Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1419 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-08-17

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, MOHINDER PAL

body2009
Judgment ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. 1. The accused-appellants Amarjit Singh and giankaur, husband and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased Baljinder Kaur, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, amritsar, dated 16.3.2001 vide which they have been convicted under Sec.304-B ipc and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Both the accused have also been convicted under Sec.498-A IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Briefly the facts of the case are that Baljinder kaur was married to Amarjit Singh about 6/7 months prior to her death. Gian Kaur was her mother-in-law. 2. On 28.1.1998, Baljinder Kaur was brought to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, having suffered burn injuries. On receipt of information from civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, ASI Subeg Singh (PW9) reached the Civil Hospital and moved an application (Ex. PM) to know whether the patient was fit to make her statement. Vide opinion (Ex. PM/1) the doctor declared her unfit to make a statement. On 29.1.1998, ASI subeg Singh again filed an application (Ex. PA)to which the doctor vide report (PA/1) opined that she was fit to make a statement. The statement of Baljinder Kaur (Ex. PN) was recorded by ASI Subeg Singh (PW9) wherein she stated that she was married to Amarjit singh accused about 6/7 months back. About 7/8 days earlier, grand-mother of her husband had died and relatives and people from the village were coming to their house for mourning the death of grandmother of her husband. On 28.1.1998 at about 2:00/2:30 p. M. some people had come to her house for mourning and she was preparing tea for them. 3. While igniting the fire in the hearth by putting some dry straw pieces, her Dupatta caught fire, as a result of which her chin, right arm, cheeks and breasts were burnt. She further stated that the fire was extinguished by the mourners and she was taken to a local doctor who administered some medicine and thereafter she was taken to the Civil Hospital, tarn Taran, by her mother-in-law Gian Kaur and her husband Amarjit Singh. She further stated that the fire was extinguished by the mourners and she was taken to a local doctor who administered some medicine and thereafter she was taken to the Civil Hospital, tarn Taran, by her mother-in-law Gian Kaur and her husband Amarjit Singh. She further stated that she caught fire accidentally and that no one was responsible and that she did not want any action to be taken by the police. against any person. 4. On 14.2.1998, the Doctor In charge wrote a Memo to SHOP lice Station Sadar, tarn Taran, mentioning therein that the condition ofbaljinder Kaur was very serious and that she had no chance of survival and that her statement may be recorded. On the basis of the aforementioned information, ASI subeg Singh approached the Sub Divisional judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran; vide application (Ex. PK/1) requesting that an Executive magistrate be deputed so that the statement of Baljinder Kaurcould be recorded. The Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate deputed the executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar parma Nand to record the statement of baljinder Kaur. Thereafter, statement Ex. PL of Baljinder Kaur was again recorded on 14.2.1998 by ASI Subeg Singh in the presence of Parma Nand, Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar, and Dhifwan. This time Baljinder kaur stated that she was married to Amarjit singh about 6/7 months back and that immediately after her marriage her in-laws were harassing her and putting pressure on her to bring more dowry. 5. She further stated that on 28.1.1998 her husband Amarjit Singh and mother-in-law giankaur quarreled with her for bringing inadequate dowry and thereafter her mother-in-law Gian Kaur sprinkled kerosene oil on her whereas her husband Amarjit Singh set her on fire. She further stated that her statement recorded on 29.1.1998 was because of pressure exerted by her in-laws and that now she was telling the truth. On the basis of the aforementioned statement, FIR Ex. PL/2 was recorded against both the accused. Baljinder Kaur ultimately expired because of the burn injuries on 14.5.1998. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned by SHO Police Station Sadar, tarn Taran, and vide order dated 3.7.1998 the case was committed by the Sub Divisional judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, to the Court of Sessions. Both the accused were charged under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and in the alternative under Sec.302 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Both the accused were charged under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and in the alternative under Sec.302 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The prosecution examined Dr. Jagjit Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, tarn Taran, as PW1 who declared Baljinder kaur to be fit to make a statement on 29.1.1998 as well as on 14.2.1998. He also stated that while the statement of the patient was being recorded, she remained fit to make a statement. The prosecution also examined bachan Singh, father of the deceased Baljinder kaur, as PW3 and Smt. Vidho, mother of the deceased, as PW4. Both of them stated that they had married their daughter to Amarjit singh about 6 months prior to the occurrence and had given enough dowry articles at the time of marriage. They further stated that immediately after marriage, their daughter was given beatings and harassed by both the accused who were continuously demanding more dowry. They also stated that the accused had also thrown out baljinder Kaur from her matrimonial home and that a compromise had to be effected with the help of relatives. They further stated that their daughter was burnt to death by the accused. 