Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 652 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab

2008-03-05

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, SHAM SUNDER

body2008
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J.:-The instant appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 8.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, in Sessions Case No.82 of 2000. By the impugned judgement, the appellants – Kulwant Singh and his son Sukhraj Singh have been held guilty of having committed the murder of Rajwinder Kaur, under Sections 302, as well as, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate order passed on 8.9.2003, both the convicts were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered, that the convicts shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. They have both been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The order of sentence dated 8.9.2003 also directs, that both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution version of the incident is based on the statement of Amarjit Kaur PW3, dated 3.4.2000. It would be pertinent to mention, that the occurrence under reference took place on 14.3.2000 and a complaint against the accused/appellants - Kulwant Singh and his son Sukhraj Singh, was made for the first time by Amarjit Kaur PW3 on 3.4.2000, after 19 days of the occurrence. The statement of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur dated 3.4.2000 reveals, that she was married to Avtar Singh son of the accused – Kulwant Singh for the last five years. She was happily married to Avtar Singh and that she was living in the house of Kulwant Singh. During the course of her marriage, two sons were born to her. On account of the fact, that the in-laws of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 were happy with her, she arranged the marriage of her sister Rajwinder Kaur with the accused – Sukhraj Singh, about two years preceding the occurrence. The accused – Sukhraj Singh, as well as, her sister Rajwinder Kaur were also living alongwith them in the house of the accused – Kulwant Singh. The accused – Sukhraj Singh, as well as, her sister Rajwinder Kaur were also living alongwith them in the house of the accused – Kulwant Singh. It is, however, pointed out in her complaint, that her sister Rajwinder Kaur was perpetually harassed by her husband accused – Sukhraj Singh, as also, by the father-in-law of Rajwinder Kaur i.e. the accused – Kulwant Singh. It was allegedly insisted upon by the accused/appellants, that although, the parents of Rajwinder Kaur had promised to give a scooter to her in dowry, they had not fulfilled their commitment. In order to satisfy the demand of dowry being made by the accused – Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, it is stated by Amarjit Kaur PW3 in her complaint, that on 9.3.2000, her mother Parkash Kaur PW4 had visited them and on the asking of her sister Rajwinder Kaur, Parkash Kaur PW4 had given a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the accused – Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, Parkash Kaur PW4 had also promised to give them more money after the harvest of the coming “rabi” crop. According to the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, on 14.3.2000, after having taken their meals when all the family members present in the house of the accused – Kulwant Singh, had gone to sleep, at about 2.00/3.00 AM, she woke up on account of hearing the shrieks of her sister Rajwinder Kaur. Having woken up, the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 saw her brother-in-law, the accused/appellant – Sukhraj Singh armed with a “ghotna” (ponder) and her father-in-law, i.e. the accused/appellant – Kulwant Singh armed with a “thapa” (bat), giving blows to her sister Rajwinder Kaur on her head. As a result of two “thapa” blows given by the accused/appellant – Kulwant Singh, Rajwinder Kaur fell down from the bed. Whereupon, the accused/appellant – Sukhraj Singh (husband of Rajwinder Kaur) gave her two “ghotna” blows on her head. As a consequence of the blows inflicted upon Rajwinder Kaur by the accused – Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, Rajwinder Kaur is stated to have become unconscious. On witnessing the occurrence, the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, it is alleged, tried to raise an alarm, but both the accused/appellants – Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh threatened her by saying, that if she raised her voice, she would meet the same fate as her sister Rajwinder Kaur. On witnessing the occurrence, the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, it is alleged, tried to raise an alarm, but both the accused/appellants – Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh threatened her by saying, that if she raised her voice, she would meet the same fate as her sister Rajwinder Kaur. According to the complainant, fearing for her life, she did not disclose the factum of the incident, as it had occurred, to any one. According to the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, the accused took Rajwinder Kaur to Civil Hospital, Malout. At the Civil Hospital, Malout, Rajwinder Kaur was referred to a hospital at Ludhiana. While Rajwinder Kaur was being taken to Ludhiana, she expired on the way. According to the version of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, she did not disclose the incident in the manner expressed by her in her complaint even to her parents and other relatives. However, having pondered over the matter, she disclosed the manner in which the occurrence had actually taken place, to her maternal uncle Samjit Singh PW7, who also resides at Malout. Whereupon, she decided to make a complaint to the police, so as to disclose the correct factual position, i.e. that the accused/appellants – Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh had murdered her sister Rajwinder Kaur on account of the fact, that she had not brought the promised dowry. 