani Kumar (PW3), brother of the deceased had gone to the house of his sister to bring her to parental house due to illness of their mother. However, her husband Narinder Kumar refused to send her and even had said that she would not be sent even if some one was to die. Shortly, thereafter, Kundan Lal (PW4) informed Ashwani Kumar (PW3) that his sister Parvin Lata had been done to death by the Appellants. Ashwani Kumar, the brother of the deceased then had gone to the house of the Appellants to find Parvin Lata lying dead on the cot. The matter was reported to the police leading to registration of a case under Section 306 IPC. After investigation, a prima facie case Under Section 306 IPC was found to be made out against the Appellants and they were charged accordingly. Late Parvin Lata was found to have died of poisoning. It was pleaded on behalf of the Appellants that there was no evidence of torture or any compulsion, which could have emanated from the Appellants forcing the deceased to commit suicide. Allegations of demand of dowry and torture on account thereof were also denied. Trial Court, on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution found both the Appellants guilty of the charge and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, a maximum sentence provided under this Section. Fine of Rs. 2000/ - each was also imposed upon the Appellants. They have filed this appeal.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Appellants, mainly submits that the Appellants have been wrongly held guilty of the charge as prosecution had miserably failed to lead any evidence indicating abetment on their part for which the deceased had committed suicide. It was not otherwise disputed that it was a death by suicide. It is, however, pointed out that this incident is dated 11.9.1984 and charge in this case was framed on 7.6.1985. Aggrieved against the framing of charge under Section 306 IPC, the complainant had even gone upto Supreme Court for framing charge under Section 302 IPC, as it was being made out by them that late Parvin Lata was in fact done to death by the Appellant. The Appellant, however, ultimately were prosecuted only on charge Under Section 306 IPC. This will explain the pendency of the trial for over a period of ten years. The Appellants were convicted on 3.4.1995. Referring to the evidence of two brothers of the deceased, learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued that the allegation of demand of dowry stood diluted and as such would not show any abetment on the part of the Appellants. By referring to Section 107 IPC, learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that the evidence is not enough to show any instigation on the part of the Appellants, which could have led the deceased to commit suicide to bring home the offence against the Appellants Under Section 306 IPC.

(3.) STATE counsel, on the other hand, has very aptly referred to letter Ex.PC, which the deceased had written to her father. Reading of the same would clearly disclose that all was not well with her at her matrimonial home. The deceased had pleadingly prayed with her father to visit her as she was in trouble. It is, as such, difficult to hold that this suicide was not on account of any abetment or instigation by the Appellants. The prosecution, in my view, was successful in proving the offence against the Appellants. They appear to have escaped the rigours of law as the offence Under Section 304B IPC introduced on 19.10.1986 and thus Appellants were charged Under Section 306 IPC only. The deceased had committed suicide within nine months of the marriage and the Appellants would have been put under strains of a presumption being drawn against them as is available under law. Even otherwise, the deceased had died at her matrimonial house occupied by the Appellants and actual reason leading to suicide could be expected to be within the special knowledge of the Appellants. No case for interference in this appeal is made out, so far as the conviction is concerned.