Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1142 (PNJ)

Kulbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2008-05-30

A.N.JINDAL

body2008
JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J. - Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 4.6.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby, all the three accused-appellants, namely; Kulbir Singh, Joginder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur (herein referred as the accused) were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, each. 2. The deceased Baljit Kaur, daughter of Chand Singh r/o village Bhura Karimpura, District Amritsar (herein referred as the complainant) was married to accused Kulbir Singh, a resident of village Duhan Kohna on 22.6.1988. Accused Joginder Kaur was the mother-in-law of the deceased, whereas, Jaswinder Kaur is her widowed sister-in-law (Nanad). Out of the wedlock, three children were born. Despite the sufficient dowry given to the accused at the time of marriage, they were not still satisfied and raised demand of a Maruti Van, which the complainant could not arrange due to the disturbed law and order situation in the State of Punjab. He could not attend the agriculture in proper manner and, therefore, his income had come down. The accused were not behaving properly with the deceased. She was being maltreated, beaten and tortured on account of demand of dowry. However, the complainant always consoled his daughter and asked her to bear with the situation and also promised that he would meet their demands. About 1-1/2 months prior to the occurrence, having been turned out by the accused, the deceased had come to her parental house along with her three children. Then, Raj Singh, uncle of Kulbir Singh visited the house of the complainant and promised that they will not repeat the same behaviour with the deceased and took her and the children with him to his house. About 15 days, thereafter, the complainant again visited the house of the accused to know about the well-being of his daughter Baljit Kaur, where, all the accused persisted on their demand of a Maruti Van and threatened of the dire consequences, if their demand is not fulfilled. 3. On 14.8.1993 at about 6.00 p.m, the complainant was informed by Gurbachan Singh of his village that he had seen the accused beating Baljit Kaur at about 4.00 p.m. He further stated that the accused did not permit her to came to the parental house. 3. On 14.8.1993 at about 6.00 p.m, the complainant was informed by Gurbachan Singh of his village that he had seen the accused beating Baljit Kaur at about 4.00 p.m. He further stated that the accused did not permit her to came to the parental house. On getting this information, the complainant along with his brother Nand Singh reached the house of the accused at village Duhan Kohna and came to know at the out-skirts that the accused had gone on a tractor-trolley towards village Algon Kothi. Then the complainant and his brother went in that direction and while reaching the clinic of a private doctor, they noticed that Baljit Kaur was lying unconscious in the trolley. Then the complainant arranged a Van and took her to the clinic of Dr. Muni Lal Chopra at Amritsar. However, Baljit Kaur died within 1-1/2 hours. On receipt of the information, the case was registered; police went to the Hospital; prepared the Inquest Report; arranged for the post mortem examination; recorded the statements of the witnesses and the accused were apprehended. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented against all the three accused. 4. On commitment, all the three accused were charged under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 5. In order to substantiate its charge, the prosecution examined Rishi Ram (PW1), LC Karaj Singh (PW2), Hardev Singh (PW3), Constable Partap Singh (PW4), Dr. Shalinder Singh (PW5), Dr. Kashmir Singh (PW6), Chand Singh-complainant (PW7), Gurbachan Singh (PW8), Resham Singh (PW9) and Assistant Sub-Inspector Swam Singh (PW10). 6. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case and Kulbir Singh further explained that he was working in the fields when he learnt about the condition of his wife. Then he came to his house and brought her to a private doctor at Algon Kothi on a peter rehra and sent message to the complainant, whereupon, the complainant and his brother Nand Singh came, but as the condition of Baljit Kaur had worsened, therefore, the doctors advised to shift her to Amritsar. Thereafter, we after arranging a Maruti Van, shifted Baljit Kaur to the clinic of Dr.Muni Lal Chopra at Amritsar. Thereafter, we after arranging a Maruti Van, shifted Baljit Kaur to the clinic of Dr.Muni Lal Chopra at Amritsar. However, he admitted that the dead body of Baljit Kaur was taken by the complainant to his village as they wanted the cremation to be done at their village. No evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction; hence, this appeal. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. Before we enter into the factual discussion, it would be essential to reiterate the evidence of Dr. Kashmir Singh (PW6), who had conducted autopsy on the body of Baljit Kaur on 15.8.1993 at 4.00 p.m, and observed the following injuries, on her person : "1. Contused swelling 5 cms x 3.5 cms on the occipital region on left side, 5 cms behind left ear. On dissection, there was subdural haematoma present under the injury. Brain was congested. 