3. The statement of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 was recorded by ASI Krishan Kumar PW13, on 3.4.2000 at 8.00 P.M., whereupon, First Information Report bearing No.30 was registered under Sections 302/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police station, City Malout, on 3.4.2000 at 8.10 PM. The accused – Sukhraj Singh was arrested on 17.4.2000 by SI Mukhwinder Singh PW14. On the next day, he was remanded to police custody. During the course of his interrogation, Sukhraj Singh made a disclosure statement Ex.PE to the effect, that he had hidden the “ghotna” used by him while assaulting Rajwinder Kaur, in a heap of wooden logs lying on the roof of the “verandah” of their residence. In pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.PE, the police recovered the “ghotna” and took possession thereof vide Memo Ex.PF. Likewise, the accused – Kulwant Singh was interrogated by ASI Sucha Singh PW8 on 25.5.2000. In pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.PE, the police recovered the “ghotna” and took possession thereof vide Memo Ex.PF. Likewise, the accused – Kulwant Singh was interrogated by ASI Sucha Singh PW8 on 25.5.2000. The aforesaid accused vide his disclosure statement Ex.PG stated, that he had kept concealed the “thapa” under the mattress lying in an iron trunk in his house. In pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.PG, the police recovered a “thapa” and took possession thereof vide Memo Ex.PH. Well before the complaint at the hands of Amarjit Kaur PW3, and immediately after the death of Rajwinder Kaur, the postmortem examination on her dead body was conducted by Dr. S.S. Mali PW2 on 15.3.2000. 4. On the completion of the investigation, a challan was presented before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar on 11.7.2000. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar vide his order dated 25.7.2000, concluded that a prima-facie case punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused. Since the offences under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar vide his order dated 25.7.2000 committed the case to the Court of Session. 5. On 8.8.2000, the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar charged the accused/appellants – Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh for having committed the murder of Rajwinder Kaur in furtherance of their common intention, and accordingly, charged them of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar also charged the accused/appellants – Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh for having committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, for having harassed and maltreated the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur on account of the demand of the promised dowry. 6. The accused were then confronted with the charges levelled against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. A brief description of the deposition of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, is being summarised hereunder. The statement of Dr. M.S. Kingra was recorded first of all, as PW1. Dr. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. A brief description of the deposition of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, is being summarised hereunder. The statement of Dr. M.S. Kingra was recorded first of all, as PW1. Dr. M.S. Kingra PW1 stated, that on 15.3.2000 while he was posted as Senior Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Malout, the accused – Kulwant Singh brought the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur with head injuries, in a serious condition. He stated that the patient was pregnant and further that, brain matter was coming out of the injuries on the left side of her head from the fronto parietal region. He also stated, that the patient was unconscious and was gasping. After having rendered some treatment to Rajwinder Kaur, she was, on request, referred to the Christian Medical College/Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. Dr. M.S. Kingra PW1 in his cross-examination stated, that the persons who were accompanying Rajwinder Kaur did not disclose to him the cause of the injuries on Rajwinder Kaur. Dr. S.S. Malli, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Malout appeared as PW2. Dr. S.S. Malli PW2 had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur on 15.3.2000. The body of Rajwinder Kaur at the time of the postmortem examination, was identified by Saheb Singh son of Swaran Singh i.e. the father of deceased – Rajwinder Kaur, and Baldev Singh son of Sohan Singh i.e. the brother of deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. According to the postmortem examination conducted by Dr. S.S. Mali PW2, the body of Rajwinder Kaur had the following injuries:- “Lacerated wound of 8 cm x 3.5 cm over the left fronto parietal region with brain matter coming out of the wound. On dissection underlying bone was badly fractured into pieces with several laceration of the underlying brain tissue. Clotted blood was present. The wound was situated 4.5 cm above the top of left pinna and 3 cm posterio superior to the lateral end of left eye brow and wound was horixentally obliquely placed. 2. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm over the left half of forehead 2.5 cm above the middle of left eye brow. On dissection it was bone deep and clotted blood was present. 3. 2. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm over the left half of forehead 2.5 cm above the middle of left eye brow. On dissection it was bone deep and clotted blood was present. 3. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0/5 cm over the right side of forehead at the laeral end of right eye brow. On dissection it was bone deep and clotted blood was present. 4. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.75 cm on the right side of the face 2 cm anterior to the tradis of right ear. On dissection it was bone deepened clotted blood was present.” During the course of recording his examination-in-chief, Dr. S.S. Malli PW2 affirmed, that the injuries on the person of deceased – Rajwinder Kaur could have been the result of forceful blows given with a “ghotna” and “thapa”. During the course of his cross-examination, he also affirmed, that the possibility that the injuries on the person of Rajwinder Kaur, could have been caused by a fall from a stair case on the floor or other hard surface, could not be ruled out. The statement of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur was recorded as PW3. She reiterated the factual position narrated by her in the complaint got recorded by her on 3.4.2000. She reiterated that she was happily married to her husband Avtar Singh, and that, she had living with her family in the house of the accused – Kulwant Singh. She also reiterated, that her mother Parkash Kaur had given a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the accused in furtherance of their demand, on 9.3.2000. She also reiterated the version of the occurrence dated 14.3.2000 and the reason for her having remained silent. She stated, that she had not narrated the occurrence to her parents as she feared, that her marriage would be spoiled. She also asserted, that she had divulged the correct facts of the occurrence to her maternal uncle Samjit Singh PW7 on the same date on which she had made