Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2753 (PNJ)

Kuldip Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-09-27

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.8.2002 (for short as `impugned judgment) passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, (for short as `trial Court), whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution are that on 2.6.1999, ASI Balbir Singh alongwith other police officials was present in the area of Grain Market Gate, Khadoor Sahib, where Bachan Singh, PW-4 got recorded his statement before him to the effect that he is the resident of Village Sathiala and is serving as Safai Sewak in Nagar Panchayat, Rayya. He has three brothers and four sisters. The complainant is the eldest one. One of his sisters named Jaswant Kaur was married to Sukhwinder Singh and his younger sister Paramjit Kaur was married to appellant Kuldeep Singh about 8/9 years back. Accused Kuldeep Singh are five brothers and residing separately. He further stated that accused Kuldeep Singh was not in speaking terms with his sister Paramjit Kaur from the very beginning of the marriage and accused Kuldeep Singh used to beat her on account of bringing insufficient dowry articles. The efforts to get the matter compromised also failed. On 25.7.1998, a dispute between them arose and a written compromise was arrived at between them before the Panchayat. It was stated by the complainant that accused Kuldeep Singh used to say Paramjit Kaur that she failed to bring cash or other dowry articles from her parents and in case she is not in a position to arrange money from her parents, she should die. He further stated that on the intervening night of 1/2.6.1999, brother of Sukhwinder Singh intimated about the death of Paramjit Kaur. 3. He further stated that on the intervening night of 1/2.6.1999, brother of Sukhwinder Singh intimated about the death of Paramjit Kaur. 3. On the basis of statement of Bachan Singh, PW-2, FIR was registered against the present appellant with other accused Mindi, Sohna and Mallu. Compromise entered before the Panchayat was taken into police possession. Inquest report was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem examination. 4. The accused were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 498-A of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. 6. PW-1 Malkiat Singh deposed that on 25.7.1998, a compromise was effected between the accused and the deceased, wherein, the accused admitted that he maltreated and harassed his wife. He further deposed that the accused also admitted the fact of demanding coloured television, refrigerator, bed etc. 7. Dalip Singh, PW-2, Pritam Singh, PW6 are also the attesting witness of compromise, Exhibit PA. 8. PW-4 Bachan Singh (complainant) deposed on the lines of his statement, Exhibit PW4/A, made before the police. 9. PW-5 Harbans Kaur, mother of the deceased, deposed that after the marriage of her daughter, the accused maltreated her daughter for not bringing sufficient dowry. She further stated that a compromise in this regard was arrived at before the Panchayat. 10. PW-7-Sukhwinder Singh, who was mediator to the marriage of the deceased and the appellant, deposed that all the accused were demanding dowry from the deceased. 11. PW-9-Dr. Inder Mohan Gupta, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased, deposed that the cause of death in the instant case was due to consuming aluminum phosphate poisoning. 12. PW10-ASI Balbir Singh deposed that he recorded the statement of Bachan Singh. 13. Dalip Singh, PW-2, Rishi Ram, PW-3, Pritam Singh, PW-6, H.C. Ranjit Singh, PW-8, HC Anook Singh, PW-11 and C. Satnam Singh, PW-12, are the formal witnesses. 14. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which they denied all the allegations and incriminating evidence against them and pleaded their innocence and also false implication. In defence, the accused examined Joginder Singh as DW1. 15. 14. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which they denied all the allegations and incriminating evidence against them and pleaded their innocence and also false implication. In defence, the accused examined Joginder Singh as DW1. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed in para No. 1 of this judgment. However, accused Mindo, Sohna and Mallu were acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. 16. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal, which was admitted on 16.9.2002. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the conviction is solely based on compromise, Exhibit PA, wherein the accused/appellant has admitted the factum of giving beatings and demand of Television, Refrigerator etc. He has further argued that in fact such a compromise had never been reached between the parties. In fact, the appellant was made to sign on blank papers when he visited the house of his in-laws. 18. It has further been argued that all the attesting witnesses of the alleged compromise are from the village of the complainant itself and, therefore, they being interested witnesses, their testimonies cannot be relied upon. 19. Learned counsel has further assailed the findings of the learned Trial Court given in para 21 of the impugned judgment that the appellant could not produce the Panch of his village, who was also a signatory to the compromise, Exhibit PA, reached between the parties. He has further argued that such observation cannot be sustained as the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and not to take advantage of anything else. 20. It has also been argued that the complainant Bachan Singh, PW-4, Harbans Kaur, PW-5 and Sukhwinder Singh, PW-7 have made a number of improvements in their statements recorded in the Court with regard to demand of dowry articles and harassment. 21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the death has taken place in the house of the appellant. As per report of Chemical Examiner, Exhibit PW10/D, the cause of death was on account of consumption of aluminium phosphide pesticide. 