Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1238 (PNJ)

Jora Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-09-03

JASBIR SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 224-SB of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No. 227-SB of 1990. (It is apparent from the records that appellant/accused Dalbir Singh had filed Criminal Appeal No. 224-SB of 1990 alongwith other five appellants/accused, may be, due to communication gap, he had also filed Criminal Appeal No. 227-SB of 1990 individually, in this case). For the purpose of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No. 224-SB of 1990. 2. Appellants have filed this appeal against judgment dated 1.6.1990 and order dated 5.6.1990, vide which appellants No. 1 to 3 namely Jora Singh, Smt. Shanti Devi and Kitaba were convicted for commission of an offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, appellant No. 1 Jora Singh alongwith appellants No. 4 to 6 namely Satbir, Siri Ram and Dalbir respectively were also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. Following order of sentence was passed by the trial Court qua them :- "Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, accused Jora Singh, Kitaba and Smt. Shanti are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code In default of payment of fine, the defaulting convict shall undergo further R.I. for one year. For the offence punishable under section 201 Indian Penal Code, accused Jora Singh, Dalbir, Satbir and Siri Ram are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the defaulting convict shall undergo further R.I. for one year. Substantive sentences of accused Jora Singh shall run consecutively. The amount of fine, if realised, shall be paid to the parents of the deceased Raj Bala after the expiry of period of preferring appeal or in case appeal is preferred then after decision of appeal." 3. Munshi Ram, father of the deceased Smt. Raj Bala, on 22.9.1989, moved an application Ex.PA to the police officials of police station Pillu Khera and on the basis of the application, FIR No. 94 for commission of offences under Sections 304-B and 201 Indian Penal Code was recorded. 4. Munshi Ram, father of the deceased Smt. Raj Bala, on 22.9.1989, moved an application Ex.PA to the police officials of police station Pillu Khera and on the basis of the application, FIR No. 94 for commission of offences under Sections 304-B and 201 Indian Penal Code was recorded. 4. It was case of the prosecution that Raj Bala deceased, daughter of Munshi Raj, complainant, was married to appellant/accused Jora Singh son of Kitaba about four years prior to the date of moving application. Jora Singh and his parents were not happy and satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and on account of that they had been maltreating and harassing Raj Bala and she was being compelled to bring TV, gold ornaments and cash. It was further case of the prosecution that about 8 months earlier, Raj Bala was beaten up by her husband/appellant/accused - Jora Singh, Kitaba, her father-in-law and Smt. Shanti, her mother-in-law and was turned out of the home and subsequent thereto, she remained with her parents, as her parents were not in a position to fulfil the dowry demands of the accused, referred to above. 5. On 15.9.1989, appellant/accused Jora Singh alongwith his cousin Billu, came to the house of parents of deceased Raj Bala and behaviour of both the them was not cordial. They did not talk properly to the complainant and his family, failed to take meal. However, keeping in view social tradition, Raj Bala was sent with them to her matrimonial house. It was further alleged in the complaint that on the intervening night of 16th and 17th September, 1989, Raj Bala was either killed by the appellants/accused Jora Singh, Kitaba and Smt. Shanti or on account of harassment at their hands for bringing less dowry, she had committed suicide. 6. When Raj Bala had accompanied Jora Singh to her matrimonial house on 15.9.1989, she was hale and hearty and was not suffering from any disease. During investigation, it transpired that the dead body was cremated by Jora Singh with the help of Dalbir, Satbir and Siri Ram, appellants/accused. On interrogation, Jora Singh, appellant/accused, suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A, stating facts, as referred to above and also got recovered ash and bones of deceased Raj Bala from the cremation ground of their village. During investigation, it transpired that the dead body was cremated by Jora Singh with the help of Dalbir, Satbir and Siri Ram, appellants/accused. On interrogation, Jora Singh, appellant/accused, suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A, stating facts, as referred to above and also got recovered ash and bones of deceased Raj Bala from the cremation ground of their village. Bones were sent for examination and vide report Ex.PH, fragments of burnt bones were declared to be of a human individual. However, no opinion was given regarding sex. 7. It is apparent from the records that the higher police officials were not satisfied with the manner in whcih investigation was being conducted by the investigating officer. Accordingly, investigating officer was changed and Inder Singh (PW7) was appointed, who conducted further investigation in this case. He also recorded statements of many witnesses including Smt. Roshni, mother of the deceased, Smt. Raj Bala. Supplementary statement of Munshi Ram, father of the deceased was also recorded by the investigating officer. On completion of investigation, final report was submitted in court against all the appellants in these appeals. However, name of Ram Sarup, maternal uncle of Jora Singh and Billu, were kept in column No. 2 in the final report. 