the complaint to the police i.e. on 3.4.2000. During the course of her cross-examination, she affirmed, that Swaran Singh is her father and also the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. She further stated, that her husband Avtar Singh and her mother-in-law Jaspreet Kaur were not present in the house on the date of occurrence. During the course of her cross-examination, she affirmed, that Swaran Singh is her father and also the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. She further stated, that her husband Avtar Singh and her mother-in-law Jaspreet Kaur were not present in the house on the date of occurrence. She denied the fact in her cross-examination, that on that day, her father Saheb Singh had come to the house of Kulwant Singh and had slept in the “verandah” of their house on the date of occurrence. She also denied that her father Saheb Singh had taken Rajwinder Kaur to the Civil Hospital, Malout on the date of occurrence. The statement of Parkash Kaur was recorded as PW4. Parkash Kaur PW4 is the mother of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 and the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. She reiterated the factual position narrated by her daughter i.e. the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, on the issue of the demand of a scooter by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, and also to the effect that she had given a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh after having borrowed the same from her brother Samjit Singh PW7. In her cross-examination, Parkash Kaur PW4 also stated that her husband Saheb Singh had told her that he had made a statement to the police to the effect that Rajwinder Kaur had fallen from the stairs and then volunteered by stating that he had done so for the sake of their other daughter i.e. Amarjit Kaur PW3. The statement of ASI Jaswant Singh was recorded as PW5. He deposed that the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh had surrendered in the Court and had been arrested by Inspector Darshan Singh. The prosecution then produced Harbans Singh as PW6. He had witnessed the disclosure statement Ex.PE made by the accused/appellant Sukhraj Singh during the course of his interrogation by the police. He was also a witness to the recovery memo Ex.PF, consequent upon the recovery of the “ghotna” at the instance of the accused/appellant Sukhraj Singh. The statement of Samjit Singh was recorded as PW7. He confirmed that he had accompanied the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 to the Police Station, City Malout. He was also a witness to the recovery memo Ex.PF, consequent upon the recovery of the “ghotna” at the instance of the accused/appellant Sukhraj Singh. The statement of Samjit Singh was recorded as PW7. He confirmed that he had accompanied the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 to the Police Station, City Malout. He also stated that the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh was interrogated in his presence, and that, he made a disclosure statement Ex.PG asserting therein that he had concealed the “thapa” under the mattress of an iron trunk lying in his house. Consequent upon the making of the aforesaid statement, the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh had led the police party to the spot where he had concealed the “thapa”. The aforesaid “thapa” was recovered from the place indicated in his disclosure statement. On the recovery of the said “thapa”, recovery memo Ex.PH was prepared. The same was attested by Samjit Singh PW7. During the course of his cross-examination, he acknowledged that a sum of Rs.5,000/- had been taken by him from Chanchal Singh and given to his sister Parkash Kaur PW4 so that she could give the same to the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and his son Sukhraj Singh. ASI Sucha Singh was produced by the prosecution as PW8. His statement pertains to the recording of the First Information Report Ex.PD/1. As per his statement, he had interrogated Kulwant Singh. He also affirmed that the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh had led the police party to the place from where the “thapa” concealed by him was recovered, whereupon memo Ex.PH was prepared which was also attested by Samjit Singh PW7. The statement of Puran Singh Sidhu was recorded as PW9. He had brought with him particulars of the Savings Bank A/c.No.P&S 1252, belonging to Chanchal Singh which indicated the withdrawal of a sum of Rs.5,500/- on 7.3.2000. The prosecution then produced Sat Pal, JE, PSEB, as PW10. A perusal of his statement shows that there was no cut in the supply of electricity during the night intervening 14/15.3.2000, and that, regular supply continued till 6.00 AM in the morning. As such, he affirmed that there was no break down in electricity at the residence of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh. The prosecution then produced Chanchal Singh as PW11. As such, he affirmed that there was no break down in electricity at the residence of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh. The prosecution then produced Chanchal Singh as PW11. He stated that he had withdrawn Rs.5,500/- from his Bank A/c. No.P&S 1252 and out of the said amount, he had given Rs.5,000/- to Samjit Singh PW7 as the balance payable by him for the buffalo purchased by him from Samjit Singh PW7. The statement of Suresh Kumar Chetu as PW12 is formal in nature, inasmuch as, he prepared the site plan Ex.PL with marginal notes of the place of occurrence. The statement of Investigating Officer ASI Krishan Kumar was recorded as PW13. In his statement, Krishan Kumar PW13 supported the prosecution version of the occurrence in all material particulars. The statement of Mukhwinder Singh was recorded as PW14. He had effected the arrest of the accused/appellant Sukhraj Singh. He had interrogated the accused/appellant Sukhraj Singh on 19.4.2000. During the course of interrogation, the accused/appellant Sukhraj Singh had made a disclosure statement Ex.PE in connection with the place where he had hidden the “ghotna” used in the occurrence. Consequent upon the recording of the aforesaid disclosure statement, he had led the police party to the spot indicated by him in his disclosure statement, whereupon the “ghotna” under reference was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PF. 8. The statements of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14.5.2003. The accused/appellant Kulwant Singh denied the incriminating evidence appearing on the record of the case which was put to him. In his defence, he narrated his version of the incident as under:- “I am innocent. I and my son Sukhraj Singh have been