7. The prosecution also examined Dr. Brij mohan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tarn taran, as PW5 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He stated that the cause of death in his opinion was due to septicemias due to deep extensive and infected burns which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The prosecution also examined Parma Nand, Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Dhilwan, as PW6 who stated that on 14.2.1998 the statement Ex. PL of Baljinder Kaur was recorded by the investigating Officer ASI Subeg Singh in his presence. He further stated that the statement was read over and explained to the deceased who thumb marked the same in token of its correctness. The prosecution also examined Joginer Singh Granthi as PW7 who had performed the Anand Karaj ceremony of the deceased with Amarjit singh. He further stated that the statement was read over and explained to the deceased who thumb marked the same in token of its correctness. The prosecution also examined Joginer Singh Granthi as PW7 who had performed the Anand Karaj ceremony of the deceased with Amarjit singh. Makhan Singh PW8 was examined by the prosecution and this witness stated that he got effected a compromise between the parties as the deceased had been turned out of her matrimonial home on account of bringing inadequate dowry. ASI Subeg Singh pw9 was examined. He has given a detailed account of the manner in which he had sought permission as to whether Baljinder kaur was fit to make a statement or not. He has also stated that he has recorded the statement of the deceased on 14.2.1998 in the presence of the Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar. 8. This witness further stated that Baljinder kaur expired on 14.5.1998. The accused in their statements under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that the version given on 29.1.1998 by the deceased vide Ex. PN was the correct narration of the occurrence and that they have been falsely implicated. The accused examined HC Harprabhjit Singh DW1 who proved copy of DDR Ex. D1. The trial court after going through the entire evidence came to the conclusion that kerosene oil was poured on Baljinder Kaur by her mother-in-law Gian Kaur whereas her husband Amarjit singh set her on fire. The trial Court placed reliance on the statement of Parma Nand pw6who stated that the statement Ex. PL made by Baljinder Kaur on 14.2.1998 was recorded in his presence and according to this statement of the deceased both the accused had set her on fire. 9. The trial Court also placed reliance on the statements of PW3 and PW4 to come to the conclusion that the deceased was set on fire because of bringing inadequate dowry and further because the deceased was unable to bring more dowry as demanded by the accused from time to time. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the statement made by the deceased on 29.1.1998 was voluntary in nature and a perusal of this statement clearly shows that the deceased had caught fire accidentally. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the statement made by the deceased on 29.1.1998 was voluntary in nature and a perusal of this statement clearly shows that the deceased had caught fire accidentally. Learned counsel has submitted that after making the first statement on 29.1.1998 the parents and other relatives of the deceased had been continuously pressurizing her to falsely involve the accused and that is why the second statement Ex. PL was made by the accused on 14.2.1998. It has next been contended by the learned counsel that a perusal of the evidence in this case shows that Baljinder Kaur was taken to the Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, by both the accused. It is contended that if the motive of the appellants was to kill the deceased then they would not have extinguished the fire and would not have taken her to the hospital. Learned counsel has also submitted that the parents of the deceased were informed immediately by the accused and, hence, inference has to be drawn in favour of the accused. 10. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have been vehemently controverter by the counsel for the State who submitted that the deceased had categorically stated that she was coerced by the accused in absolving them and that her first statement made on29.1.1998 Ex. PN was involuntary and because of the pressure exerted by her in-laws. Counsel for the State has further submitted that a perusal of the statements of PW3 Bachan Singh and pw4 Smt. Vidho also shows that the accused were constantly harassing and beating baljinder Kaur and had been asking her to bring more dowry. In a short span of 6 months, the deceased had also been turned out of her matrimonial house and that a compromise had to be effected between the accused and the deceased through relatives. Counsel for the State has also argued that death of Baljinder Kaur occurred within 6/7 months