Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1605 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh Alias Mintu v. State Of Punjab

2010-05-07

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment 1. The present appeal has been filed by Amarjit Singh alias Mintu and Smt. Joginder Kaur. They were named as accused in case FIR No.381 dated 19.12.2001 registered at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur under Section 304-B IPC. 2. The Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur found them gulity of offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 7 years each vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2002. 3. Aggrieved against the same, present appeal has been filed. 4. In the present case, Sadhu Singh PW-1 had made a statement to ASI Prem Singh PW-7. The statement of Sadhu Singh was recorded on 19.12.2001 at about 8.40 p.m. at bus stand Chabbewal. On the basis of statement Ex.PA formal FIR Ex.PA2 was registered. Sadhu Singh in his statement Ex.PA stated that he was resident of village Baghpur. He had got two daughters and one son. Eldest was the son. Thereafter, a girl Narinder Kaur was born who was aged about 24/25 years. 3 years ago she was married with Amarjit Singh alias Mintu son of late Om Parkash Saini, according to Hindu customs and rites. After 5/6 months of the marriage, his son-in-law Amarjit Singh intended to go abroad and had demanded Rs.10,000/-which complainant had withdrawn from his bank and handed over to Amarjit Singh in the presence of Sansar Singh. Thereafter his son-in-law went to Dubai. Daughter of the complainant was maltreated by his mother-in-law Joginder Kaur and taunts were given to her for bringing less dowry. Daughter of the complainant was pregnant. Mother-in-law demanded dowry and harassed her due to which she was brought to his own village Baghpur. After 15 months of the marriage, his son-in-law came and complainant left his daughter at her matrimonial home. Thereafter both son-in-law and mother of son-in-law due to greed started harassing his daughter. They demanded Rs.10,000/- to return amount of loan to somebody else. This demand was also fulfilled by the complainant. On 19.12.2001 at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, daughter of the complainant informed telephonically that her husband and mother-in-law harassed her for bringing less dowry. Complainant made her to understand and encouraged her to face the situation. At about 5.00 p.m. a telephonic message was received and it was disclosed that his daughter had died upon which complainant, Ram Singh Sarpanch, Tarsem Singh Lamberdar and many other persons reached village Patti. Complainant made her to understand and encouraged her to face the situation. At about 5.00 p.m. a telephonic message was received and it was disclosed that his daughter had died upon which complainant, Ram Singh Sarpanch, Tarsem Singh Lamberdar and many other persons reached village Patti. His daughter Narinder Kaur was lying dead. It was apparent that she had consumed some poisonous substance. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted and viscera was sent to the laboratory. As per the report Ex.PD of Forensic Science Laboratory Aluminium Phosphide was found in the contents of viscera. 5. The abovesaid FIR was investigated and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. 6. The case was committed along with the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who charged the appellants for offence under Section 304-B IPC, on 10.4.2002. The charge stated that on 19.12.2001 at about 5 p.m. in the area of village Patti, Narinder Kaur died within seven years of her marriage in the circumstances other than normal and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by Amarjit Singh husband and Joginder Kaur mother-in-law. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Sadhu Singh appeared as PW-1. He reiterated as to what was stated in the report Ex.PA. He further improved the case and stated that he had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank and had paid the same to Amarjit Singh after he had returned from Dubai. In cross-examination this witness stated that Amarjit Singh returned from Dubai after one and half year and gave a telephonic call to Narinder Kaur that she should come back but her daughter Narinder Kaur insisted that Amarjit Singh should first come and meet her parents to which Amarjit Singh did not agree. Thus, this witness went to leave Narinder Kaur in her matrimonial home. This witness further stated that in the absence of Amarjit Singh the deceased resided at his house for 1-11/4 years. This witness denied the suggestion that Amarjit Singh had mortgaged his land for Rs.50,000/-for going to Dubai. 8. PW-2 Parnam Singh brother of the deceased corroborated the testimony of his father. PW-3 S.K. Pombra, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, stated that on 23.7.1999 Sadhu Singh had withdrawn Rs.11,000/-from his bank account. Further in the year 2001, Sadhu Singh took a loan of Rs. 10,000/-. PW-4 Dr. Mrs. 8. PW-2 Parnam Singh brother of the deceased corroborated the testimony of his father. PW-3 S.K. Pombra, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, stated that on 23.7.1999 Sadhu Singh had withdrawn Rs.11,000/-from his bank account. Further in the year 2001, Sadhu Singh took a loan of Rs. 10,000/-. PW-4 Dr. Mrs. Surinder Ganger, Radiologist had conducted autopsy on the dead body and after the report of the Chemical Examiner opined that the cause of death was poisoning due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphide a pesticide. Deceased was also having six months pregnancy. PW-5 HC Ashwani Kumar had sent viscera to Chemical Examiner. PW-6 Ajit Singh, Constable got the articles deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala. PW-7 ASI Prem Singh had proved various facets of the investigation. In cross-examination, Investigating Officer stated that he had not recorded statement of any Panch or Sarpanch of village Baghpur and Patti or any neighbourer of Amarjit Singh. He had not ascertained as to whether Amarjit Singh had gone abroad after mortgaging his land. He had also not taken into possession letters written by deceased Narinder Kaur. PW-8 Harmesh Kumar Constable on the night intervening 19/20.12.2001 had delivered the special report of this case to the Illaqa Magistrate, as well as, senior police officer. 9. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating material was put to them.They pleaded false implication and claimed innocence. Amarjit Singh gave his version as under : "I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. I was to go abroad, hence, we i.e. I along with my mother and my brother mortgaged our land for a sum of Rs.50,000/ and after going abroad I was sending money to my wife in her parents house. That money was kept by my father-in-law. After my return to India, I demanded that money back and my wife went to her parent house and demanded money from her father, sent by me from abroad and my father-in-law flately refused to return back the above said money and my wife felt humiliation and consumed poison. I have seen agreement dated 3.7.99, which bears my signatures and the same is Ex.DB. 10. In defence, Kishan Chand was examined as DW-1. He stated that accused had mortgaged his land with him for Rs.50,000/-. 11. I have heard Mr. I have seen agreement dated 3.7.99, which bears my signatures and the same is Ex.DB. 10. In defence, Kishan Chand was examined as DW-1. He stated that accused had mortgaged his land with him for Rs.50,000/-. 11. I have heard Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellants and Sh. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab for the State. 12. Sh. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate has stated that from the prosecution case, allegation against Amarjit Singh appellant is that twice he was handed over Rs.10,000/-. First time Rs.10,000/- allegedly handed over when Amarjit Singh appellant had to go abroad and second time Rs.10,000/- were handed over when Amarjit Singh returned from abroad and he had to return the said amount to some one from whom he had allegedly borrowed the same. Counsel has stated that from both these allegations the demand of dowry can not be construed. At the most appellant Amarjit Singh was seeking financial aid from his father-in-law. It is further submitted that accused had obtained Rs.50,000/- after mortgaging his land for going abroad. Therefore, the allegation that Rs.10,000/- were parted by complainant Sadhu Singh PW-1 is not true. 13. Mr. Bhullar has stated that in the present case, death has taken place within seven years of marriage and that was unnatural. There was a demand of dowry. Thus ingredients of Section 304-B are made out against the appellants. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 15. From the prosecution case, it is evident that Rs.10,000 were given to Amarjit Singh for going abroad. Later on, Rs.10,000 were given as he had to return loan to somebody. Therefore from both the demands and the payment of the amounts appellant Joginder Kaur was not a beneficiary. It has also come in evidence that after 5-6 months of the marriage, Amarjit Singh had gone abroad to earn his livelihood. He returned after 11/2 years. For a period of one year and three months, deceased resided in the house of his father Sadhu Singh. Therefore, she remained in the company of her mother-in-law for a very less period. Thus, allegation that deceased was harassed by Joginder Kaur her mother-in-law for demand of dowry cannot be accepted on the face value. No specific allegation or demand is discernible on the part of Joginder Kaur appellant. Therefore, she remained in the company of her mother-in-law for a very less period. Thus, allegation that deceased was harassed by Joginder Kaur her mother-in-law for demand of dowry cannot be accepted on the face value. No specific allegation or demand is discernible on the part of Joginder Kaur appellant. There are general, omnibus allegations against her. It is not a case where the deceased was given beatings by her mother-in-law. Thus, this Court is of the view that benefit of doubt can be granted to Joginder Kaur appellant. Consequently, appeal qua her is accepted and she is acquitted of the charge. 16. After five or six months of the marriage, Amarjit Singh left for Dubai. It is stated that for going abroad, he had demanded Rs.10,000/-. A categorical stand was taken by Amarjit Singh that he mortgaged his land and obtained Rs.50,000/-. Kishan Chand DW-1 has supported this version of the accused. At the most, it can be inferred that there was shortage of amount with Amarjit Singh for going abroad. Therefore, he may have demanded Rs.l0,000/-as financial assistance from his father-in-law Sadhu Singh. Later on, when he returned, he may have again sought the financial assistance from his father-in-law to return the loan. Thus it cannot be said that the deceased was harassed on account of dowry. However, she was pressurized that her father should render financial help to Amarjit Singh, who was in the need of money. Thus, this court is of the view that Amarjit Singh is guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and not under Section 304-B IPC. The conviction of Amarjit Singh is converted from 304-B IPC to 306 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo RI for five years. The appeal qua him is disposed of in these terms.