falsely implicated in this case by Amarjit Kaur my daughter-in-law at the instance of maternal uncle Surjit Singh who resides at Malout and is a mischievous person. The case has been registered against me and my son in order to grab my movable and immovable property. After the registration of the case, Amarjit Kaur complainant, her parents have started residing in my house which was constructed/purchased by is in my name. My other house hold articles have also been taken into possession by Amarjit Kaur, her parents and maternal uncle which included tractor, thrasher and scooter and other valuables. After the registration of the case, Amarjit Kaur complainant, her parents have started residing in my house which was constructed/purchased by is in my name. My other house hold articles have also been taken into possession by Amarjit Kaur, her parents and maternal uncle which included tractor, thrasher and scooter and other valuables. My wife has been turned out by them from house who is residing at her parental house at V. Kale Bander, district Bathinda n 15.3.2k. My daughter-in-law Rajwinder Kaur deceased wife of Sukhraj Singh while going upstairs at about 3- 4 AM fell down from the stairs as a result of which she suffered injuries on her forehead. At that time her father Swaran Singh was present in our house and was lying in the verandah of the house. On hearing the cries of her father Swaran Singh and Sukhraj Singh, myself and my wife and Amarjit Kaur complainant who were sleeping in their respective rooms, rushed to the spot and I immediately arranged for a vehicle and removed the deceased Rajwinder Kaur to C.H. Malout. As her condition was serious, Dr. M.S. Kingra, SMO, C.H. Malout referred her to CMC/DMC, Ludhiana and the local police was informed. While she was being taken to Ludhiana she died on the way and was brought back to C.H. Malout. The brother, mother and maternal uncle and other relatives of the deceased were informed who reached at C.H. Malout where Swaran Singh father of the deceased disclosed the true facts and made a detailed statement that his daughter Rajwinder Kaur sustained injuries by a fall from stairs and statement of all other relatives including her brother, mother and maternal uncle were recorded and on being satisfied that the deceased sustained injuries by a fall, no case was registered and proceedings under S.174 Cr.P.C. were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was handed over to us which was cremated by us in the presence of all her relative and Dasehra Bhog of the departed soul was performed at our house. The parents of the deceased were poor persons and no demand of dowry or scooter was made from our side. I have already a scooter in my name. The parents of the deceased were poor persons and no demand of dowry or scooter was made from our side. I have already a scooter in my name. The marriage of Rajwinder Kaur was arranged by Amarjit Kaur my other daughter-in-law as she was leading a happy married life at our house and admittedly no demand of scooter or dowry etc. was made at the time of marriage of Amarjit Kaur with my elder son Avtar Singh. I used to bear the whole expenses of the family. On 15.3.2k, the police of P.S. Malout visited our house and found blood stains on the stairs and on being satisfied that Rajwinder Kaur sustained injuries by a fall from stairs completed proceedings under S.174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on 3.4.2k after an inordinate delay of more than 18-19 days, the case was registered by Amarjit Kaur and on 3.4.2k the police came to our house and detained me and my son Sukhraj Singh. After 2-3 days on being satisfied with my explanation, I was released but my son Sukhraj Singh was kept in illegal detention and subsequently his arrest was shown after many days. Apprehending my arrest and subsequent torture at the hands of police I surrendered in Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Malout on 23.5.2k and the weapon of offence was planted upon.” Likewise, the accused/appellant Sukhraj Singh denied the veracity of the incriminating evidence available on the record of the case which was put to him. Whilst re-affirming the factual position narrated by his father i.e. the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh, he inter-alia, stated as under:- “I am innocent. I and my father Kulwant Singh have been falsely implicated in this case by Amarjit Kaur wife of my brother Avtar Singh at the instance of her maternal uncle Samjit Singh who resides at Malout and is a mischievous person. This case has been registered against me and my father to grab our movable and immovable property. After the registration of the case, Amarjit Kaur complainant, her parents have started residing in our house which was constructed by my father. Our other house hold articles have also been taken into possession by Amarjit Kaur, her parents and maternal uncle which included our tractor, thrasher and scooter and other valuables. My mother has been turned out by them from our house who is residing at her parental house at V. Kalebander, district Bathinda. Our other house hold articles have also been taken into possession by Amarjit Kaur, her parents and maternal uncle which included our tractor, thrasher and scooter and other valuables. My mother has been turned out by them from our house who is residing at her parental house at V. Kalebander, district Bathinda. On 15.3.2k, my wife Rajwinder Kaur while going upstairs at about 3-4 AM fell down from the stairs as a result of which she suffered injuries on her forehead. At that time my father-in-law was present in our house and was lying in the verandah of our house. On hearing the cries, her father Swaran Singh, myself and my father and mother and Amarjit Kaur complainant who were sleeping in their respective rooms, rushed to the spot and my father arranged a vehicle and removed Rajwinder Kaur to C.H. Malout. As her condition was serious, the doctor of Malout referred her to CMC/DMC, Ludhiana and local police was also informed, but she died on the way and was brought back to C.H. Malout. The brother, mother and maternal uncle and other relatives of the deceased were informed who reached at C.H. Malout where my father-inlaw disclosed the true facts and made a detailed statement that Rajwinder Kaur sustained injuries by a fall from stairs and statements of all other relatives including her brother, mother and maternal uncle were recorded and on being satisfied that the deceased sustained injuries by a fall, no case was registered and proceedings U/S.174 Cr.P.C. were conducted. The dead body of the deceased was handed over to us which was cremated by us in the presence of all her relative