8. Trial magistrate committed the case to the court of sessions for its trial. Trial Court then framed charges against the appellant/accused No. 1 to 3 under Section 304-B read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and against appellants/accused No. 1 Jora Singh and appellants/accused No. 3 to 6, charge was framed under section 201 Indian Penal Code. On 29.3.1990, Statement of PW1 Munshi Ram was recorded by the trial court. During his examination, he also named Ram Sarup and Billu as persons, who had killed her (his ?) daughter Smt. Raj Bala in connivance with appellants/accused No. 1 to 3. Munshi Ram PW1 narrated and supported the entire version of prosecution. He categorically stated that appellant/accused No. 1 to 3 had been compelling her daughter to bring more dowry and on her failure to do so, she was being harassed and beaten up repeatedly. This witness had further stated that she on 15.9.1989, he sent her daughter with Jora Singh, her husband and Billu to her matrimonial home. She was hale and hearty and was not suffering from any disease. This witness had further stated that she on 15.9.1989, he sent her daughter with Jora Singh, her husband and Billu to her matrimonial home. She was hale and hearty and was not suffering from any disease. On receipt of information regarding her death on the intervening night of 16th and 17th of September, 1989, Munshi Ram, PW1 went to her matrimonial house and he found accused No. 1 to 3 present in the house. They were not mourning the death of her daughter and on his asking, they failed to give any satisfactory reply regarding her whereabouts. He came back and again, accompanied by his wife and other persons, went to the village of appellants/accused. When the appellants No. 1 to 3 failed to explain the cause of death of her (his ?) daughter, they came back and Munshi Ram PW1 had moved an application, on the basis of which, FIR was recorded. On the basis of statement made by Munshi Ram on 29.3.1989, Ram Sarup and Billu were also summoned to face trial for offence punishable under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code. Amended charge was framed on 19.4.1990. Appellants/accused alongwith Ram Sarup and Billu pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. Prosecution then led evidence to prove its case and on conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of appellants/accused were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them. Appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 had stated that marriage of Jora Singh and Raj Bala took place on 1.7.1986. They denied any harassment and maltreatment to Raj Bala regarding demand of dowry, as alleged against them. It was further stated that on 15.9.1989, Raj Bala was brought from her parental house by Jora Singh alone and Billu had not accompanied him. It was further stated by them that Raj Bala had suffered a fit of epilepsy and died at night and her dead body was cremated in village cremation ground. It was further stated that when Munshi Ram reached their village, cause of death of Smt. Raj Bala was explained to him and he was satisfied. Other accused in their statements denied allegations against them and pleaded innocence. In defence, appellants/accused examined DW1 Ishwar Singh and DW2 Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch of their village. 10. It was further stated that when Munshi Ram reached their village, cause of death of Smt. Raj Bala was explained to him and he was satisfied. Other accused in their statements denied allegations against them and pleaded innocence. In defence, appellants/accused examined DW1 Ishwar Singh and DW2 Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch of their village. 10. Trial court on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties, discarded the version of defence by opinion that evidence led in defence, was not trustworthy. Prosecution version was believed qua appellants/accused. However, Ram Sarup and Billu, who were summoned to face trial, by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, were acquitted of the charges framed against them and the remaining accused were convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in para 2 of this order. Hence, this appeal. 11. Shri A.S. Chahal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 224-SB of 1990, has vehemently contended that the conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused was not justified, on the basis of evidence available on record. He argued that statement of PW1 Munshi Ram was recorded on 29.3.1990. His cross-examination was not complete and the same was deferred. On the basis of his statement, Ram Sarup and Billu were summoned to face trial by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code Subsequent thereto, amended charge was framed and trial Court proceeded with the trial. Statement of PW1, Munshi Ram was again recorded and he was declared hostile. By stating these facts, counsel argued that no reliance could have been placed on the statement of PW1 Munshi Ram, which was recorded on 29.3.1990, being incomplete statement. Counsel further stated that PW4 and PW8 were also declared hostile and under these circumstances, there existed absolutely no evidence against appellants Nos. 4 to 6 for commission of an offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. Counsel also argued that the allegations, regarding demand of dowry are quite vague. Even PW2 Smt. Roshni, mother of the deceased had failed to support the prosecution story in its entirety, as such, conviction and sentence was not justified. 