Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3148 (PNJ)

Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-11-25

M.JEYAPAUL

body2010
Judgment M.Jeyapaul, J. 1. The sole accused who was convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment, has preferred the present appeal. 2. The case in brief of the prosecution as unfolded by the witnesses examined on its side is as follow a) PW 8 Waryam Singh and PW 10 Laxmi Devi are the father and the mother of Balwinder Kaur since deceased. Balwinder Kaur was married to the accused Gurcharan Singh about three years prior to her death. Gurcharan Singh, who is the appellant herein, was not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage. He started maltreating Balwinder Kaur. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- for opening a television shop. Balwinder Kaur came down to her parental house and complained of the maltreatment at the matrimonial home. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- in cash was given and Balwinder Kaur was sent to her matrimonial home. b) Dara Singh, one of the relatives of the deceased, came to the house of PW 8 and he informed him that his daughter was set on fire by the accused Gurcharan Singh. By the time PW 8 alongwith his relatives reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, Balwinder Kaur had already succumbed to the injuries. c) Assistant Sub Inspector Vidya Sagar (PW11) who came to the said hospital recorded the statement of PW8 at about 8:30 AM on 17.05.1997. A case was registered for an offence under Section 304-B IPC as against the accused. Dr. O.P. Aggarwal (PW1) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Balwinder Kaur at about 2:30 PM on 17.05.1997. He found kerosene smell all over the body and also on the hairs. After conducting post mortem examination, he opined that Balwinder Kaur had died due to burn injuries which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course of nature. d) PW11 arrested the accused and subjected him for medico legal examination before he was remanded to judicial custody. Dr. Kiranjot Kaur (PW4) conducted medico legal examination of the accused Gurcharan Singh at about 10:45 AM on 21.05.1997. PW4 found extensive multiple burn injuries on the four fingers of the right hand. She also found burn injury on the first finger of the left hand. Dr. Kiranjot Kaur (PW4) conducted medico legal examination of the accused Gurcharan Singh at about 10:45 AM on 21.05.1997. PW4 found extensive multiple burn injuries on the four fingers of the right hand. She also found burn injury on the first finger of the left hand. She opined that such injuries would have been sustained by Gurcharan Singh about 36 to 72 hours prior to his medico legal examination. PW 12 ASI Vidya Sagar conducted part of the investigation and PW 13 Inspector Rajwinder Singh having completed the investigation laid final report as against the accused for an offence under Section 304-B IPC. 3. The trial Court having placed reliance upon the evidence of PW8 Waryam Singh and PW 10 Laxmi Devi, the father and the mother of Balwinder Kaur, in the background of medical evidence arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt that Balwinder Kaur committed suicide on account of cruelty committed by the accused on Balwinder Kaur demanding dowry. 4. The learned senior counsel Shri A.P.S. Deol appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish that there was a demand of dowry in connection with the marriage between Balwinder Kaur and Gurcharan Singh. Even as per the case of the prosecution, there had been a wide gap of earlier demand of dowry and the death that took place after three years. He would submit that the evidence of PW8 and PW10 may give an impression that there was a demand of some amount from the in-laws of the accused for the purpose of setting up a television shop. But such a demand cannot be treated as a demand of dowry. Referring to the decisions of Honble the Supreme Court and this Court, he would submit that the prosecution failed to establish that there was a demand of dowry in connection with the marriage and cruelty was committed by the accused in connection therewith. 5. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that PW8 and PW10 have deposed before the trial Court cogently that there was ill treatment at the hands of the accused demanding dowry from his in-laws. They have also testified to the effect that the continued ill treatment had culminated in the death of Balwinder Kaur. 5. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that PW8 and PW10 have deposed before the trial Court cogently that there was ill treatment at the hands of the accused demanding dowry from his in-laws. They have also testified to the effect that the continued ill treatment had culminated in the death of Balwinder Kaur. As the death had taken place within three years from the date of marriage and the death due to burn injuries was also established by the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly returned the verdict of conviction, he would submit. 6. Admittedly, the marriage between Balwinder Kaur and Gurcharan Singh had taken place about three years prior to the death of Balwinder Kaur. It is on record that they were blessed with two children within a span of three years. Of course, PW 8 and PW 10 have deposed before the trial Court that Gurcharan Singh had some grievance on account of lesser dowry brought by Balwinder Kaur to the matrimonial home. They have also spoken to the fact that there was some ill treatment meted out to Balwinder Kaur by accused Gurcharan Singh on account of such a grievance. 7. P.W. 8 and P.W. 10, who are star witnesses in this case, have deposed before the trial Court that the accused Gurcharan Singh demanded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- for setting up a television shop. Such a demand for setting up a television shop had emanated from the accused about three years after the marriage. There is nothing on record to show that such an amount was demanded by way of dowry in connection with the marriage which took place about three years earlier thereto. 8. P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 also have failed to connect the earlier grievance of Gurcharan Singh that Balwinder Kaur brought lesser dowry which led to the ill treatment and the death which took place on 16.05.1997. 9. To establish an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the victim should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment. That harassment or cruelty should be in connection with the demand of dowry. Such cruelty or harassment demanding dowry should have taken place sooner before the death of victim. 10. 9. To establish an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the victim should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment. That harassment or cruelty should be in connection with the demand of dowry. Such cruelty or harassment demanding dowry should have taken place sooner before the death of victim. 