and bhog of the departed soul was performed at our house. The parents of the deceased were poor and no demand of dowry or scooter was made from our side. Amarjit Kaur wife of my brother arranged our marriage as she was leading a happy married life in our house and no demand of dowry was made by us at the time of marriage of Amarjit Kaur or my marriage or thereafter. Amarjit Kaur wife of my brother arranged our marriage as she was leading a happy married life in our house and no demand of dowry was made by us at the time of marriage of Amarjit Kaur or my marriage or thereafter. On 15.3.2k, police visited our house and found blood stains on the stairs and on being satisfied that Rajwinder Kaur sustained injuries by a fall from stairs completed the proceedings under S.174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on 3.4.2k after an inordinate delay of more than 18-19 days, this case was registered by Amarjit Kaur and on 3.4.2k police came to our house and detained me and my father. I was kept in illegal detention and false recovery was planted against me.” No evidence was produced by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh despite the fact that an opportunity was afforded to them to do so. 9. The Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar delivered the judgement in Sessions Case No.82 of 2000, on 8.9.2003. The accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh were held guilty of having committed the murder of Rajwinder Kaur, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the same day, the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh were heard on the question of sentence. Whereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, by his order dated 8.9.2003 sentenced both the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years each. An amount of Rs.8,000/- out of the fine (if recovered) was directed to be paid to the children of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. 10. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years each. An amount of Rs.8,000/- out of the fine (if recovered) was directed to be paid to the children of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. 10. A perusal of the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, as well as, the judgement rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar reveal that while convicting the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, reliance was placed on the ocular evidence of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, the mother of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur i.e. Parkash Kaur PW4, as well as, the statements of the witnesses to the disclosure statement made by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, as well as, witnesses to the recovery memos prepared after the recovery of the “thapa” and the “ghotna” from the places indicated by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh in their disclosure statement. Reliance was also placed on the statement of Samjit Singh PW7, Chanchal Singh PW11 and Puran Singh Sidhu PW9 to authenticate the passing of the sum of Rs.5,000/- at the hands of Parkash Kaur PW4 to the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh. The trial Court accepted the version of the incident depicted by the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, and in doing so, declined to accept the statements of the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur and her brother i.e. Saheb Singh and Baldev Singh respectively, as also, the version narrated by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned counsel for the accused/appellants has advanced a number of submissions which are being noticed hereinafter. 12. It is the first contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants that the father and the brother of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur made a statement immediately after the occurrence acknowledging the fact that the death of Rajwinder Kaur had been caused on account of her having fallen in the stairs in the early hours of the morning of 14.3.2000. As per the statement of Saheb Singh (father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur) recorded by ASI Krishan Kumar PW13, both his daughters were married to the sons of the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh. As per the statement of Saheb Singh (father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur) recorded by ASI Krishan Kumar PW13, both his daughters were married to the sons of the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh. The younger daughter i.e. Rajwinder Kaur was married to the accused/appellant Sukhraj Singh for the last about three years. From her marriage, she had two children. He stated that on the preceding night i.e. 14.3.2000, he had come to Malout to see his daughter, and that the whole family was sleeping in the house. At about 3.30 AM when Rajwinder Kaur was “going” to the roof through the stairs to ease herself, she felt dizzy and fell down from the stairs due to which she received head injuries and became unconscious, whereupon, the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh, father-in-law of Rajwinder Kaur arranged a conveyance and got her admitted to the Civil Hospital, Malout. On seeing her serious condition, she was referred to the Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. Rajwinder Kaur, however, died on the way and she was brought back to the Civil Hospital, Malout. He further stated that he did not desire any action to be taken against any body on account of the death of his daughter Rajwinder Kaur. The aforesaid statement besides being signed by Saheb Singh, was also signed by Baldev Singh, cousin brother of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants, that the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur had slept in the house of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh on the date of occurrence and had witnessed the occurrence. His statement was recorded at the Civil Hospital, Malout, affirming the aforesaid factual position, and as such, there was no justification, whatsoever, for recording a finding to the contrary. In this behalf, it is also the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants, that if the submission advanced at the behest of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh is considered by this Court as equally weighty and plausible as the version advanced at the hands of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, and the version in their favour should be given effect to. 13. 