Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1033 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Gian Singh

2007-05-02

A.N.JINDAL, UMA NATH SINGH

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Out of four accused namely Tarlok Singh, Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur, tried under Section 304-B in the alternative under Section 302 IPC, for causing dowry death of Joginder Kaur on 6.10.1991, in the area of village Inderpuri, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar, learned Sessions Judge Amritsar, vide its judgment dated 1.3.1996 convicted Tarlok Singh under Section 304-B IPC and acquitted the remaining accused. Hence, State has preferred this appeal while challenging the judgment of acquittal passed qua the three accused as referred to above. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant Jasbir Kaur in her statement dated 6.10.1991 Ex. PA, before SI Gurpal Singh, disclosed that her daughter Joginder Kaur was married to Tarlok Singh at Inderpuri Kot Khalsa, Amritsar, just five months prior to the occurrence. Immediately, after the marriage, the accused being dissatisfied with the articles of dowry, started maltreating and beating Joginder Kaur on account of bringing inadequate dowry. Tarlok Singh never visited their house. On 27.9.1991, when she visited the house of her daughter, then she found that she had been given beatings. She spotted bluish marks of injuries on her body. Again on 28.9.1991, when she went to Tarlok Singh accused in the company of mediator, then he repeated the demand of dowry. On 6.10.1991, when she again visited the house of the accused with her son Mohinder Singh, then she saw that Tarlok Singh, his father Gian Singh, mother Kashmir Kaur and her daughter Chhambo were quarrelling with Joginder Kaur. When they were going upstairs, then in their presence, the accused threw Joginder Kaur from the roof of the room. Resultantly, she fell on the pucca floor and died at the spot due to the injuries suffered by her. 3. On the aforesaid statement Ex. PA recorded on 6.10.1991 at 1.30 p.m., FIR Ex. PA-1 was registered at Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar. Investigation commenced. Inspector Gurpal Singh visited the place of occurrence; prepared the inquest report; dispatched the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination through Constable Balkar Singh and another constable; recorded statements of the witnesses; prepared the rough site plan Ex. PB; took into possession clothes of the deceased as handed over by the doctor; took into possession ornaments as removed from the dead body and post-mortem report. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. PB; took into possession clothes of the deceased as handed over by the doctor; took into possession ornaments as removed from the dead body and post-mortem report. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. 4. Consequently, all the accused were charged under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During evidence, the prosecution examined MHC Bhupinder Singh (PW-1), C. Pritam Singh (PW-2), Dr. Gurmit Rai (PW-3), Dr. Jagdish Gargi (PW-4), Dr. Harjit Kaur (PW-5), Jasbir Kaur (PW-6), Mohinder Singh (PW-7), Inspector Gurpal Singh (PW-8) and Balbir Singh Randhawa (PW-9). 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in this case. The accused also produced 7 witnesses in defence. 7. Ultimately, the trial ended in acquittal of Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur accused, whereas only Tarlok Singh accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly. Hence, this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the aforementioned accused persons. 8. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence in this case took place on 6.10.1991 in the morning, whereas statement of Jasbir Kaur complainant was recorded at 1.30 p.m. on the same day on the basis of which formal FIR was registered on 6.10.1991 at about 1.50 p.m. but no special report has been proved on the file, therefore, it does not transpire as to when it reached the Illaqa Magistrate. It creates doubt over the conduct of the Investigating Officer and indicates embellishment and concoction of the prosecution story. As regards the fact whether it is a case of dowry death, it is noticed that Joginder Kaur was married to Tarlok Singh just five months back. The complainant Jasbir Kaur (PW-6) stated that from the very beginning till Joginder Kaur breathed her last, accused Tarlok Singh, had been beating her on account of demand of dowry. She has narrated the incidents of 27.9.1991 and 23.8.1991. But the evidence does not transpire if accused Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Sarbajit Kaur ever maltreated Joginder Kaur and no demand of any specific article has been established which these three accused raised during the period of stay of the deceased at their house. She has narrated the incidents of 27.9.1991 and 23.8.1991. But the evidence does not transpire if accused Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Sarbajit Kaur ever maltreated Joginder Kaur and no demand of any specific article has been established which these three accused raised during the period of stay of the deceased at their house. There are only allegations against Tarlok Singh that he was not satisfied with the dowry and he had been beating the deceased. It is also a fact that the deceased died other than in normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage, therefore, the trial Court appears to have appreciated the evidence in right perspective while acquitting Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur respondents and convicting Tarlok Singh accused under Section 304-B IPC. The trial Court appears to have rightly declined to accept the version of the prosecution that the accused are guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not assailed the findings of the trial Court vide which the accused were acquitted under Section 302 IPC. 9. Having perused the detailed judgment, we are of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. No such perversity much less illegality has been detected or pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, suggesting interference in the impugned judgment at our end. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.