Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 496 (PNJ)

Kashmir Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2005-04-06

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2005
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under : 2. Darshana alias Darshan Kaur daughter of Joginder Singh resident of Village Nandpur was married to Ravail Singh son of Gian Singh about 11 months before the incident. As per the prosecution story, Joginder Singh had given sufficient dowry at the time of the marriage but Jagir Kaur (since deceased) the mother-in-law of Darshana made a further demand of Rs. 30,000/- besides a Stereo and a Scooter from Darshana. Joginder Singh accordingly promised to give Rs. 30,000/- in cash after the harvest. Jagir Kaur, however, started maltreating Darshana pressurizing her to bring the promised amount immediately. She accordingly returned to her parental home three days prior to the incident and requested her father to pay the amount, on which Joginder Singh told her that he would be visiting to her in-laws house within 3-4 days with Rs. 30,000/- in cash. On the morning of 3.11.1987, Jagir Singh (PW-3) observed the accused torturing Darshana and soon after received the information that she had died. Jagir Singh then went to village Nandpur and informed Joginder Singh that Darshana had died and her dead body was lying in the Civil Hospital, Tarantaran. Joginder Singh accordingly reported the matter to the police, on which an FIR, Exh. PE/2, under Sections 304-B/34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Lakha Singh, brother of Ravail Singh, Kashmir Kaur, Lakha Singhs wife and Jagir Kaur. Jagir Kaur has, in the meanwhile, died. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW Dr. Karamjit Singh, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body and found several abrasions on it and after receiving the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PG, recorded a finding that death had been caused by poisoning; PW2 Joginder Singh, father of the deceased, who stated to the circumstances leading to the mal-treatment and frequent demands for dowry; PW3 Jagir Singh, who had seen the accused torturing Darshana and had sent the information to Joginder Singh that Darshana had died; PW5 SI Surinder Singh, who had recovered a letter, Ex PH, from the brassier of the deceased which stated to her ill-treatment. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements reco rded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements reco rded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations levelled against them. Lakha Singh stated that he was an employee of the Electricity Board and was living separately whereas Darshana and Ravail Singh were living at the Farm House. He also produced several witnesses in defence including Dr. K.N. Prashad, Document Expert as DW3. 5. The trial Court in its judgment held that from the evidence on record it was clear that the death had been caused by poison which had been consumed by Darshana on account of her continuous mal-treatment at the hands of her brother-in-law and his wife. It further observed that the presence of abrasions on her body clearly showed that she had been brutally tortured before her death. The trial Court also noticed that there could be no case for false implication as Joginder Singh himself had given a statement that his son-in-law, Ravail Singh, was a fine man and no fault could be found with him. The trial Court further relied on the fact that the letters, Exs. PH to PJ written by Darshana to her father clearly revealed the miserable life that she was living and that these letters in fact corroborated the statement of Joginder Singh and Jagir Singh. The Court also observed that though the letter Ex PH recovered from the brassier of Darshana on 3.11.1987 did not figure in column No. 22 of the inquest report, it would have no effect on the prosecution story in the light of the other evidence on record, more particularly as the onus had been shifted on the defence as per Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. The defence evidence was also rejected as being unworthy of credence. The trial Court accordingly convicted the accused under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of seven years each under Section 304-B IPC and also to undergo RI for two years under Section 498A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently 6. Hence this appeal. 7. Mr. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently 6. Hence this appeal. 7. Mr. Ritesh Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has argued that Ravail Singh, husband of Darshana, ought to have been the best witness in the case but as he had not been produced in the witness-box, and as such, a presumption was to be drawn against the veracity of the prosecution story and that the evidence of the two close relatives of the deceased, namely, Joginder Singh and Jagir Singh could not be relied upon. He has also pleaded that there was no evidence to show that the death had been caused by poisoning as the report of the Chemical Examiner was conflicting on that account. It has finally been argued that the recovery of letter, Ex. PH, from the brassier of the deceased on 3.11.1987 was a clear concoction because there was no mention thereof in column No. 22 of the inquest report. 8. On the other hand Mr. Handa, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has argued that the incident had happened within one year of the marriage of Darshana with Ravail Singh and there was evidence to show that 2-3 days prior to the death of Darshana, Jagir Kaur, her mother-in-law, had made a demand for Rs. 30,000/- in cash, which had compelled Darshana to rush to her parental home to ask her father to meet the demand and that she had died shortly thereafter and in the light of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, it was for the defence to rebut the presumption with regard to the dowry death. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 10. It is true that Ravail Singh would have been the best evidence of the prosecution but it cannot be ignored that the three accused Jagir Kaur, Lakha Singh and his wife Kashmir Kaur were very close relatives of Ravail Singh and expect him to come out against them and that too with respect to a marriage, which had lasted only about a year is rather far fetched. On the contrary, we are of the opinion that the evidence of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Jagir Singh (PW-3) clearly supports the prosecution story. On the contrary, we are of the opinion that the evidence of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Jagir Singh (PW-3) clearly supports the prosecution story. Joginder Singh had stated that the marriage of Darshana had taken place 11 months prior to the date of incident and that adequate dowry had been given at the time of marriage but Jagir Kaur, in particular, alongwith the two other accused had continued to make demands for more dowry in the shape of a Stereo and a Scooter and that 3-4 days prior to the incident, Darshana had rushed to her parental home and asked her father to make good the promise and to pay Rs. 3,000/- in cash to Jagir Kaur. Joginder Singhs statement finds full support from that of Jagir Singh (PW-3). As a matter of fact, in the morning on 3.11.1987 he saw accused torturing Darshana and on the evening of same day, she had been found dead. 11. It is also clear from an over all look at the medical evidence that Darshana had not only been beaten, as is evident from the number of abrasions found on her body, but the symptoms also suggests that she had died of poisoning. The learned trial Judge noticed that an attempt had been made to help the defence by creating a doubt as to the cause of death but on a reappraisal of the evidence, the Chemical Examiner had opined vide report Exh. PG, that it appeared that the death had occurred due to poisoning but the exact poison not be identified. Be that as it may, it was clearly a case of unnatural death with presumption against the defence raised under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. To my mind, a doubt created here and there about the prosecution story cannot, in anyway, rebut the presumption. 12. It is also clear that several letters had been recovered during the course of the investigation, they being, Exh. PH to Exh. PK. The learned trial Judge has held that even assuming that the letter, Exh. PH, was to be ignored as it appeared to be recovered in a manner, which did not inspire confidence, the other circumstances on the file, including the other letters, clearly reveal the sorry state of affairs in the family with frequent demands for dowry and a miserable existence on that account of Darshana. 13. PH, was to be ignored as it appeared to be recovered in a manner, which did not inspire confidence, the other circumstances on the file, including the other letters, clearly reveal the sorry state of affairs in the family with frequent demands for dowry and a miserable existence on that account of Darshana. 13. I am also of the opinion that the defence evidence inspires no confidence and cannot rebut the presumption raised under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. 14. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.