13. The second contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants is that there is no question of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh demanding dowry from the family of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. In this behalf, it is pointed out that the family of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur comprises of labourers. None of the family members of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur had landed property. In this behalf, it is submitted that no demand of dowry was ever made by the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh even from Amarjit Kaur PW3, who was married into the same family. It is pointed out that the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh is employed as a Reader and is looking after the entire family. He further submitted that the family of the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh was much better off than the family of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. It is further pointed out that although, the family of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh do not own any landed property yet they have been taking land on “theka” for ploughing. As such, it is submitted that there can be no question of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh making any demand from the family of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur. 14. The third contention advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants is that there is an inherent suspicion in the prosecution version of the incident, inasmuch as, the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 waited for 18/19 days before she made her complaint to the police on 3.4.2000, whereas the occurrence had actually taken place on 14.3.2000. Reiterating the defence raised by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is submitted that the entire game plan of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 is to snatch the movable and immovable property of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh. This, according to the learned counsel, has been done by her at the behest of Samjit Singh PW7. In this behalf, reference has also been made to the statement of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, who acknowledges the fact that she, as well as, her husband are living in the house of the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh, and that her mother-in-law has since left for her maternal home. 15. In this behalf, reference has also been made to the statement of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, who acknowledges the fact that she, as well as, her husband are living in the house of the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh, and that her mother-in-law has since left for her maternal home. 15. Yet another submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellants to demonstrate that the injuries on the person of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur could only have been caused by virtue of a fall in the stair case, and that, there was no question of any injuries having been caused to her with the edge of “thapa” and “ghotna”, as has been alleged by the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3. This has been done by the learned counsel for the appellants, by making a reference to injuries Nos.2, 3 and 4 depicted in the report of the postmortem examination (extracted above) of the deceased Rajwinder Kaur. 16. Although, the various propositions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellants, as have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, seem to be divergent, as a matter of fact, they can be examined and dealt with collectively. 17. First and foremost, it has to be seen, whether the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur was present, in the house of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh when the occurrence under reference took place, as has been alleged by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the answer to the instant query is correct then the pleas recorded by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh while making their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be correct. Likewise, in the aforesaid eventuality, there would hardly be any room to doubt the veracity of the statement of the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur made to the Investigating Officer ASI Krishan Kumar PW13 at the Civil Hospital, Malout on 15.3.2000. In our view, the sequence of facts narrated in the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution do not reveal that Saheb Singh i.e. the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur had accompanied Rajwinder Kaur to the Civil Hospital, Malout on the date of occurrence. In our view, the sequence of facts narrated in the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution do not reveal that Saheb Singh i.e. the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur had accompanied Rajwinder Kaur to the Civil Hospital, Malout on the date of occurrence. Had Saheb Singh slept at the house of the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh, it would have been most natural, and in fact, imperative for him to have accompanied his daughter to the Civil Hospital, Malout, specially when she was seriously injured and unconscious. A close perusal of the cross-examination conducted on the relevant witnesses also reveals, that no suggestion was put to any of the witnesses in respect of the aforesaid factual position, namely, whether Saheb Singh had accompanied Rajwinder Kaur when she was taken from the residence of Kulwant Singh to the Civil Hospital, Malout. A perusal of the evidence also reveals that Saheb Singh i.e. the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur did not accompany Rajwinder Kaur when she was referred to the Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana after she was critical and was, accordingly, referred to the Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana as appropriate life saving treatment could not be given to her in the Civil Hospital, Malout. It would have been natural, and in fact, inevitable for Saheb Singh to accompany his daughter Rajwinder Kaur when she was taken from the Civil Hospital, Malout to the Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. Likewise, a close perusal of the cross-examination on the relevant witnesses reveals that no suggestion was put to any of the witnesses that Saheb Singh had gone alongwith Rajwinder Kaur when she was being taken from the Civil Hospital, Malout to the Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. It is in the statement of Dr. M.S. Kingra PW1 that Rajwinder Kaur had been brought to the Civil Hospital, Malout by