2. A contused wound 6 cms x 2 cms on left buttock. Subcutaneous hemorrhage was present underneath the skin. 3. A contused wound 5 cms x 2 cms on right thigh, upper part of outer aspect. Sub-cutaneous hemorrhage was present underneath the skin." Dr. Kashmir Singh (PW6) further deposed that contents of the stomach, liver, spleen and kidneys were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. He further opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, he opined that the cause of death was due to poisoning. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not give the duration of the injuries at the time of examination. 8. The prime plank of arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants is that no sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to establish the continuous cruelty, which is an essential ingredient to bring the offence within the ambit of Section 306 Indian Penal Code. In case of abetment to commit suicide by a wife, the offence would be complete if the prosecution establishes beyond doubt that the accused had been committing cruelty upon her continuously and created such circumstances that she had no other option, but to end her life. In case of abetment to commit suicide by a wife, the offence would be complete if the prosecution establishes beyond doubt that the accused had been committing cruelty upon her continuously and created such circumstances that she had no other option, but to end her life. The Trial Court while upholding the cruelty committed upon the deceased at the hands of the accused, has not recorded the conviction of the accused under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code for the reason that the prosecution had failed to prove that the death took-place within seven years of marriage. Be that as it may, the Trial Court erred in making these observations as it could not read the first information properly and the observations are based on mis-appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any appeal by the State, the interference in the judgment qua that aspect may not be appropriate. However, they cannot escape conviction for the offence of abetment to commit suicide and the demand of dowry could be treated as a motive for committing cruelty upon the deceased and also a circumstance compelling the accused to maltreat her and treat her like an alien in her matrimonial house. Since the occurrence took place within the four walls of the house and it pertains to matrimonial affairs, therefore, in the Indian Society, such instances are not made public, so that the image, reputation and honour of the family may not be put at stake. However, in order to prove the cruelty, the prosecution has examined the complainant (PW7), who was having specific knowledge of the facts and happenings, which were going on in between the family and the element of cruelty also stands corroborated by Gurbachan Singh (PW8). The complainant has stated that after the marriage of the deceased and Kulbir Singh in the year 1988, the accused started maltreating Baljit Kaur on account of the fact that they were not satisfied with the articles of dowry given to them at the time of marriage and they also made a demand of a Maruti Van, which the complainant could not meet because he was having inadequate income due to spread of terrorism in the State of Punjab. He also testified that the accused used to give beatings to Baljit Kaur from time to time and used to turn her out of her matrimonial house, but after consoling her daughter, he (complainant) used to send her back promising that the demand of the accused would be met with as and when he is affluent with the money. While explaining the cruelty "soon before the death", he (PW7) has deposed that 1-2 months prior to the occurrence, the deceased had been turned out of her matrimonial house by the accused. Consequently, she came to her parental house along with three children. Raj Singh, uncle of Kulbir Singh again took them back with a promise that he would prevail upon the accused. Thereafter, when the complainant went to their house, then all the three accused again placed the same demand and further threatened that failing to meet with the demand, she would not be kept in the house. On 14.8.1993, at about 6.00 p.m, Gurbachan Singh (PW8) came and informed that Baljit Kaur was being given beatings by all the accused and when she tried to come out, she was not allowed. He further told that despite his request not to maltreat her, the accused did not budge. It is not disputed that the deceased was taken to a private clinic situated at Algon Kothi, from where, she was shifted to the clinic of Dr. Muni Lal Chopra at Amritsar. This witness has been cross-examined at length, but no such material which could be of any help to the accused, could be elicited from his testimony. The testimony of the complainant (PW7) finds corroboration from Gurbachan Singh (PW8), who had seen the accused giving beatings to the deceased on the day of occurrence i.e. 14.8.1993. Again, the testimony of Gurbachan Singh (PW8) finds support from the evidence of Dr. Kashmir Singh (PW6), who disclosed that on examination of the deceased, he found three injuries on her body, which were ante mortem in nature. The duration of injuries was 12-24 hours. He further stated that after receiving the report from the Chemical Examiner of the Government of Punjab (Ex.PA/3), he opined that she died due to poisoning. Though, the prosecution has no direct evidence in order to establish the murder of Baljit Kaur at the hands of the accused, yet a clear revelation is made from the testimony of Dr. He further stated that after receiving the report from the Chemical Examiner of the Government of Punjab (Ex.PA/3), he opined that she died due to poisoning. Though, the prosecution