Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 374 (PNJ)

Balwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-03-12

NIRMAL SINGH

body2005
Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which they were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with a fine of Rs. 2.000/- under Section 306 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter was further sentenced to undergo RI for six months. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a complaint was lodged by Nirmal Singh with the Police Station, Nabha, to the effect that his sister Balbir Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur was married with Balwinder Singh son of Malkiat Singh about 8 years back. Out of this wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born. On August 1990, he went to see his sister in Village Lasoi and after staying there for a night came back at about 9.30 A.M. At about 1.30 P.M., Mukhtiar Singh son of Surjit Singh and Dashan Singh of Lasoi came to him and told that his sister had been suffering from fits and they had come to take him to get her admitted in the hospital. However, by the time Nirmal Singh and his mother Gurdev Kaur could reached Village Lasoi, Balbir Kaur had died. Complainant Nirmal Singh suspected that his sister was poisoned and he requested that post mortem be got conducted on her body. His statement Ex. PG was recorded by SI Gurmel Singh. Another complaint was submitted by complainant Nirmal Singh to SSP, Sangrur on 10.9.1990, Ex. PH to the effect that in-laws of deceased Balbir Kaur were making repeated demands of dowry and were mal-treating and subjected her to cruelty. This fact was within the knowledge of Gram panchayats of Villages Maraur and Lasoi. When on August 20, Karam Singh, brother of the complainant, had gone to village Lasoi, mother in law of his sister demanded Rs. 10,000/- When he again visited the house of his sister on 31st of August, Kulwant Kaur and her daughter Sinder Kaur repeated the demand of Rs. 10,000/- and on 1st of September, 1990, when he returned to Maraur, he was informed about the occurrence by the neighbours. On the basis of this complaint, SSP ordered the DSP (HQ) to conduct an enquiry. Sh. S.S. Chhina, DSP, conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 20.9.1990, on the basis of which FIR, Ex. 10,000/- and on 1st of September, 1990, when he returned to Maraur, he was informed about the occurrence by the neighbours. On the basis of this complaint, SSP ordered the DSP (HQ) to conduct an enquiry. Sh. S.S. Chhina, DSP, conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 20.9.1990, on the basis of which FIR, Ex. PK, against the accused was registered. The investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Gurmel Singh, who arrested the accused. 3. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented. They were charged under Section 306/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Charanjit Singh, PW2 Gurnam Singh, PW3 complainant Nirmal Singh, PW4 Joginder Singh, PW5 Sukhdev Singh Chhina, Superintendent of Police and PW6 SI Gurmel Singh. 5. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. Accused Balwinder Singh took the following plea : "I am innocent. There was some quarrel between the deceased and his brother. Due to that quarrel she might have taken some poison. Witness Joginder Singh was inimical towards me as he was related to one Nachhattar Singh of village Moranwali, who has a dispute with Jarnail Sigh of the same village related to me. Due to that enmity, he was deposing against me." 6. In defence, they examined DW1 Pritam Singh and DW2 Nachhattar Singh. 7. The learned trial Court, after hearing the defence counsel and learned PP for the State found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them vide judgment and order dated 31.8.1992 as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, against which the present appeal has been filed. 8. Mr. A.S. Sukhija, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective and erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 306 I.P.C. He pointed out that the marriage between appellant No. 1, Balwinder Singh and Balbir Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur had taken place about 8 years back. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is not available. He also submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellants had ever ill treated the deceased, Balbir Kaur. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is not available. He also submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellants had ever ill treated the deceased, Balbir Kaur. He further contended that the case of the prosecution hinges upon the statement of PW3 Nirmal Singh and PW4 Joginder Singh. Both are interested and related witnesses. Even from their evidence, it is not established that there is any ill treatment or harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry by the appellants. He also contended that the appellants had examined DW1 Pritam Singh, Sarpanch, who had made the statement that he never heard any dispute in the family of the appellants. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, contended that from the evidence of PW3 Nirmal Singh and PW4 Joginder Singh, it is proved that deceased Balbir Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur was harassed on account of demand of dowry. He also submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was harassment or ill-treatment by the appellants on account of demand of dowry. The prosecution has not led any cogent and convincing evidence on the basis of which it can be definitely held that the appellants had harassed the deceased and on that account, she had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. 11. Balbir Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur was married with appellant Balwinder Singh in the year 1982 while the occurrence had taken place in the year 1990 i.e. after 8 years. Out of the said wedlock, five children were born, out of which two were died. Nirmal Singh, complainant, in connivance with the police had lodged the false complaint against the appellants that they had harassed the deceased on account of demand of dowry. It is the case of the prosecution itself that for the first five years, there was no demand of dowry. It is, therefore, not believable that if the appellants lived peacefully for first five years and did not raise any demand of dowry, then how, later on, they would abruptly harass the deceased ibr dowry. It is the case of the prosecution itself that for the first five years, there was no demand of dowry. It is, therefore, not believable that if the appellants lived peacefully for first five years and did not raise any demand of dowry, then how, later on, they would abruptly harass the deceased ibr dowry. As per the complainant, on the demand of the appellants, they gave fridge in the year 1987. However, he could not prove that the fridge was purchased for the appellants. Nirmal Singh, complainant, had admitted that they were having the said fridge. If they were having the fridge, then there was no question of purchasing the same from Nabha. Even he could not tell the name of the shop from where the fridge was purchased. The complainant had attached a photostat copy of the bill with the complaint, which was made to the S.S.P. However, he had not proved the said bill. It is also pertinent to mention here that on the statement of the complainant, a DDR, Ex. PG, was recorded on 10.9.1990. In the said DDR, it had been scribed by the complainant that when he had come back to the village, he was informed by Mukhtiar Singh and Darshan Singh that his sister had fainted at about 9.30 A.M. However, in the said report, there is no mention that the appellants had harassed or tortured the deceased Balbir Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur on account of demand of dowry. The complainant had not given any convincing reasons as to why he had not moved the application with the police immediately after the occurrence. This complaint had been typed in Punjabi and seems to be drafted under legal advice. The evidence of PW3 complainant Nirmal Singh and PW4 Joginder Singh is not trust-worthy. Both are interested witnesses and after scrutinising their evidence, it is not proved that the appellants had harassed deceased Balbir Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur on account of demand of dowry, due to which she had committed suicide. Even there is no evidence to prove that immediately prior to the death of Balbir Kaur, she was harassed or tortured by the appellants. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the considered view that it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants as recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Even there is no evidence to prove that immediately prior to the death of Balbir Kaur, she was harassed or tortured by the appellants. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the considered view that it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants as recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The learned trial Court has committed legal error in appreciating the evidence. 12. The off-shoot of the above discussion is that the appeal is accepted and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds be discharged.