the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh. It is also in evidence that the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur was identified by Saheb Singh, which depicts the time at which Saheb Singh came on the scene. It, therefore, emerges that Saheb Singh having been informed of the occurrence, reached the Civil Hospital, Malout only when the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur was brought back to the Civil Hospital, Malout as she had died while on transit from the Civil Hospital, Malout to the Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. It, therefore, emerges that Saheb Singh having been informed of the occurrence, reached the Civil Hospital, Malout only when the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur was brought back to the Civil Hospital, Malout as she had died while on transit from the Civil Hospital, Malout to the Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. The instant conclusion of ours also settles a very vital issue, namely, that Saheb Singh, father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur did not sleep at the house of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh on the night of the occurrence. This finding of ours leads to further conclusion, namely, that the statement made by Saheb Singh to the ASI Krishan Kumar PW13 was not as a matter of personal knowledge but as a consequence of the facts narrated to him by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh. Additionally, it also leads to the conclusion that the statement made by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they had stated that Saheb Singh i.e. the father of the the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur had slept at the house of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, was false and incorrect. 18. Another vital issue emerging out of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused/appellants is in respect of the injuries suffered by the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur i.e., whether they were consequent upon her having fallen in the steps leading to the first floor of the house of the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh as has been alleged by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, which factual position was reiterated by Saheb Singh i.e. the father of the deceased Rajwinder Kaur, to ASI Krishan Kumar PW13 at the Civil Hospital, Malout soon after the death of Rajwinder Kaur. In order to record a finding on the aforesaid factual position, it is inevitable to refer to the injuries caused in the person of Rajwinder Kaur depicted in the postmortem report conducted by Dr. S.S. Malli PW2. The aforesaid issue has to be examined keeping in mind two eventualities. In order to record a finding on the aforesaid factual position, it is inevitable to refer to the injuries caused in the person of Rajwinder Kaur depicted in the postmortem report conducted by Dr. S.S. Malli PW2. The aforesaid issue has to be examined keeping in mind two eventualities. Firstly, that the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur had fallen in the stairway by rolling down the steps of the stair case; and secondly, that her fall was limited to just one body length, namely, that she did not roll down the steps of the stair case, but had fallen flat on her face. The first of the eventualities noticed hereinabove is clearly excluded on account of the fact that Rajwinder Kaur did not suffer any other injuries besides the ones on her skull. Had she rolled on the steps of the stair case, she would have suffered injuries from the edges of the steps on different parts of her body. This leads us to determine the veracity of the second eventuality. In so far as the second eventuality is concerned, it clearly emerges therefrom that the wounds found on the skull of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur, specially injury No.1 depicted in the postmortem report (extracted above) could not have been caused by the edges of the steps of stair case. Had the injuries been caused by edges of the stair case, the injuries specially injury No.1, would not have been as wide as the ones suffered by Rajwinder Kaur by her fall. A perusal of the injuries suffered by Rajwinder Kaur on her skull depicted in the postmortem report reveals that the size of the first injury was 8 cm x 5 cm. According to the crossexamination conducted by Dr. S.S. Malli PW2 the “possibility of the injuries on the person of the deceased by fall from stair case striking her head on the floor or other hard surface cannot be ruled out”. It is, therefore, apparent from the statement of Dr. S.S. Malli PW2 that the injuries under reference could not have been caused on account of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur having struck against the edge of a step in the stair case, and that, the same could only have been caused on account of having hit a hard flat surface. It is, therefore, apparent from the statement of Dr. S.S. Malli PW2 that the injuries under reference could not have been caused on account of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur having struck against the edge of a step in the stair case, and that, the same could only have been caused on account of having hit a hard flat surface. We will now examine whether the first injury referred to in the postmortem report could have been caused as a result of a fall equivalent to the height of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur as if Rajwinder Kaur had tripped and fallen in the stairway. The version of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh is that the aforesaid injuries were suffered when Rajwinder Kaur was going to the first floor to ease herself in the morning. This is also the stance adopted by Saheb Singh in his statement to ASI Krishan Kumar PW13 i.e., that Rajwinder Kaur was “going” to ease herself on the first floor. Had that been so, the injuries could not have been caused as a consequence of her having fallen on a flat surface as she would have been facing the steps of the stair case. Her fall in that situation would have been on the steps of the stair case and not on the flat surface of the floor. The postmortem report reveals the first two injuries over the left eye of the deceased above the top of the left pinna, whereas, injury No.3 was on the lateral “end” of the right eyebrow, and the fourth injury was on the right side of the face over the right ear. It, therefore, emerges that injuries on the face/skull of Rajwinder Kaur were on two opposite sides. The aforesaid injuries could never have been caused in the second eventuality being discussed. This also leads one to examine