of her marriage and hence the accused have rightly been convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-B and 498-A ipc. A perusal of the statements of PW3 bachan Singh and PW4smt. Counsel for the State has also argued that death of Baljinder Kaur occurred within 6/7 months of her marriage and hence the accused have rightly been convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-B and 498-A ipc. A perusal of the statements of PW3 bachan Singh and PW4smt. Vidho, father and mother, respectively, of the deceased, dearly shows that although enough dowry had been given to the deceased at the time of her marriage but the accused had been harassing and beating Baljinder Kaur for bringing inadequate dowry. The accused had also turned out the deceased from their house on more than one occasion and on each occasion compromise had to be affected. 11. In this regard, statement of PVV8 Makhan singh also shows that he had affected a compromise between the accused and the deceased. Thus, it is clear that both the accused were continuously harassing the deceased right from inception of the marriage. Apart from the above, the deceased Baljinder kaur had categorically stated while making her statement Ex. PL on 14.2.1998 before the Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar that her mother-in-law Giankaur had poured kerosene oil on her whereas her husband set her on fire. She had also stated that her first statement made on 29.1.1998 was involuntary and was the result of coercion exercised by the accused. In her statement made on 29.1.1998, Baljinder Kaur had stated that at the time when she caught fire accidentally, mourners from the village as well as her relatives were coming to their house. The accused were also present in the house. In these circumstances, even if the deceased had caught fire accidentally still she could not have been so extensively burnt in her chin, right arm, cheeks and breasts. 12. In case, there were numerous persons present in the house they would have extinguished the fire immediately and would not have allowed her to bum to such a large extent. This clearly shows that the statement made by her on 29.1.1998 Ex. PN was because of pressure exerted upon her by her in-laws so that they could be absolved. In these circumstances, the statement Ex. PN cannot be relied upon whereas the second statement made on 14.2.1998 in the presence of the Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar gives the correct picture of the manner in which the occurrence took place. PN was because of pressure exerted upon her by her in-laws so that they could be absolved. In these circumstances, the statement Ex. PN cannot be relied upon whereas the second statement made on 14.2.1998 in the presence of the Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar gives the correct picture of the manner in which the occurrence took place. Thus, we are categorical in our opinion that it were the accused who set the deceased on fire, as a result of which shedied. 13. In order to prove that the accused were guilty of the offence under Sec.304-B ipc, the prosecution has to prove:- 1) that the death of a woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;2) that death was caused within seven years of her marriage;and3) that soon before her death, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. For facility of reference, section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been extracted below:- "s.113-B: When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in S.304b of the Indian Penal code. " 14. A combine reading of Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.113-B of the Evidence Act would show that in order to prove a dowry death the prosecution has to establish that immediately before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and that death has taken place within 7 years of her marriage. In the present case, statements of pw3 and PW4 Bachan Singh and Smt. Vidho, parents of the deceased, clearly shows that the deceased was given beatings and was subjected to cruelty. There were regular demands of dowry by the accused from the deceased. The deceased had also been turned out of her matrimonial house and it was PW8 makhan Singh who got a compromise effected. 15. There were regular demands of dowry by the accused from the deceased. The deceased had also been turned out of her matrimonial house and it was PW8 makhan Singh who got a compromise effected. 15. Moreover, the death of Baljinder Kaur was caused within a period of 6/7 months of her marriage. Hence, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are clearly attracted and the accused have rightly been held guilty by the trial Court for the offences under Sec.304-B and 498-A IPC. Counsel for the appellants has also contended that the accused Ian Kaur has already been in custody for more than 9 years and that she is an old lady of more than 72 years. It has also been contended that the accused Amarjit Singh has also been in custody for more than 9 years. 16. Keeping in view the entire facts of the case, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sec.304-B IPC, we reduce the sentence of the appellants from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The conviction of the appellants under Section498-A IPC and sentence along with its default clause shall, however, remainintact. With the aforementioned modification in the order of sentence dated 16.3.2001 passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, the appeal is disposed of.