Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 792 (PNJ)

Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-07-29

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Jugraj Singh son of Gurdev Singh stands convicted under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code vide judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated 1.9.2003 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which to suffer further RI for six months. The present appeal was filed by him through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, where he is presently confined. 2. Along with the present appellant, his father Gurdev Singh and mother Bheero alias Beeran were also booked. However, both of them have been acquitted by the trial Court. No appeal against their acquittal by the State has been preferred. 3. Vide order dated 19.2.2004, the appeal was directed to be listed for final hearing for today. Since the appeal was filed through Jail, Ms. Kamalpreet Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the case of the appellant. 4. An application was moved on behalf of the appellant for bail on the grounds that he is in custody for the last four years and the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. The said application is fixed for today. However, I am now taking up the present appeal for final disposal today itself. 5. Balbir Kaur alias Veeran is the deceased in this case, who died on 5.3.2002 by consuming some poisonous substance. She was married to the present appellant about three months prior to the occurrence. The present case was registered on the statement Ex. P-6 made by her father Pal Singh (PW-3) alleging thus : 6. At the time of marriage he had given sufficient dowry as per his financial capacity but the appellant and his parents started maltreating his daughter on account of bringing inadequate dowry; that about 20-22 days after the marriage, Balbir Kaur was turned out of her matrimonial home and was asked to bring a golden Karra (bracelet) for them; that since the complainant was not in a position to meet the said demand, he paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to his daughter and sent her with his brother-in-law/Teja Singh and Darshan Singh Ex-Member panchayat to her in-laws house; that a few days before the occurrence, Nasib Kaur, mother of the deceased had gone to village Chhotian Toba i.e. the village of the appellant to see her daughter where the latter told her that the appellant and his parents used to maltreat her on account of demand of more dowry; that however, Nasib Kaur pacified her daughter and after coming back narrated the entire story to the complainant; that on 5.3.2000, Sadhu Singh who was mediator of the said marriage came to the house of the complainant and disclosed that Balbir Kaur had consumed some poisonous substance and was lying in the clinic of Dr. Veer Bhan Garg at Moga; that the wife of the complainant then went to Moga to know about the welfare of her daughter and on her coming back, she told the complainant that Balbir Kaur was not in a position to speak and her in-laws had taken her to village Chhotian Toba; that thereafter the complainant along with his other respectables reached the house of the appellant and they found his daughter lying dead. 7. On the next day i.e. 6.3.2004 the complainant lodged the report with ASI Vakil Singh (PW-8) on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. P-6/A was recorded. 8. ASI Wakil Singh started the investigation, prepared rough site plan, the inquest report of the dead body, despatched the same for post-moterm examination. On the same day, autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Sukhminder Singh (PW-1). All the three accused were arrested. After completion of investigation they were challaned to face trial. 9. The case of the prosecution hinges on the statements of nine witnesses : 10. PW-1 Dr. is Sukhminder Singh, the autopsy surgeon. PW-2 is Gursewak Singh Draftsman. PW-3 is Pal Singh, the complainant. PW-4 is Nasib Kaur, mother of the deceased. PW-5 is Piara Singh, who had identified the dead body of Balbir Kaur. PW-6 is Teja Singh, who had accompanied the complainant to the house of the appellant when the deceased was maltreated by her in-laws. PW-7 is ASI Swarn Singh. PW-8 is ASI Wakil Singh, the Investigating Officer, whose investigation has already been alluded to in the preceding paras. PW-9 is Constable Surjit Singh. 11. PW-6 is Teja Singh, who had accompanied the complainant to the house of the appellant when the deceased was maltreated by her in-laws. PW-7 is ASI Swarn Singh. PW-8 is ASI Wakil Singh, the Investigating Officer, whose investigation has already been alluded to in the preceding paras. PW-9 is Constable Surjit Singh. 