Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3207 (PNJ)

Baljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-12-02

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.8.2001 and order of sentence dated 24.8.2001 (for short as impugned judgment) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, (for short trial Court), whereby the accused/appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.7.1997, ASI Raj Singh, Incharge Police Post, Arniwala alongwith other police officials, was present at the Bus Stand of Village Mahuana Bodla. The complainant Gurdial Singh met the police party and made a statement to ASI Raj Singh to the effect that he married his daughter Seema to Baljit Singh son of Gura Singh. He gave dowry as per his capacity. The accused Baljit Singh (husband), Gura Singh (father-in- law), Jagga Singh (brother-in-law) and Palo Bai (mother-in-law) had been harassing and beating her daughter Seema for bringing less money. The complainant further stated that his daughter complained regarding her maltreatment to him many a times. He also brought this matter to the notice of Tek Chand, Sarpanch of Islamwalia. On the advice of Sarpanch, his daughter came back to her in-laws house. However, his daughter was again turned out of the matrimonial home about 1 = months prior to the occurrence, after giving severe beatings on account of bringing less dowry. But on the intervention of the Panchayat, her daughter was again rehabilitated in her in-laws house. The complainant further stated that on 23.7.1997 at 4.00 p.m., Gura Singh, father-in-law of his daughter, informed Tek Singh, Sarpanch, that Seema had consumed some insecticide. On receiving the said information, the complainant alongwith his son Kirpal Singh and Sarpanch Tek Singh went there and found his daughter Seema was lying unconscious on a cot and none of the family members of accused was present in the house. The complainant alongwith other persons took her daughter to Fazilka for treatment. But on reaching Fazilka, his daughter died. The complainant further stated that he had a suspicion that the accused, Baljit Singh, Gura Singh, Jagga Singh and Palo Bai, forcibly administered some poisonous medicine to his daughter. 3. On the basis of statement of complainant, formal FIR, Exhibit P12, was registered. During investigation, the accused were arrested on 29/30.7.1997. 4. But on reaching Fazilka, his daughter died. The complainant further stated that he had a suspicion that the accused, Baljit Singh, Gura Singh, Jagga Singh and Palo Bai, forcibly administered some poisonous medicine to his daughter. 3. On the basis of statement of complainant, formal FIR, Exhibit P12, was registered. During investigation, the accused were arrested on 29/30.7.1997. 4. After investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented whereupon charge under Section 304-B was framed against the accused/appellants, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, namely, Dr. Devinder Kumar, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Fazilka, as PW1; Dr. M.M. Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Fazilka, as PW2; Jasbir Singh, Patwari as PW3; H.C. Vidya Sagar as PW4; C.Immi Lal as PW5; Gurdial Singh, complainant as PW6; Kirpal Singh, brother of the deceased, as PW7; H.C. Sher Lakhbir Singh as PW8 and ASI Raj Singh, Police Station, Sadar, Jallalabad as PW9. 6. Dr. Davinder Kumar, PW1, deposed that he alongwith Dr.M.M.Singh, PW2, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Seema and opined that the cause of death in this case was due to carbamate (a group of insecticide), which is ante-mortem in nature and is sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. In his cross examination, this witness admitted that he had not seen any scratches on the dead body of Seema. 7. Gurdial Singh, PW-5, father of the deceased (complainant) deposed that the accused persons used to raise demand for more dowry and they used to harass and maltreat her. He further deposed that the matter was also brought into the notice of Sarpanch Tek Singh. About 1 = months prior to the incident, the deceased was turned out of the matrimonial home by the accused persons after giving severe beatings to her. After convening Panchayat, the deceased was rehabilitated in her in-laws house. He has also deposed that accused Gura Singh informed Tek Singh, Sarpanch of his village that the deceased Seema had consumed insecticide. Then he alongwith his son and Tek Singh, Sarpanch, went to the village of the accused persons. After reaching there, they found that the deceased Seema lying un-conscious in a room and none of the family members of Baljit Singh was present there at that time. Then he alongwith his son and Tek Singh, Sarpanch, went to the village of the accused persons. After reaching there, they found that the deceased Seema lying un-conscious in a room and none of the family members of Baljit Singh was present there at that time. When they were on the way to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, the deceased breathed her last. In cross-examination, he admitted that both the parties are earning their livelihood by doing manual labourer. 8. PW-7 Kirpal Singh (brother of the deceased) reiterated almost the same version as that of given by Gurdial Singh, PW5. 9. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. In defence, the accused/appellant examined one witness, namely, Ram Gopal, Inspector,Food and Supplies, Arniwala. 10. Upon appreciation of the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants for the offence and term mentioned in the outset in para 1 of this judgment. However, accused Pallo Bai was acquitted of the charges framed against her. 11. Aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused, herein appellants, have preferred the present appeal before this Court which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 24.9.2001. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant No. 3 is an old man of more than 75 years. His wife Palo Bai, mother-in-law of the deceased, was acquitted on the ground that she was an infirm and sick woman of 75 years of age. The case of appellant No. 3 is at par with his wife since acquitted. Appellant No. 2-Jagga Singh had been residing separately from the family of his younger brother, which is proved from the testimony of Sh.Ram Gopal, Inspector, Food and Supplies, DW1, therefore, there is no occasion for him to harass, maltreat or to demand dowry from the deceased. 