Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 930 (PNJ)

Ninder Singh v. State Of Haryana

2001-08-28

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2001
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. Ninder Singh appellant has been convicted and sentenced for dowry death of his wife Virpal Kaur. 2. Virpal Kaur daughter of Nachhatar Singh, resident of village Mangeana was married in March, 1996 to Ninder Singh appellant of village Musali, within the area of Police Station, Elllanabad, District Sirsa in Haryana. The relations between the husband and wife were strained. Even the members of the family i.e. two brothers of the appellant, namely, Jasbir Singh and Jagjit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur alias Guddi wife of Jagjit Singh and Surjit Kaur mother of the appellant allegedly started demanding valuables. It was being claimed by Nachhatar Singh that a decent marriage was performed in which various valuable articles like fridge, sewing machine, scooter and other house hold articles were included in the list of dowry articles besides the ornaments of gold. The husband and the members of the family started causing harassment and giving beatings to the deceased and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given to the husband in cash for purchase of a jeep and the balance amount was also agreed to be paid later on. Virpal Kaur was sent to her matrimonial home with the promise that the accused were not going to harm her but still it was being claimed that on 5.8.1998 Nachhatar Singh P.W.6 got information that his daughter Virpal Kaur, who was pRegulation nt, had been done to death by the aforesaid persons and her dead body had been cremated secretly so that no body could come to know the atrocities committed upon her. So Nachhatar Singh P.W.6 came to Police Station, Ellanabad on 6.8.1998 and made his statement before SI Subh Ram P.W.8 at 2.00 P.M. and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex. PE was recorded. The special report reached the learned Ilaqa Magistrate at 5.10 P.M. the same day. The said SI went to the cremation ground of village Musali and lifted ashes and pieces of bone which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PG of the cremation ground. Thereafter he went to the house of the accused and inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. PH. The said SI went to the cremation ground of village Musali and lifted ashes and pieces of bone which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PG of the cremation ground. Thereafter he went to the house of the accused and inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. PH. He also recorded the statement of Billa Singh P.W.7 son of Nachhatar Singh who narrated that how his sister was maltreated; that they had gone to the house of the in-laws of Virpal Kaur and had requested them not to maltreat her and also paid Rs. 20,000/-. The Investigating Officer arrested Surjit Kaur accused on 6.8.1998 and Ninder Singh and Jaswinder Kaur alias Guddi on 7.8.98, whereas Jasbir Singh and Jagjit Singh accused were arrested on 9.8.1998. 3. Obviously, there could not be any post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased since the same had been disposed of. A report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PJ was the evidence which mentioned that the bones recovered in the case could be of a person of 18 years of age and the sex of the deceased could not be ascertained. No poison could be detected out of the ashes etc. taken from the cremation ground. 4. The accused were charge-sheeted under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was not framed. The accused persons claimed innocence. Jagjit Singh son of Bhan Singh DW1 claimed that cremation of Virpal Kaur had taken place around 11.00 A.M. where the father and brother of the deceased were also present and they attended the cremation without any complaint. However, they had asked the accused that some share of the land in the name of the accused be transferred in the name of the daughter of Virpal Kaur for which the accused did not agree. The father of Virpal Kaur also demanded the return of articles of dowry and there was exchange of hot words between the two sides. The witness also stated that wife of Jasbir Singh accused i.e. brothers wife of the Ninder Singh appellant, also died and a similar case was registered against him and his mother. The father of Virpal Kaur also demanded the return of articles of dowry and there was exchange of hot words between the two sides. The witness also stated that wife of Jasbir Singh accused i.e. brothers wife of the Ninder Singh appellant, also died and a similar case was registered against him and his mother. From the suggestions put to the witnesses it came to light that all the other accused persons i.e. Jasbir Singh, Jagjit Singh, Jaswinder Kaur and Surjit Kaur were living separate from the appellants and therefore, they all except Ninder Singh were acquitted by the learned trial Judge. His conviction was based upon the evidence relating to the demand of dowry and the learned trial Judge relying upon the authorities in Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 547, Subhash Chand v. Punjab State, 1999(3) RCR (Crl.) 567, State of Haryana v. Sunil Kumar, 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 749, State of Punjab v. Daljit Singh, 1999 (2) RCR (Crl.) 690 and Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) RCR (Crl.) 259, held that it was dowry death and convicted the appellant Ninder Singh under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 5. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence Ninder Singh appellant filed Crl. A. No. 504-DB of 2000 whereas Nachhatar Singh filed Crl. R.No. 420 of 2001, both of which are being disposed of by this judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in fact after about three years of the marriage there could not be any probability in the prosecution version that there was a demand of dowry. According to him, possibly the demand could not have been made after the marriage was performed. He also urged that the death of the deceased was a natural death and cremation thereof was also in routine and there was neither any mischief nor any concealment. According to him, a young lady of the age of 20 years could not die in abnormal circumstances or the circumstances which did not look natural and, therefore, the situation should be inferred in favour of the appellant that the deceased died a natural death without any background of demand of dowry. 7. We have gone through the testimony of Nachhatar Singh P.W.6. 7. We have gone through the testimony of Nachhatar Singh P.W.6. He has categorically mentioned that his daughter was being maltreated and not only there was demand but he had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- just before the death of the deceased. He had also promised to pay the remaining amount. The deceased already had a daughter and was pRegulation nt at the time of her death. It was just after about 15 days of the payment of the said amount that Billa Singh P.W.7 his son had gone to the house of the appellant and he was told that if the remaining amount was not paid there could be danger to the life of Virpal Kaur and he conveyed this message to his father and to their surprise his daughter was found dead 15 days thereafter and the aforesaid case was registered. Similar is the version of Billa Singh P.W.7, the brother of the deceased. There is no need to repeat his version again and it would suffice to say that the witness admitted in cross-examination that the appellant and his four brothers had about 60 Acreas of land under their cultivation. He, however, clarified that Nachhatar Singh also owned 15 Acres of land alone. So, it is immaterial who is comparatively rich or poor. It is the question of mental satisfaction that the appellant still wanted the money and really extracted a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. It has come in evidence that the deceased also used to be beaten. So there is nothing on record to suggest that the evidence relating to the demand of dowry by causing harassment can be overlooked or can be under estimated. On a minute scrutiny of the entire record, it would be evident that the appellant had not mentioned any reasons or any other circumstance in which the deceased had died. He had not mentioned if the deceased was ailing or had some accident in the house or had any situation in which she lost her life. No doctor has been produced to say that she had fallen ill or that she was got treated by any such doctor. The appellant had not been able to say anything whatsoever that the deceased dies a natural death. No doctor has been produced to say that she had fallen ill or that she was got treated by any such doctor. The appellant had not been able to say anything whatsoever that the deceased dies a natural death. As per the law contained in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act in such circumstances the onus would be on the appellant to discharge otherwise there will have to be a presumption against the appellant that the death of the deceased did not take place in normal circumstances but it happened something beyond that and the appellant thus deliberately concealed the same. It was, therefore, that the Parliament thought it appropriate to legislate Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Dowry deaths were being caused in a surreptitiously and concealed manner in the house of the in-laws. No outsider could collect the evidence and the reason for the death. It was, therefore, that the law was necessarily to be framed that the person in whose house the death is caused is supposed to explain the same and his failure to do so, an inference would be drawn against him. So we are of the view that there has been ample evidence on record that the death of the deceased did not take place in normal circumstances in the house of the appellant and the argument of the learned counsel that the appellant was being put under pressure to transfer his land in the name of the deceased and to return the dowry articles is rendered totally unfounded. The conviction of the appellant is well based. However, looking to the entire circumstances of the case, the sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is party allowed as indicated above and the revision is dismissed.