11. The plea taken by the appellant as emerges from the statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is that in fact he had contracted marriage with Balbir Kaur without consent of her parents; that they used to meet each other even prior to the marriage; that no dowry was given in the marriage; nor the same was demanded before or after the marriage; that the parents of Balbir Kaur wanted to marry her with some one else in lieu of money to which they (appellant and his wife) opposed, which created a lot of misery in their hearts; that they both consumed pesticide in order to end their lives and he (the appellant) disclosed the fact about consuming the same to his parents, who got them admitted in the Clinic of Dr. Veer Bhan Garg at Moga, where they remained admitted for three days; that the parents of the appellant had informed the parents of the deceased telephonically, upon which they reached the hospital; that after three days Balbir Kaur died in the hospital but the appellant survived and subsequently the appellant and his parents were involved in this case. 12. In his defence, the appellant produced Dr. Veer Bhan Garg (DW-1), who has stated that as per his record, the present appellant and his wife were not admitted in his hospital on March 4th or 5th, 2000. 13. As stated above, the appellant is convicted and sentenced of the charge framed against him. 14. I have heard Ms. Kamalpreet Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Mr. Sandeep Jain, AAG, Punjab and with their assistance have gone through the entire evidence on record minutely. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that she cannot dispute the fact that the death of Balbir Kaur is within seven years of the marriage and she has died a death otherwise than under natural circumstances, but another main ingredient with regard to maltreatment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon before the death is not proved in the present case. She then contends that there is no evidence on the file to show that the appellant had ever made a demand of any article of dowry before the death and thus the appellant could not be convicted for the charge. She then contends that the parents of the deceased were inimical towards the appellant as this marriage was against their wishes and as such, after the death of Balbir Kaur, they have knitted a net wider by involving the appellant and his parents by projecting it to be a case of dowry death. The learned counsel then contends that the defence plea of the appellant is most probable on the face of it and it also gets strengthened from the statement of Nasib Kaur (PW-4), wherein she has stated that the appellant and her daughter Veeran (nick name of Balbir Kaur deceased) were lying in the clinic of Dr. Veer Bhan Garg at Moga. From this piece of evidence, the learned counsel wants to develop that even if Dr. Garg produced as a defence witness has stated that as per his record, no entry regarding admission of Veeran or the appellant in his hospital, that would not make any difference as the factum of admission in Gargs Hospital is admitted by the prosecution witness. 16. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt against the present appellant and as such he deserves acquittal. 17. In the alternative, the learned counsel prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant is in custody since March 2000 and by now he has undergone more than four years. 18. Repudiating the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the learned State counsel contends that Balbir Kaur has died within three months of her marriage and there is cogent evidence on record to show that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the appellant on account of dowry demand as immediately after the marriage, a demand of a bracelet (Karra) was made by the accused side. The appellant also does not deserve any leniency towards quantum of sentence, the learned State counsel so contends. The appellant also does not deserve any leniency towards quantum of sentence, the learned State counsel so contends. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides at length and closely scrutinizing the evidence on the record, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to probe (prove ?) the charge of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code against the present appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. 19. So far as evidence regarding demand of dowry is concerned, the statements of complainant Pal Singh PW-3 and his wife Nasib Kaur PW-4 assume importance. They are the most material witnesses regarding harassment and maltreatment meted out to Balbir Kaur deceased. A careful perusal of these witnesses shows that they have deposed that after about a month of the marriage, the appellant and his parents started demanding a ring and a golden bangle (Karra) from Balbir Kaur by saying that she had brought less dowry in the marriage. (It was) stated by Pal Singh that he could not meet their demand but he, however, had paid Rs. 1,000/- to the accused side after collecting the same from the village. He has further stated that when his wife had gone to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the in-laws of deceased, she had promised to pay the remaining amount after some time. I do not find any basic infirmity in the statements of parents of the deceased. 