has no direct evidence in order to establish the murder of Baljit Kaur at the hands of the accused, yet a clear revelation is made from the testimony of Dr. Kashmir Singh (PW6) that the deceased was first given torture and, thereafter, she either was murdered or that she having fed up with the daily torture at the hands of the accused, committed suicide, but the testimony of Dr. Kashmir Singh could not in any way be challenged or proved to be concocted or manufactured one. 9. There is no denying a fact that the deceased was living at her matrimonial house i.e, house of the accused when she died of poisoning. The evidence also reveals that at the time of death, she was having three injuries on her body. It is also in evidence that the deceased had three children from the loins of accused Kulbir Singh. There is also sufficient evidence that the demand of the accused for a Maruti Van had not been met with by the complainant. No lady having three children in her lap would take such a drastic step to end her life, without any cause. The evidence indicates that the accused had not been treating the deceased as their family member, rather they were maltreating and torturing her as an alien and were exploiting her to get satisfied their demands, but unfortunately, her father equipped with insufficient sources, could not fulfill their demands. The other circumstance which adds to the guilt of the accused is that Jaswinder Kaur, widowed sister-in-law of the deceased (Nanad) was residing along with the accused, therefore, she could also be behind the show to put fuel to the fire. I do not agree with the observations made by the Trial Court that the demand of Maruti Van by the accused is not established. No evidence has been placed on record to rebut the categoric statement of the complainant in this regard. It is not explained as to why the complainant will tell a lie and make a false accusation against her own son-in-law and break the relations with him for ever, particularly, when her daughter was having three children. 10. No evidence has been placed on record to rebut the categoric statement of the complainant in this regard. It is not explained as to why the complainant will tell a lie and make a false accusation against her own son-in-law and break the relations with him for ever, particularly, when her daughter was having three children. 10. The Trial Court has made wrong observations regarding the fact that the demand of Maruti Van was not disclosed by the complainant in the First Information Report (Ex.PB/2) and this improvement made by him while deposing in court is very serious improvement and the same has been made to aggravate the offence. Having examined the records of the case, it transpires that the FIR dated 14.8.1993 and supplementary statement made by the complainant on 20.8.1993 clearly contain the fact regarding the demand of Maruti Van made by the accused. Therefore, the observations made in this regard by the Trial Court being against facts would have to be set aside and the statement of the complainant that the accused have been demanding a Maruti Van from him would have to be believed. 11. There is nothing to shatter the testimony of Gurbachan Singh (PW8). He had seen the occurrence on 14.8.1993 when the accused were giving beatings to the deceased. He is married in the said village. He had gone there. He has categorically stated that despite his efforts, the accused did not desist from their wrongful act. At the same time, it deserves to be noticed that accused Kulbir Singh concedes that Baljit Kaur was taken by him, first to a private doctor at village Algon Kothi and then to the hospital of Dr. Muni Lal Chopra at Amritsar, but simultaneously denies the beatings given to the deceased, then a serious question which remains unanswered is as to from where the injuries on the deceased came. The stand of the accused goes a long way to admit a considerable part of the prosecution version as exposed by the complainant. The testimony of Gurbachan Singh (PW8) could not be disbelieved being biased or he being an interested person. He does not have any close connections with the complainant and he also withstood the test of lengthy cross-examination. Neither he has any enmity with the accused, nor his in-laws have. The testimony of Gurbachan Singh (PW8) could not be disbelieved being biased or he being an interested person. He does not have any close connections with the complainant and he also withstood the test of lengthy cross-examination. Neither he has any enmity with the accused, nor his in-laws have. Some suggestions, though have been given, but the same are of no worth as the same remain unproved. It would also be pertinent to mention that the injuries on the deceased are behind the left ear, left buttock and on right upper outer aspect of right thigh, which indicate about the force applied by the accused at the time of administering poison to her. 12. Since the deceased met with an unnatural death at the house of the accused, therefore, only they should explain the cause of her death, but nothing has come on record as to how the mother of three adolescent children was turned into corpse. Though, presumption of cruelty cannot be attached to the statement of the complainant for the reason that marriage was not proved to have taken place within seven years prior to the death, yet the essential requirements to bring the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code could be proved by independent evidence, which has been sufficiently led by the prosecution, in the present case. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.