10. That PW 8 and PW 10 have vaguely spoken to the harassment meted out to their daughter Balwinder Kaur on account of grievance of Gurcharan Singh as Balwinder Kaur brought lesser dowry. There is no material on record to establish that there was demand of dowry, apart from demanding a sum of Rs. 70,000/- for the purpose of setting up a television shop immediately before the death of Balwinder Kaur. The wide gap between the alleged cruelty committed by the accused who had a grievance that Balwinder Kaur brought lesser dowry and the death of Balwinder Kaur was not bridged by the prosecution. 11. In the above context, it is relevant to refer to the admitted fact that the accused also sustained injuries on the right and left hand palms. The doctor PW4 who medico legally examined Gurcharan Singh has opined that such injuries would have been caused when an attempt was made by Gurcharan Singh to save somebody. It is quite natural for a person who is fighting for life to embrace the person in order to escape the acute pain and also to save himself or herself. The fact that the accused had sustained injuries only on his palms would go to establish that he had made an attempt to save the life of the victim girl. 12. The trial Court, it appears, has not weighed the materials on record in the proper perspective. The trial Court was swayed by the deposition of PW 8 and PW 10 to the effect that there had been ill treatment immediately after the marriage when the accused had a grievance that lesser dowry was brought by Balwinder Kaur, forgetting for a moment that demand of some amount was made by the accused only for the purpose of setting up a television shop. The trial Court has not also analysed the evidence in the background of lack of evidence to the effect that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was demanded by the accused by way of dowry. 13. The trial Court has not also analysed the evidence in the background of lack of evidence to the effect that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was demanded by the accused by way of dowry. 13. Honble the Supreme Court in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 355, has held as follows :- "21. Prosecution, in a case of offence under Section 304B IPC cannot escape from the burden of proof that the harassment or cruelty was related to the demand for dowry and also that such cruelty or harassment was caused "soon before her death". The word "dowry" in Section 304-B has to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. That definition reads thus :- "In this Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly - (a) by one party to marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mehr in case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." 22. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property of valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property of valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. 23.It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "son before her death" is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death"." 14. Relying upon the ratio laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, I find that the prosecution miserably failed to establish that there was a demand of some amount by the accused only in connection with the marriage between himself and the deceased Balwinder Kaur. There is lack of evidence to establish that there was ill treatment or harassment or cruelty just before the death of Balwinder Kaur. The nexus between the death of Balwinder Kaur and demand of dowry in connection with the marriage was not established by the prosecution. 15. There is lack of evidence to establish that there was ill treatment or harassment or cruelty just before the death of Balwinder Kaur. The nexus between the death of Balwinder Kaur and demand of dowry in connection with the marriage was not established by the prosecution. 15. Honble the Supreme Court in Appasaheb and another v. State of Maharashtra, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 747, has held that mere demand made by the husband to his wife to bring a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from her parents to meet domestic expenses would not by any stretch of imagination amount to demand of dowry. 16. In the instant case, it is the case of the prosecution that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was demanded by the accused just to set up a television shop. It may be a case where the accused asked his wife to bring such amount for the sole purpose of eking out their livelihood. Such a demand would not have any bearing on the dowry death alleged as against the accused. 17. There might have been some ill treatment at the hands of the accused, as spoken to by PW8 and PW10. But such an ill treatment should have a connection with the demand of dowry as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel Shri A.P.S. Deol appearing for the accused/appellant. The gap between the alleged ill treatment and demand of dowry which culminated in the death of Balwinder Kaur was not established by the prosecution. 18. Honble the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009)3 SCC (Criminal) 537, has held that the demand of share in ancestral property would not amount to demand of dowry. But any additional demand of dowry as such made by the accused coupled with cruelty and harassment would definitely fall under Section 304-B IPC when it culminated in the death of the victim lady. 19. This Court also in Bhim Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 558, has held that the demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- made by the accused from his in-laws for the purpose of construction of a house would not amount to demand of dowry. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio, I find that the demand for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- for setting up a television shop would not amount to demand of dowry. 20. 1,50,000/- made by the accused from his in-laws for the purpose of construction of a house would not amount to demand of dowry. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio, I find that the demand for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- for setting up a television shop would not amount to demand of dowry. 20. The trial Court has totally misconstrued the entire evidence on record and has returned a wrong finding that the prosecution has established its case under Section 304-B IPC. 21. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court as against the accused/appellant for an offence under Section 304-B IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder stands set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The appeal is allowed. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/accused shall stand annulled.