20. Teja Singh (PW-6) has also stated that Pal Singh complainant is his brother-in-law (sala) and after the marriage of his daughter (Balbir Kaur), there was a quarrel over bringing less dowry. This witness has further stated that he had gone to persuade the in-laws of Balbir Kaur and that Rs. 1,000/- had also been given in his presence. He disclosed about the demand of golden bracelet. This witness also talks about going to the hospital and to village Chhotian Toba with Pal Singh after the present occurrence, where he found Balbir Kaur lying dead. In other words, the statements of Pal Singh and his wife Nasib Kaur are corroborated by Teja Singh PW. He disclosed about the demand of golden bracelet. This witness also talks about going to the hospital and to village Chhotian Toba with Pal Singh after the present occurrence, where he found Balbir Kaur lying dead. In other words, the statements of Pal Singh and his wife Nasib Kaur are corroborated by Teja Singh PW. No doubt, he is in nearest relationship of Pal Singh, but the fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death within three months of the marriage and it can be safely said that in such a short span, the parents of the deceased might not have thought of disclosing the treatment meted out to their daughter to the other persons of the village. There is nothing abnormal if Pal Singh had disclosed everything to Teja Singh and had requested the latter to intervene. 21. I have also seen the investigation conducted in this case and find no laxity at any stage; which may create doubt in it. Balbir Kaur deceased has died an unnatural death in the house of the appellant. He is supposed to give a plausible explanation for a healthy and hearty lady turning out to be a corpse. The plea taken by the appellant that the parents of the deceased were not happy over his marriage with her is not convincing. I have once again scrutinized the statement of Pal Singh and Nasib Kaur PWs. A suggestion was put to both of them that they were not ready to marry their daughter with the appellant, but the same has been denied. It has thus become clear that the marriage of Balbir Kaur was performed with the appellant with their mutual consent and the plea of the appellant that the parents of the deceased were not agreeing to it and the second thought of performing the marriage of their daughter with some one else does not stand any where. The version set up by the appellant in his defence is not supported by any evidence. At no stage it has come in evidence that Balbir Kaur was ever kept by her parents in their house. Pal Singh and his wife Nasib Kaur have stated that their daughter when came back immediately after the marriage, disclosed to them that the demand of a bracelet has been made by the accused side. At no stage it has come in evidence that Balbir Kaur was ever kept by her parents in their house. Pal Singh and his wife Nasib Kaur have stated that their daughter when came back immediately after the marriage, disclosed to them that the demand of a bracelet has been made by the accused side. Had the parents of the deceased been not happy over the marriage of their daughter with the appellant, they would have detained the deceased in their house when she had come to them after the marriage and in that eventuality some presumption could be drawn regarding the alleged disagreement of the parents of the deceased with regard to the marriage. This is not the situation in the instant case. From the statements of Pal Singh and Nasib Kaur PWs, it is evident that the present appellant was causing harassment to his wife Balbir Kaur and under the compelling circumstances she had consumed some poisonous substance. So far as consuming of any pesticide (poisonous substance) by the appellant is concerned, there is no evidence on the file worth the name, except that Nasib Kaur in her cross-examination has stated that when she visited the hospital of Dr. Veer Bhan Garg at Moga, the appellant was also lying on a bed by the side of Balbir Kaur. But even if assuming for the sake of argument, it is presumed that he had also consumed some poisonous substance, it was his psyche, which cannot in any way be taken as a ground to give him a clean chit, believing his defence plea. However, the record of Dr. Garg is silent about the treatment of the appellant or even of the deceased. 22. It is worth mentioning that the parents of the present appellant have been acquitted mainly for the reason that they were not challaned by the investigating agency as they were found innocent. I do not intend to comment on the observations made by the learned trial Court in this regard as no appeal has been filed by the State against acquittal of parents of the appellant. 23. I do not intend to comment on the observations made by the learned trial Court in this regard as no appeal has been filed by the State against acquittal of parents of the appellant. 23. As a sequel to foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the present appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and as such his conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code is upheld. 24. However, I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of sentence. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- by the learned trial Court. He has already undergone more that four years of his actual substantive sentence, being in custody since 2000. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence of ten years as awarded by the learned trial Judge is reduced to seven years, the minimum provided for the offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine as imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain as it is. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Before parting with the judgment, I must observe that Ms. Kamalpreet, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, has made strenuous efforts in assisting the Court on every aspect. I leave a note of appreciation in this regard. Appeal dismissed.