21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the death has taken place in the house of the appellant. As per report of Chemical Examiner, Exhibit PW10/D, the cause of death was on account of consumption of aluminium phosphide pesticide. The appellant has admitted the fact that he used to beat his wife and raised demand for colour television., refrigerator, beds etc. In Exhibit PA, it has been specifically admitted that earlier the beatings caused to the deceased resulted into serious injury. In view of this admission by the appellant, the prosecution has nothing else to prove. He has prayed for affirming the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court. 22. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 23. From the perusal of compromise, Exhibit PA, reached between the parties in the presence of the respectables of the village on 25.7.1998, the appellant has admitted the allegations of beatings and raising demand of colour television., refrigerator, beds etc. The compromise, Exhibit PA, is duly signed by many respectables of the village including one Panch. The assertion of the appellant is that such a compromise was never entered into between the parties and the appellant was made to sign the blank papers and thereafter the compromise was scribed on it. It is of common knowledge that in village fraternity written compromise usually takes place when either of the parties fails to honour its verbal assurances. The authenticity of the compromise, Exhibit PA, is neither diluted nor lessened from the fact that signatories were from the village of the complainant particularly in view of the fact that one of the signatories to the compromise was a Panch from the village of the accused/appellant. 24. The stand taken by the appellant that he under duress was made to sign on blank papers, does not inspire confidence as the appellant has not raised this grouse either before the Village Panchayat or any other authority of the State. 25. It is proved on record that all other members of the family are residing separately. The death has occurred in the house of the appellant. The fact of giving beatings, causing harassment and raising demand of colour television., refrigerator, beds etc. is admitted by the appellant himself as is reflected in the compromise, Exhibit PA. 25. It is proved on record that all other members of the family are residing separately. The death has occurred in the house of the appellant. The fact of giving beatings, causing harassment and raising demand of colour television., refrigerator, beds etc. is admitted by the appellant himself as is reflected in the compromise, Exhibit PA. The statement of Sukhwinder Kaur, PW7, who was mediator, has also categorically stated that the appellant used to maltreat the deceased on account of not bringing sufficient dowry. As per statement of PW6, the parties earlier also on 2-3 occasions, compromise between the deceased and her in-laws had been reached but when the accused/appellant did not stop the maltreatment caused to the deceased, ultimately the compromise, Exhibit PA, was reduced into writing by the Panchayat. PW-7 is also one of the signatories of the compromise alongwith other respectables of the village including Dalip Singh and Malkiat Singh. He has also stated that accused/appellant put his signatures on the compromise, Exhibit PA and thereafter, the deceased joined her matrimonial home. 26. There is no dispute about the proposition raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence version. In fact this is trite law and no finding on this account is warranted. But in the instant case, the accused/appellant has himself admitted before the Panchayat about giving beatings, causing harassment and raising of demand of colour television., refrigerator, beds etc. and this fact stands duly reflected in the compromise, Exhibit PA, which was reduced into writing especially when the appellant did not honour the earlier compromise(s) arrived at between him and the deceased. 27. Admittedly, there are improvements in the statements of Bachan Singh, PW- 4, Harbans Kaur, PW5 and Sukhwinder Singh, PW-7. In such like cases, some amount of exaggerations or contradictions are a quite natural particularly when the deposition is made by the rustic villagers. 27. Admittedly, there are improvements in the statements of Bachan Singh, PW- 4, Harbans Kaur, PW5 and Sukhwinder Singh, PW-7. In such like cases, some amount of exaggerations or contradictions are a quite natural particularly when the deposition is made by the rustic villagers. If there are no improvements or contradictions in the statements which have been recorded after a number of years by illiterate persons that itself go to suggest that such a statement is a tutored one, as in normal course some exaggerations and contradictions are bound to surface when the statements are recorded after a gap of considerable time and particularly in such cases where the normal tendency of both the parties is to cause as much harm as possible to each other. 28. In the cases of death at the matrimonial house, it is difficult to collect direct evidence. However, in the instant case, the facts are otherwise. From the record, it is made out that the appellant is residing separately from other members of the family. The compromise, Exhibit PA, was signed by the accused/appellant and other respectables persons. The appellant has nowhere stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was made to sign on blank papers under duress, which was later on converted into compromise by the complainant. Sukhwinder Kaur, PW7, who was mediator to the marriage between the appellant and the deceased, is not an interested witness as she is at an equi distance from both the sides. 29. In view of the above, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment and order dated passed by the learned Trial Court. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is maintained. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand forfeited. He be taken into custody forthwith to suffer remaining part of his sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court.