The court established that continuous dowry harassment constitutes cruelty under IPC, leading to presumption of abetment of suicide when the victim dies within seven years of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.06.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellants (accused before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years, pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of the fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC . They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC . (For convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC . It was asserted that the informant-Prem Chand (PW1) is the father of the victim-Trishla Devi. She was married to accused Daizy @ Vishal in the year 2006 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Accused Daizy and his family members started harassing Trishla soon after her marriage for not bringing sufficient dowry and a vehicle. The informant had provided the dowry as per his capacity. The accused also gave beatings to Trishla in her matrimonial home. She was not provided the daily necessities of life. The informant made a complaint to Kamlesh Kumar, Panchayat Pardhan of his Gram Panchayat. Panchayat Pradhan accompanied the informant to the matrimonial home of Trishla Devi. Pardhan counselled the accused. The accused admitted their fault and undertook to maintain the deceased properly, however, Vishal Kumar, Sudesh Kumari and Baikunth Lal continued to harass the victim. The victim committed suicide due to the harassment of the accused.

3. The police were informed about the death of Trishla Devi. An entry (Ext. PW9/A) was recorded in the police station. SI/SHO Kapur Chand (PW13), HHC Amrik Singh, Constable Joginder Kumar and HHC Balbir Singh went to the spot for verification of the information. SI Kapur Chand prepared the site plan (Ext. PW13/A). He conducted the inquest on the dead body and issued the reports (Ext. PW5/B and PW5/C). He filed an application (Ext. PW5/A) for conducting the post-mortem examination of Trishla Devi. Dr Shiv Pal Singh (PW5) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found that there was no external mark of injury on the body. He preserved the viscera and handed it over to the police official accompanying the dead body. He reserved his final report which was to be given after the receipt of the chemical examiner’s report.

4. The viscera were sent to FSL, Junga for analysis. The result of the analysis (Ext. PW5/D) was issued stating that phosphine gas was detected in the contents of the viscera. Final Report (Ext. PW5/E) was issued by Dr Shiv Pal Singh stating that the cause of death was phosphide poisoning leading to cardio-respiratory failure and death.

5. The statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-II, who committed it to learned Sessions Judge, Una who assigned it to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una (learned Trial Court) for trial.

6. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. Prem Chand (P