Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1228 (PNJ)

Dalip Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2004-11-03

V.K.BALI

body2004
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. The appellants, mother and son, were tried under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code but have since been held guilty under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months vide order of conviction and sentence dated 4.5.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that present appeal has been filed. Insofar as, appellant Dalip Kaur is concerned, she is stated to have died during the pendency of appeal. Appeal qua her, thus, abates. 2. Marriage between appellant Megha Singh and Chhinder Kaur, deceased, was solemnised in 1982. The were blessed with two children, a male and a female. Chhinder Kaur is stated to have committed suicide on 31.7.1989. FIR with regard to the incident and involvement of the appellants was lodged by Pal Singh, PW-5, father of the deceased. During the course of trial, the prosecution, besides relying upon the testimony of Pal Singh, also relied upon the testimony of other witnesses, with regard to demand of dowry and Chhinder Kaur committing suicide and for that, it mainly relied upon the statements of Awtar Singh, PW-3, and Pargat Singh, PW-4. To some extent, the prosecution also relied upon the statement made by PW-7, namely, Dalbara Singh, who is stated to be maternal uncle of deceased. It is interesting to note that the only allegation made against the appellants was that they were demanding a buffalo or in lieu thereof, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and this demand was made for the first time after three years of the marriage. It is admitted by all the witnesses in unison that there was no demand at the time of marriage and that the marriage was a simple affair, where no dowry was given nor any demand for the same was made. 3. 5,000/- and this demand was made for the first time after three years of the marriage. It is admitted by all the witnesses in unison that there was no demand at the time of marriage and that the marriage was a simple affair, where no dowry was given nor any demand for the same was made. 3. Learned counsel representing the appellants, besides pointing out the discrepancies in the statements made by PW-3 and PW-4, further contends that the prosecution did not lead any evidence that may even remotely suggest that as to when the demand was last made, preceding the death of Chhinder Kaur and further that unless demand was made immediately preceding her death, the appellants could not be pinned down for offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code as well. 4. The Court finds considerable merit in the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellants. PW-3 Awtar Singh, a Member Panchayat, belongs to the village of father of the deceased. He had deposed with regard to the incident of five years prior to when he made the statement in Court on 14.6.1991. The said incident had, however, nothing to do with the demand of dowry. After giving the incident pertaining to five years earlier, he stated that about six months thereafter, Chhinder Kaur again returned to village Naiwala and complained to them that Dalip Kaur and Megha Singh had been pestering her to bring either Rs. 5,000/- or a she-buffalo. If five years are subtracted from 14.6.1991, it would come to June, 1986 and if six months are added thereto, it would be at the most, January, 1987. Death of Chhinder Kaur by way of committing suicide, as mentioned above, had taken place on 31.7.1989. Insofar as, PW-4 Pargat Singh, Sarpanch, again from the village of the father of the deceased, is concerned, he stated that after three years of marriage, he was informed that the appellants were insisting upon Chhinder Kaur to bring Rs. 5,000/- or she-buffalo from her parents and that Chhinder Kaur returned to their village several times on account of cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused. He then stated that on 1.8.1989, Pal Singh had informed him about the death of Chhinder Kaur in her in-laws house and that he accompanied by the village Panchayat and Pal Singh, reached Police Station, Bhadaur. He then stated that on 1.8.1989, Pal Singh had informed him about the death of Chhinder Kaur in her in-laws house and that he accompanied by the village Panchayat and Pal Singh, reached Police Station, Bhadaur. This witness makes no mention whatsoever with regard to demand of buffalo or an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on any given particular time. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Pal Singh had informed him 2/3 years after the marriage that the accused were demanding more dowry and that he had not gone to the village of the accused before the present occurrence for reconciliation. He admitted that at the time of marriage of the parties, no dowry was given and it was a simple marriage. He also admitted that to his knowledge, there was no demand of dowry by the accused at that time. Insofar as, PW-7 Dalbara Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased, is concerned, he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He, however, stated in his examination-in-chief that a day before the occurrence he had gone to the house of the accused. Chhinder Kaur told him that the accused were quarrelling with her on the demand of a she-buffalo or Rs. 5,000/-. In his cross-examination, he, however, stated that he did not know as to how many years ago Chhinder Kaur was married to appellant Megha Singh. On the death of Chhinder Kaur when he went there, he found Mukand Singh, Sarpanch, Naib Singh, Panch, both the appellants as also Darbara Singh, father of appellant Megha Singh present and they all were weeping. He went away after leaving Chhinder Kaur in that condition. 5. The appellants led evidence in defence with primary object to show that Chhinder Kaur was a lady of hot temper and had committed suicide on account of the fact that a day before she committed suicide, she had gone to attend the marriage of Harbans Singh, whereas, her mother-in-law had not attended the said marriage. It has been the defence version that mother-in-law of the deceased had remonstrated with Chhinder Kaur that since she had not attended the marriage, she too should not have gone there to attend the same. It has been the defence version that mother-in-law of the deceased had remonstrated with Chhinder Kaur that since she had not attended the marriage, she too should not have gone there to attend the same. Learned trial Judge, it appears, had gone through the evidence led by the defence, but while dealing with the same, he observed as follows :- "The evidence led in defence that she consumed poison after feeling offended on the remarks of Dalip Kaur for going to attend the marriage of the cousin of Megha Singh accused, without telling her or without taking Dalip Kaur with her, does not appeal to reason because such a minor matter could not ordinarily force the mother of two children to take her own life and leave her children at the mercy of others. It was something more than that which forced her to take her own life and that was the persistent demand of the accused to bring some thing from her father, which her father could not afford." 6. This Court is of the view that the observations made by learned trial Judge, as extracted above, do not fit in with the evidence led by the prosecution. It may be recalled that as per the prosecution version, demand for buffalo or Rs. 5,000/- had started 2/3 years after the marriage. Chhinder Kaur, if the prosecution version is believed, was persistently being asked either to bring buffalo or an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for a period of 4/5 years prior to her death. If that was to be a reason that compelled Chhinder Kaur to commit suicide, she would not have lived with her husband for such a long time. In any case, this very demand, even if repeated, could not be the immediate cause for her to commit suicide. From the findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, it does appear that the defence led by the appellants was plausible inasmuch as, findings of learned trial Judge are not that no reliance could be placed upon the testimony of the witnesses examined by the defence. If that be so, it rather appears to this Court that immediate cause for the deceased to take extreme step was the incident of the marriage and not of persistent demand of buffalo or Rs. 5,000/-, which were being persisted from long years. If that be so, it rather appears to this Court that immediate cause for the deceased to take extreme step was the incident of the marriage and not of persistent demand of buffalo or Rs. 5,000/-, which were being persisted from long years. That apart, it is the appellants, who made efforts to save Chhinder Kaur, after she had taken poison, by taking her to the Doctor. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court is of the considered view that the prosecution did not bring plausible or acceptable evidence on record that may show that Chhinder Kaur had committed suicide because of demand of dowry which, as mentioned above, did not go beyond, even as per the prosecution case, asking of buffalo or Rs. 5,000/-, some time immediately preceding her death. The prosecution, thus, had failed to bring home the offence against the appellants. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal is allowed. Order of conviction and sentence dated 4.5.1992 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, is set aside. Surviving appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.