13. It is further submitted that that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Gurdial Singh, Pw-5, and Kirpal Singh, PW-7, being close relatives of the deceased, are interested witnesses. The evidence rendered by them with regard to the demand of dowry "soon before death" was too general and vague. 13. It is further submitted that that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Gurdial Singh, Pw-5, and Kirpal Singh, PW-7, being close relatives of the deceased, are interested witnesses. The evidence rendered by them with regard to the demand of dowry "soon before death" was too general and vague. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no evidence to show as to how the appellants raised the alleged funds and whether the same was paid at all to the appellants as dowry. The learned counsel has strongly contended that there was no definite evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death for, or in connection with any demand for dowry to attract offence under Section 304-B IPC. 14. On behalf of the State, it is argued that the unnatural death of a young woman took place within a few months of marriage under abnormal circumstances. The deceased was pregnant at the time of occurrence, despite that she took extreme step of ending her life, which shows that the deceased was fed up with the maltreatment given by her in-laws. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 16. Admittedly, the deceased died within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances. The allegations of demand of dowry and resultant harassment/torture of the deceased are borne out mainly from the testimony of Gurdial Singh, PW5, and Kirpal Singh, PW7, and from the FIR. It has also come on record vide Ex.D2 (Ration Card) that appellant No. 2 had been residing separately. He being a married person having three children was also not supposed to harass his younger sister-in-law on account of demand of dowry articles. No such allegation has been levelled against wife of appellant No. 2. Thus, there is no occasion for appellant No. 2 to harass or demand of dowry from the deceased as he would not be beneficiary in the event of demand being fulfilled. The mother-in-law of the deceased was acquitted by the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court over ruled the possibility of any harassment by the mother-in-law. The case of appellant No. 3, father-in-law of the deceased, is also at par with his wife. The mother-in-law of the deceased was acquitted by the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court over ruled the possibility of any harassment by the mother-in-law. The case of appellant No. 3, father-in-law of the deceased, is also at par with his wife. In the circumstances, I feel that old father-in-law, having a ill wife, would be dependent upon his daughter-in-law and would not harass her. There is a common tendency on the part of the complainant party to give an exaggerated version of the incident and rope in all the family members. After death of bride, it is seen that the relations between parties become strained and false implication of all family members of husband is generally expected. In the instant case, the mother-in- law of the deceased is acquitted by the learned trial Court but unfortunately, the brother-in-law and father-in- law have been convicted by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the statements of Gurdial Singh, PW6, and Kirpal Singh, PW7, regarding the demand of dowry by appellants No. 2 and 3 do not seem to fit well in the facts of the present case as they would not be beneficiary to it. The case of the prosecution becomes doubtful qua these appellants Jagga Singh and Gura Singh. 17. However, it is established that appellant No. 1 raised the demand, which persisted throughout till the unfortunate occurrence. The demand emanated from husband/appellant, who would have been the main beneficiary, in the event of the demand having been fulfilled. No evidence has been led by appellant No. 1 showing that death was not due to any cruel treatment meted out to the deceased at her matrimonial home and the death was not an unnatural death. In the instant case, the deceased was continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant in connection with demand of money. It has also come on record that about 1 = months prior to the incident, the deceased Seema was turned out of the matrimonial home and after convening the Panchayat, she was rehabilitated in her in-laws house. Moreover in the instant case, an unnatural death of a married woman has taken place within few months of her marriage, presumption of dowry death is made out as the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry. 18. Moreover in the instant case, an unnatural death of a married woman has taken place within few months of her marriage, presumption of dowry death is made out as the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry. 18. The case of the prosecution is fully established to the extent that there is not much gap between the cruelty/harassment and death and this link remained live. On the strength of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the burden is shifted upon appellant No. 1, so as to show that the death of his wife was not due to any cruel treatment at his hands. The death has taken place few months of marriage under abnormal circumstances i.e. poisoning. On the basis of statements of Gurdial Singh, PW5 and Kirpal Singh, PW7, it is established that deceased was being maltreated due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Thus, the prosecution has brought on record sufficient and convincing evidence on record, on the basis of which, the guilt of Baljit Singh, appellant No. 1 is fully proved on record and his conviction under Section 304-B IPC is maintained. However, Jagga Singh and Gura Singh @Gurbachan Singh are given benefit of doubt by way of abundant caution. 19. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal qua appellants Jagga Singh and Gura Singh @ Gurbachan Singh is accepted, their conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. The appeal qua Baljit Singh is dismissed. However, his sentence is reduced to 7 years. Baljit Singh, appellant shall also pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of six months. Fine if realised, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to undergo remaining part of sentence.