12. Shri G.P.S. Nagra, AAG Haryana appearing for the State of Haryana has vehemently controverted the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants. Even PW2 Smt. Roshni, mother of the deceased had failed to support the prosecution story in its entirety, as such, conviction and sentence was not justified. 12. Shri G.P.S. Nagra, AAG Haryana appearing for the State of Haryana has vehemently controverted the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants. He, by referring to the statements of PW2 Smt. Roshni, mother of the deceased and other witnesses, argued that the guilt of the appellants/accused was proved on record. He further stated that the trial Court had only looked into that portion of the statement of PW1, which supports the prosecution version though that witness was declared hostile. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgment of their Lordships of Supreme Court in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 26. Counsel has prayed that there is no substance in the appeals and the same deserve to be dismissed. 13. Before looking into rival contentions of both the parties, certain facts need to be noticed. 14. Admittedly, marriage between deceased Raj Bala and appellant/accused No. 1 Jora Singh was solemnised in the year 1986. It is also not in dispute that she has been residing with her parents for the last about 8 months when on 15.9.1989, she accompanied Jora Singh to her matrimonial house. Her death occurred on the intervening night of 16th and 17th September, 1989. No post mortem of the dead body was conducted. Her parents were not available at the time of cremation. No evidence had been brought on record by the defence, regarding any previous history of any ailment being suffered by the deceased Raj Bala. Facts indicate that the death had occurred within seven years from the date of marriage. Perusal of records show that FIR was recorded on the basis of an application Ex.PA, moved by PW1 Munshi Ram, father of the deceased on 22.9.1989. His statement was recorded in court on 29.3.1990, wherein he fully supported the prosecution version and also named Ram Sarup and Billu as the persons, who were also responsible for causing death of Smt. Raj Bala. Due to that cross-examination was deferred when an application was moved by the prosecution to summon above mentioned two persons also to face trial in this case. 15. Perusal of statement of PW1 dated 29.3.1990, clearly shows that so far as appellants/accused are concerned, qua them cross-examination was complete. Due to that cross-examination was deferred when an application was moved by the prosecution to summon above mentioned two persons also to face trial in this case. 15. Perusal of statement of PW1 dated 29.3.1990, clearly shows that so far as appellants/accused are concerned, qua them cross-examination was complete. Be that as it may, statement of this witness was recorded again on 10.5.1990. He took a somersault and tried to favour the appellants/accused by deposing contrary to his earlier statement made before the police and also in the court. He was declared hostile. He was confronted with his earlier statement made in court on 29.3.1990. He admitted vital contents of his earlier statement. However, he tried to wriggle out of the same by saying that he had made that statement under police pressure. Perusal of judgment of the trial Court reveals that the trial Court had only taken note of that portion of his statement recorded on 10.5.1990, in which he had virtually supported the prosecution version. 16. Approach of the trial court in view of judgment of their Lordships in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhais (supra), was perfectly justified. Even if, statement of PW4 is ignored, there existed statement of PW2 Roshni, mother of the deceased, who had categorically stated that her daughter was being harassed, maltreated and was being beaten up due to her bringing less dowry. She had further stated that appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 were pressing her daughter to bring more dowry, when she failed to do so, she was beaten up and thrown out of her matrimonial house. Deceased resided with her parents for about 9 months. She was sent back with assurance that she will not be ill- treated in future. She had further stated that on receipt of information regarding death of her daughter, when they went to her matrimonial village, dead body had already been cremated. No doubt, there existed some discrepancies in her statement, regarding making her earlier statement to the police, however, she remained categoric that her daughter was being harassed for bringing less dowry by the appellants/accused. PW3 Ram Kishan had supported the version as put forward by PW2 Smt. Roshni. No doubt, in his statement, he had stated that nothing was demanded by the accused from Raj Bala or her parents in his presence but still, rest of the statement inspires confidence. 17. PW3 Ram Kishan had supported the version as put forward by PW2 Smt. Roshni. No doubt, in his statement, he had stated that nothing was demanded by the accused from Raj Bala or her parents in his presence but still, rest of the statement inspires confidence. 17. Shri A.S. Chahal, counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments titled as Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) RCR 661 and Moti Singh and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 900, to support his contention and to show that the previous statement of PW1 cannot be made the basis for conviction. In view of discussion made above, no benefit of the judgments, referred to above, can be given to the appellants. Otherwise also, these judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Shri Chahals reliance on State of Punjab v. Nandlal and another, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 219 is also of no help. 18. In this case, there existed specific demand of dowry and allegations of maltreatment and harassment to the deceased by appellants No. 1 to 3. Trial court had rightly found defence version to be untrustworthy. It was case of the appellants/accused that Smt. Raj Bala had died because she suffered fit of epilepsy. To support this version, no previous medical history of the deceased was brought on record, as such, a bald statement in this regard cannot be believed. Trial Court on appraisal of evidence on record came to a definite conclusion that death was unnatural. Under these circumstances, conviction of appellants No. 1 to 3 for commission of offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code was perfectly justified. 19. However, keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and also a fact that appellants No. 2 and 3 were old persons of 65 and 70 years of age respectively at the time of alleged occurrence and Jora Singh, appellant No. 1 was a young man of 18 years of age, they faced agony of trial and thereafter their appeal is pending in this court for the last about 13 years, some leniency can be shown to them. Accordingly, their sentence is reduced from ten years to seven years. However, punishment of fine imposed is maintained. With the above modifications, Criminal Appeal No. 224-SB of 1990 qua appellants No. 1 to 3 stands dismissed. 20. Accordingly, their sentence is reduced from ten years to seven years. However, punishment of fine imposed is maintained. With the above modifications, Criminal Appeal No. 224-SB of 1990 qua appellants No. 1 to 3 stands dismissed. 20. As regards appellants No. 4 to 6, this court feels that their conviction and sentence was not justified. All of the above named appellants/accused were convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code, which reads as under :- "201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with that intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with the intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence. - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life. - and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less then ten years imprisonment. - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine." 21. Prosecution relied upon the disclosure statement of Jora Singh, a co- accused to allege that he alongwith appellants Satbir, Dalbir and Siri Ram cremated dead body of Raj Bala. Prosecution also alleged that Jora Singh in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code had also made a similar statement. Prosecution relied upon the disclosure statement of Jora Singh, a co- accused to allege that he alongwith appellants Satbir, Dalbir and Siri Ram cremated dead body of Raj Bala. Prosecution also alleged that Jora Singh in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code had also made a similar statement. Prosecution also referred to the statement of DW2 to support allegations against above named three appellants/accused. However, trial court by taking note of statement of Jora Singh and portion of statement of DW2, had convicted them alongwith Jora Singh for commission of an offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. This court feels that since PW8 in whose presence allegedly Jora Singh, appellant/accused had suffered a disclosure statement, was declared hostile, there was no evidence on record to show that the above named three persons had played a part in cremation of dead body, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence had been committed, qua Raj Bala deceased, by Jora Singh and other co-accused. 22. There existed not an iota of evidence to prove mens rea to commit an offence, as alleged against above mentioned three persons, by them. Under these circumstances, they are entitled to acquittal and accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 224-SB of 1990 qua appellants No. 4, 5 and 6 is allowed, their conviction and sentence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code is accordingly set aside. Since appeal of Dalbir Singh, appellant No. 6 in Criminal appeal No. 224-SB of 1990 is allowed, there is no necessity to pass any order in other appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 227-SB of 1990 filed by him against judgment and order dated 1.6.1990 and 5.6.1990 respectively. Hence, criminal Appeal No. 227-SB of 1990 is disposed of, as having been become infructuous. Appeal allowed.