whether the injuries under reference could have been caused on account of the blows inflicted on the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh with a “thapa” and thereafter, with a “ghotna”. The postmortem report of the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur reveals that on dissection of the left parietal region underlying bone was found to be badly fractured into pieces with several laceration of the underlying brain tissue. The postmortem report of the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur reveals that on dissection of the left parietal region underlying bone was found to be badly fractured into pieces with several laceration of the underlying brain tissue. If the first impact as a result of the fall was the first injury depicted in the postmortem report, the other injuries on the face of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur could not have been the result of the same fall. We are, therefore, of the view that the version of the incident emerging from the assertions of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, as well as, that of Saheb Singh is not acceptable. The only inference possible, therefore, is the one narrated by an eye witness to the occurrence, namely, Amarjit Kaur PW3. Needless to mention that expert medical opinion available on record affirms that the injuries suffered by Rajwinder Kaur could have been the result of blows with a “thapa” and “ghotna”. 19. Should the accusation levelled by the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 18/19 days after the occurrence be accepted as a justification sufficient to hold the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh innocent merely on account of delay ? Should it be believed that the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 made the complaint 18/19 days after the occurrence only for the purpose of getting hold of the movable and immovable property of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh ? In our view, for the answer to the instant queries, we must take into consideration the conclusion recorded in the foregoing paragraphs. Firstly, that the version recorded by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh to the effect that Saheb Singh the father of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur had slept at their house on the night of the occurrence, has been found to be false and incorrect. Likewise, our conclusion that defence of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh to the effect that the injuries on the body of the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur had been caused by virtue of a fall from the stair case while she was going from the ground floor to the first floor to ease herself, has also been found to be unacceptable. It is in the background of the aforesaid two conclusions that we proceed to examine the query posed in the beginning of the instant paragraph. It is in the background of the aforesaid two conclusions that we proceed to examine the query posed in the beginning of the instant paragraph. It is apparent that when the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh were inflicting blows on Rajwinder Kaur on 14.3.2000, they must have been in a rage of anger at the time of occurrence. The narration of Amarjit Kaur PW3 while recording her statement on 3.4.2000 notices the fact that she was threatened by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh that she would meet the same fate if she raised her voice. There is no justification, whatsoever, for not accepting the aforesaid version. There was no occasion for her to immediately share the incident with any one as the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 was not shown to be present when the deceased – Rajwinder Kaur was taken to the Civil Hospital, Malout on the date of occurrence. One also cannot shy away from the fact that the bread, butter and shelter of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3, as well as, her husband Avtar Singh and her children, were provided by the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh. It is, therefore, normal that to pursue a happy matrimonial life, it would be difficult for the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 to make a statement against her own father-in-law i.e., the accused/appellant Kulwant Singh, who was the sole provider for her immediate family. With the passage of time, however, it is apparent that the guilt of not having divulged the truth about the facts relating to the murder of her own sister, overcame her, and she shared the truth with her maternal uncle Samjit Singh PW7, living in the close vicinity of her residence at Malout, and thereafter, she approached the police for making a complaint. The entire sequence of facts narrated by the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 are natural compulsions faced by an individual placed in her position. The aforesaid compulsions coupled with the findings recorded in respect of the defence taken by the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh, as have been noticed hereinabove, compels us to conclude that the narration at the hands of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 is the only correct narration of the circumstances which led to the death of her sister Rajwinder Kaur on 14.3.2000. 20. 20. The only other issue that remains to be answered, pertains to the demand of dowry at the hands of the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh. In so far as the instant issue is concerned, we find no justification to disbelieve the oral testimony of the complainant - Amarjit Kaur PW3 who has taken cudgels to expose those involved in the murder of her sister Rajwinder Kaur despite the fact that the livelihood of her immediate family, and even her matrimonial relationship, were at stake. We have also no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements of Parkash Kaur PW4, Puran Singh Sidhu PW9, Chanchal Singh PW11 and Samjit Singh PW7 to record a finding that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was actually given by Parkash Kaur PW4 to the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh consequent upon their demand of a scooter promised to be given by way of dowry, with the further assurance that she would give more money after the harvest of “rabi” crop. 21. No other contention besides the ones noticed hereinabove, was advanced on behalf of the accused/appellants. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that the charges levelled against the accused/appellants Kulwant Singh and Sukhraj Singh stand fully substantiated. Finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. ----------------