Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 432 (PNJ)

Amrik Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-03-23

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated July 24, 1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarb Sahib, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. However, the learned trial Court acquitted Labh Kaur, the mother of the appellant, of the charge, giving her benefit of doubt. 2. Ram Murti (PW-1), the mother of deceased Paramjit Kaur, made a statement on 14.2.1996 at about 6.05 P.M. before Paramjit Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-8) that her daughter was married to appellant Amrik Singh about 2-1/2 years prior to the occurrence. After about 8/9 months of the marriage, appellant started demanding Rs. 5,000/- from deceased. Ram Murti paid Rs. 2,000/-. About 8/9 days prior to the occurrence, Paramjit Kaur (deceased) came to the house of her mother and stated that her husband was demanding Rs. 3,000/- more. She was being beaten on this count. Paramjit Kaur deceased did not want to go back to her in-laws house, but on the intervention of Harbhajan Singh, Panch, and one Rajinder Singh, she was persuaded to go to the house of her husband. 3. On 14.2.1996 at about 3.00 P.M. Balbir Singh son of Dhanna Singh came to the house of Ram Murti (complainant) and told her that her daughter Paramjit Kaur had committed suicide by burning herself with kerosene oil. Paramjit Kaur was admitted to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. 4. Complainant Ram Murti along with Harbhajan Singh, Panch, went to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. Paramjit Kaur deceased told Ram Murti that the appellant had quarrelled with her for not bringing money. She was fed up by this attitude. After sprinkling oil on herself, she burnt herself. She further stated that the appellant threatened her with dire consequences, if she disclosed to anyone about the quarrel going on between them. 5. Paramjit Kaur, who had 100 per cent burn injuries, succumbed to her injuries on 19.2.1996 in Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. Before her death, on 14.2.1996 at about 1.00 P.M., Paramjit Kaur made a statement, Exhibit DA, before Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7) that she had caught fire accidently when she was preparing tea on a stove. 5. Paramjit Kaur, who had 100 per cent burn injuries, succumbed to her injuries on 19.2.1996 in Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. Before her death, on 14.2.1996 at about 1.00 P.M., Paramjit Kaur made a statement, Exhibit DA, before Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7) that she had caught fire accidently when she was preparing tea on a stove. Labh Kaur, her mother-in-law, threw clothes upon her and put out the fire. Statement, Exhibit DA, of Paramjit Kaur was recorded by Paramjit Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW-8). This statement was sent to the Police Station and DDR was registered. 6. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Ram Murti (PW-1), Harbhajan Singh, Panch (PW-2), Constable Pritam Singh (PW-3), Head Constable Jodh Singh (PW-4), Kishore Chand (PW-5), Dr. Harish Tuli (PW-6), Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7), Sub-Inspector Paramjit Singh (PW-8), Gurpartap Singh, Draftsman (PW-9) and Head Constable Sarup Singh (PW-10). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that statement, Exhibit DA, is a dying declaration. In her statement, Paramjit Kaur (deceased) stated that she accidentally caught fire. Her mother-in-law Labh Kaur threw clothes on her body to douse the fire. She has not implicated the appellant. Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7) had made endorsement, Exhibit PF/1 that Paramjit Kaur was fit to make a statement. It was, after this certificate was given, that she made her statement, Exhibit DA. No dowry demand was made at the time of marriage. Demand of dowry has not been proved. 8. Learned counsel for the State has stated that burns on the person of the deceased were 100 per cent. As per the report of Dr. Harish Tuli (PW-6), she was not in a position to make any statement. Exhibit DA is a fabricated document. In fact, in her statement recorded Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the deceased has implicated not only her husband Amrik Singh but her mother-in-law Labh Kaur also. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 10. Marriage was solemnized about 2-1/2 years prior to the occurrence. Ram Murti (PW-1) has stated in her testimony that demand of Rs. 5,000/- was made by the appellant. Rs. 2,000/- was paid. Paramjit Kaur (deceased) had come to the house of her mother Ram Murti, as she was being harassed for the remaining amount of Rs. 3,000/-. 10. Marriage was solemnized about 2-1/2 years prior to the occurrence. Ram Murti (PW-1) has stated in her testimony that demand of Rs. 5,000/- was made by the appellant. Rs. 2,000/- was paid. Paramjit Kaur (deceased) had come to the house of her mother Ram Murti, as she was being harassed for the remaining amount of Rs. 3,000/-. Labh Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased, came to the house of Ram Murti and pleaded to take Paramjit Kaur back to her house. Paramjit Kaur was sent back on the intervention of Harbhajan Singh, Panch, but mal-treatment of Paramjit Kaur started again. Harbhajan Singh, Panch, who appeared as PW-2, corroborated the statement of Ram Murti (PW-1). Appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that he was not present in the house at the time of occurrence. Paramjit Kaur was preparing tea. Kerosene oil came out of the stove, which fell in the clothes of Paramjit Kaur, on which, she caught fire. His mother Labh Kaur extinguished the fire. She arranged for a tractor and admitted her in Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. It was incumbent upon the appellant to lead cogent and convincing evidence, as to how the occurrence had taken place. Onus had shifted on to him to prove his innocence. It was an unnatural dowry death within seven years. In case of dowry death, provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, are attracted. 11. Document, Exhibit DA, the alleged dying declaration, cannot be taken into consideration as Dr. Harish Tuli (PW-6) has stated in his testimony that burn injuries were present on all over the body, except dorsum and soles of both the feet. It is strange, as to how Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7) has testified on Exhibit DA. In his endorsement, Exhibit PF/1, he declared Paramjit Kaur to be fit to make a statement on 14.2.1996 at 12.30 P.M. In his testimony before the Court, he has stated that on 14.2.1996 at 12.30 P.M., the statement of Paramjit Kaur was not recorded in his presence. Further, he volunteered and stated that people accompanying Paramjit Kaur stated that she died due to accidental fire. In his cross-examination, Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7) has taken a U-turn and stated that it is correct that the statement of injured Paramjit Kaur was recorded by Paramjit Singh Sub-Inspector. Further, he volunteered and stated that people accompanying Paramjit Kaur stated that she died due to accidental fire. In his cross-examination, Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7) has taken a U-turn and stated that it is correct that the statement of injured Paramjit Kaur was recorded by Paramjit Singh Sub-Inspector. Her statement is exhibit DA, which has been signed by him and thumb marked by Paramjit Kaur in his presence. Statement of Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7) is not truthful. Firstly, in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that the statement of Paramjit Kaur was not recorded in his presence, in his cross- examination, he has made a complete U-turn and stated that statement, Exhibit DA, was recorded in his presence. Dr. Jaspal Singh Rekhi (PW-7) cannot be believed. As already stated above, the deceased had 100 per cent burn injuries on her body. It is clear from the statement of Dr. Harish Tuli (PW- 6), who performed the post-mortem, that the face and the hands of Paramjit Kaur were also burnt. With this being her condition, Paramjit Kaur could not have thumb marked the dying declaration, nor could she state anything before Paramjit Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW-8). I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 24.7.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. Appeal is dismissed. Appellant is directed to surrender to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.