Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1147 (PNJ)

Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-08-14

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This appeal has been instituted by Sadhu Singh son of Pattu Singh against judgment and order dated 6.2.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby he was found guilty and convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as the Code) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Smt. Lachho, now deceased, was the daughter of PW-2 Bant Singh. She was married to Sadhu Singh appellant about two years prior to the occurrence. Bant Singh had given dowry to Smt. Laccho according to his capacity. Pattu Singh is the father-in-law, while Surjit Kaur is the mother-in-law of Smt. Laccho. After about two months of the marriage, Sadhu Singh appellant along with his father Pattu Singh and other panchayat members had visited the house of PW-2 Bant Singh and left Smt. Lachho at the house of her father. However, after 10 days, PW-2 Bant Singh along with the panchayat visited the house of the appellant and left Smt. Lachho there. On the next day, Sadhu Singh appellant and his father again left Smt. Lachho at the house of her father and told her father Bant Singh that they would not keep Smt. Laccho unless they were given golden karra, ring and Mohar. PW-2 Bant Singh told them that he was a poor person and could not afford these articles. Thereafter, Sadhu Singh filed a divorce petition, which was lateron dismissed by him as withdrawn on the basis of the compromise. 3. Smt. Lachho was sent with Sadhu Singh appellant at the suggestion of the District Judge. However, the appellant and his co-accused continued maltreating her on the demand of more dowry. After about 8/9 months of the compromise, Bant Singh and Chand Singh brought Smt. Lachho to his house, as she was to deliver a child. After delivery, when the child was about four months old, then she was again sent to the house of the appellant. After a period of 10 months of her residing in the house, she died at the house of her in-laws. It was alleged by Bant Singh that she had died as a result of maltreatment committed upon her by the appellant and his co-accused. 4. After a period of 10 months of her residing in the house, she died at the house of her in-laws. It was alleged by Bant Singh that she had died as a result of maltreatment committed upon her by the appellant and his co-accused. 4. The case was registered upon the statement of Bant Singh against the appellant, his father Pattu Singh and his mother Surjit Kaur. All of them were apprehended. The dead body of Smt. Lachho was subjected to post mortem examination by Dr. Bhushan Kumar (since expired). After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, Dr. Bhushan Kumar gave his opinion Ex.PQ/1 that the cause of death of Smt. Lachho was consumption of Organo phosphorus compound (insecticide). The time which elapsed between injury and death was within few hours and the time that elapsed between death and post mortem was within 12 to 24 hours. 5. PW-6 Bakhshish Singh SI recorded the statement of Smt. Pritam Kaur alias Preeto in the daily diary register and thereafter he went to village Mehmpa Sarja and prepared inquest report Ex.PJ in the presence of Gurnam Singh and Harmail Singh. The dead body was subjected to post mortem examination and the viscera was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner. He recorded the statement of Sukhminder Singh and Bikkar Singh and prepared rough site plan, Ex.PN with correct marginal notes. He arrested the appellant and his co- accused on 16.3.1988. After the completion of the investigation, challan was put up in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who is turn committee the case of the Court of Sessions on 5.7.1988. 6. Having made out a prima facie, the appellant along with, no co-accused was charged under Section 304-B of the Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined even witnesses. 8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellant and his co-accused were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. In defence, they examined DW-1 Joga Singh and closed the defence evidence. 9. DW-1 Joga Singh in his statement stated that he was member panchayat of village Mehma Sarja. He further stated that Sadhu Singh appellant was living separately with his wife and he had separated shortly after marriage. In defence, they examined DW-1 Joga Singh and closed the defence evidence. 9. DW-1 Joga Singh in his statement stated that he was member panchayat of village Mehma Sarja. He further stated that Sadhu Singh appellant was living separately with his wife and he had separated shortly after marriage. He further stated that about 1-3/4 years ago, Sadhu Singh and his wife were spraying wheat fields and during that period she inhaled insecticide and died, and there was no dispute regarding the dowry. 10. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 6.2.1990 found only the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 304-B of the Code. However, he acquitted other two accused, namely, Pattu Singh and his wife Surjit Kaur by giving them benefit of doubt. The appellant was sentenced vide order dated 6.2.1990 as stated in the earlier part of this judgment. 11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 6.2.1990, accused Sadhu Singh has filed the present appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.S. Kathuria; Mrs. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab and carefully gone through the file. 13. PW-1 Smt. Preeto wife of Gurnam Singh has not support the prosecution version. She stated that Lachho daughter of Bant Singh was her niece and she was married to Sadhu Singh about three years ago and she had given birth to one daughter, who was then aged about 1 and 1/2 years. She next stated that after about 3-4 months of the birth of the child, Lachho was left at the house of her in-laws. She further stated that the relations of the appellant and his parents were cordial with Lachho and there was no dispute with regard to dowry. She was declared hostile. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to get anything beneficial to the prosecution from her cross-examination. In cross-examination by the defence counsel, she stated that Sadhu Singh had been living separately from his parents about 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence. She further stated that the appellant had sent Darbara Singh and Mithu Singh at about 6.00/6.30 A.M. to inform the parents of the deceased about the death of Lachho. 14. PW-2 Bant Singh is the father of deceased Lachho. She further stated that the appellant had sent Darbara Singh and Mithu Singh at about 6.00/6.30 A.M. to inform the parents of the deceased about the death of Lachho. 14. PW-2 Bant Singh is the father of deceased Lachho. He stated that Lachho was married to Sadhu Singh about 2-3/4 years ago and he had given dowry to her according to his capacity. He further stated that after about two months of the marriage, Sadhu Singh appellant, his father Pattu Singh along with other members of the panchayat had visited his house and left Lachho at his house, but after 10 days thereof, he along with the panchayat had left Lachho at the house of the appellant. He also stated that on the next day, Sadhu Singh and Pattu Singh left Lachho again at his house and they told that they would keep her only if he gave them golden karra, ring and mohar, but he frankly told them that he was unable to meet their demands and thereafter, a divorce petition was filed on behalf of Sadhu Singh appellant, which was dismissed as withdrawn on compromise. He further stated that the appellant continued maltreating Lachho on the demand of more dowry and after about 8/9 months of the compromise, he and Chand Singh brought Lachho to his house as she was to deliver a child and when the child was of four months, then he left Lachho again with child at the house of the appellant and 10 months thereafter, his daughter died at her in-laws, house as a result of maltreatment committed to her by the appellant. 15. PW-3 Gulzar Singh stated that Lachho deceased was the daughter of his sister and after about two months of the marriage, he along with Bant Singh and Maru Singh had gone to village Mehma Sarja for bringing Lachho with them and the appellant, Pattu Singh and Surjit Kaur were present at the house and they told that they would send her only if golden karra, ring and mohar were given to them and they refused to sent Lachho with them. In his cross- examination, he could not give the month and date when they visited the house of the appellant. His statement was recorded by the police after 40 days of the occurrence, which only shows that it was just an after though. In his cross- examination, he could not give the month and date when they visited the house of the appellant. His statement was recorded by the police after 40 days of the occurrence, which only shows that it was just an after though. Statement of PW-3 Gulzar Singh about the demand is contradictory with the statement of PW-2 Bant Singh as to when the demand was made. This only suggests that no such demand was made. 16. PW-4 Balwant Singh stated that about two months prior to the death of Lachho, he along with Bant Singh and Gulzar Singh had gone to the house of in-laws of Lachho and requested them to send her to village Baluana, but they stated that they will send her after about 20/30 days and they at that time refused to send her with them and nothing further had transpired in his presence. So, his statement does not suggest that any demand for dowry was made. Moreover, PW-2 Bant Singh did not stated that about two months prior to the death of Lachho, he along with PW-4 Balwant Singh had gone to the house of in-laws of Lachho and asked them to sent Lachho, but they refused to send her by saying that they would sent her after 20/30 days. On the other hand, he has stated that after about 8/9 months of the compromise, he and Chand Singh had brought Lachho to his house, as she had to deliver a child and when the child was four months old, then they again sent Lachho along with the child to the house of the appellant and 10 months thereafter, she died at her in-laws house. There is no evidence on the file that during the period of last ten months when she resided at the house of her in-laws, she was maltreated by the appellant or his co-accused on account of demand of dowry. There is no evidence on the file that during the period of last ten months when she resided at the house of her in-laws, she was maltreated by the appellant or his co-accused on account of demand of dowry. The evidence led by the prosecution is only with regard to the fact that there was a dispute between the parties regarding dowry and that the wife was sent back to her parents house and was again taken back to her matrimonial home after panchayat and then again she was brought to the house of her father and she delivered a child and after about four months of the delivery, she was sent to the house of the appellant and then she stayed there for ten months and then she died by consuming insecticide. 17. It has been stated under section 304-B of the Code that the death of a woman should occur otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it must be shown that soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence on the file that during the period of ten months i.e. soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant, who is her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. So, such death cannot be called dowry death and it cannot be said that the appellant or the relative had caused her death. In similar circumstances, the Honble Apex Court in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1873 acquitted the appellant by holding that the presumption for dowry death cannot be raised. Thus, there is no reliable evidence on the file that Smt. Lachho was maltreated by the appellant after about two months of the marriage on account of inadequacy of dowry. Statements of the witnesses on the question of demand for dowry are inconsistent and not reliable. Moreover, it is not proved that soon before her death, she was subject to maltreatment by the appellant on account of demand of dowry or in connection with the demand of dowry. Statements of the witnesses on the question of demand for dowry are inconsistent and not reliable. Moreover, it is not proved that soon before her death, she was subject to maltreatment by the appellant on account of demand of dowry or in connection with the demand of dowry. Hence the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed.