Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3344 (PNJ)

Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-12-14

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of eight years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.12.1997, SI Nachattar Singh alongwith some other police officials was present in the area of Village Thikriwala on the bridge road in connection with patrolling, Piara Singh, herein `complainant' met him and got recorded his statement, Exhibit PE at 5.00 p.m. to the effect that on 20.7.1997 he married his daughter Paramjit Kaur @ Rani herein `deceased' to Harvinder Singh, herein 'appellant No.1'. At the time of marriage, adequate dowry was given to her. He further stated that after about a month of the marriage, accused Gurdev Kaur (mother-in-law of deceased) and appellant Harvinder Singh started taunting her on the pretext that the deceased brought less dowry and if the deceased wanted to live in matrimonial home, she should bring `50,000/-from her parents for the purchase of a taxi car. About ten days prior to the occurrence, Angrej Kaur (mother of the deceased) visited village Thikriwala to meet her daughter, where the deceased told her that her mother-in-law Gurdev Kaur and her husband Harwinder Singh were harassing her to arrange `50,000/-within 2-4 days otherwise her dead body will be found. The complainant further stated that on the day of occurrence, he alongwith his brother-in-law Bhajan Singh visited the matrimonial house of her daughter to pay `10,000/-to the in-laws of his daughter. When they entered the house of the accused persons from its outer gate, the door of the residential house was closed. They heard the voice of accused Gurdev Kaur, saying whether Paramjit Kaur, was alive or not. On hearing this, they pushed the door and saw that Paramjit Kaur, was lying dead with burns. Then all the accused on seeing them became perplexed and ran away from the scene. 3. On the above statement, FIR, Exhibit PE/2, was registered. SI Nachattar Singh visited the spot and prepared the rough site plan. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. 4. After completion of the investigation and upon presentation of challan, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. 3. On the above statement, FIR, Exhibit PE/2, was registered. SI Nachattar Singh visited the spot and prepared the rough site plan. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. 4. After completion of the investigation and upon presentation of challan, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. The accused/appellants were charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B IPC and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. 7. Dr.Ashok Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala, PW1, deposed that on police request, Exhibit PA/1, he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur on 11.12.1997. He opined that the death in the instant case was due to shock and suffocation due to burns. 8. Piara Singh (father of the deceased), PW3, reiterated almost the same version given in his statement, Exhibit PE. 9. Bhajan Singh (maternal uncle of deceased), PW4, has corroborated the statement of the complainant (father of the deceased) regarding the ill-treatment being meted out by the accused/appellants to Paramjit Kaur on account of less dowry. 10. SI Nachhatar Singh, PW9, deposed that on 10.12.1997, the complainant Piara Singh met him at the bridge drain in the area of village Thikariwala and suffered statement, Exhibit PE. He prepared the rough site plan, Exhibit PW9/A.1 as well as inquest report, Exhibit PC. He took in possession cane stained with kerosene oil and match box. 11. Dr. Devraj, Draftsman, PW2, proved scaled plan, Exhibit PD, of the place of occurrence. Rajinder Kumar, PW5, owner of Printing Press proved wedding card, Exhibit PJ of the marriage of deceased. Labh Singh, Photographer, PW6, proved photos Exs. P8 to P13 and negatives Exs. P5 to P7. Vijay Kumar, PW7, proved bill, Exhibit PK, regarding purchase of furniture. Rajinder Singh, PW8, proved bill, Exhibit PL, of purchase of same gold. 12. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. Rajinder Singh, PW8, proved bill, Exhibit PL, of purchase of same gold. 12. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. In defence, the accused examined as many as five witnesses, namely, Inder Singh, as DW1; Mukand Singh as DW2; Harbans Singh as DW3; Jagsir Singh, Clerk as DW4 and Gursharan Singh, PCO Holder, Thikriwala as DW5. 13. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them as noticed at para 1 of the judgment. However, accused Kulwinder Singh was acquitted by the learned trial Court. 14. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of learned trial Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal, which was admitted by this Court on 6.11.2000. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the presence of Piara Singh, PW3 and Bhajan Singh, PW4, is highly doubtful at the spot. It has come in the statements of these witnesses that on seeing them the accused persons ran away from the spot. However, the version of these witnesses falsifies from the statements of defence witnesse Harbans Singh, DW3 and Gursharan Singh, DW5. According to Harbans Singh, DW3, resident of Thikriwala, accused Harvinder Singh made a telephone call at about 12-45 p.m. in his presence to Village Tungawala that Piara Singh be informed about the death of his daughter. This fact is further proved from the statement of Gursharan Singh, DW5, who was running Malwa STD since 1997. He deposed that as per his register, a telephone call was recorded which was made at about 12.00 noon by accused/appellant Harvinder Singh from his STD. Thus, the learned counsel has argued that the presence of Piara Singh, PW4 and Bhajan Singh, PW5 is highly doubtful and unnatural and they have falsely implicated the accused/appellants. 16. Learned counsel has also submitted that it is categorical stand of the appellants that Bhola Singh (son of mother's sister of deceased) slept in the room of deceased. When appellant No.1 came back at home, the deceased felt nervous on seeing him in the house. On 10.12.1997, the deceased was alone in the house and she put pouring kerosene oil and set herself on fire. 17. When appellant No.1 came back at home, the deceased felt nervous on seeing him in the house. On 10.12.1997, the deceased was alone in the house and she put pouring kerosene oil and set herself on fire. 17. It is further submitted that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Piara Singh, PW4, and Bhajan Singh, PW6, being close relatives of the deceased. The evidence tendered by them with regard to demand of dowry “soon before death” was very general and vague. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no evidence to show as to how the appellants raised money and whether any amount 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 of dowry to attract offence under Section 304-B IPC. As regards raising the demand of `50,000/-for purchasing Taxi car by appellant No.2 learned counsel has submitted that the said demand does not seem to fit well in the facts of the present case as Gurdev Kaur, appellant No.2, would not be beneficiary to it. 18. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the unnatural death of a young woman took place within few months of the marriage under unnatural circumstances. The prosecution case is fully proved from the statements of eye-witnesses i.e. Piara Singh, PW4 and Bhajan Singh, PW5, and also from the medical evidence. 19. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 20. The case is based on the statements of Piara Singh,PW4 (father of the deceased) and Bhajan Singh, PW5 (maternal uncle of the deceased). It has come in the statements of these witnesses that on the day of occurrence, they visited the matrimonial home of her daughter to pay `10,000/-to in-laws of his daughter. When they entered the house of accused persons from its outer gate, they heard accused Gurdev Kaur, enquiring as to whether Paramjit Kaur, the deceased was alive or not. On that, they pushed the door and saw that Paramjit Kaur, the deceased was lying dead with burns. The accused on seeing them became nervous and slipped away from the spot. When they entered the house of accused persons from its outer gate, they heard accused Gurdev Kaur, enquiring as to whether Paramjit Kaur, the deceased was alive or not. On that, they pushed the door and saw that Paramjit Kaur, the deceased was lying dead with burns. The accused on seeing them became nervous and slipped away from the spot. The presence of these witnesses at the spot is not proved from the statements of Harbans Singh, DW3 and Gursharan Singh, DW5. Harbans Singh, DW3, has stated in his statement that at about 12-45 p.m., accused Harvinder Singh made a telephone call in his presence to Village Tungawala that Piara Singh, the complainant, be informed about the death of his daughter. This fact is further established from the deposition of Gursharan Singh, DW5, who maintained the record of telephone calls. He has deposed that a telephone call was recorded which was made at about 12.00 noon by accused/appellant Harvinder Singh from his STD. Therefore, the presence of Piara Singh, PW4 and Bhajan Singh, PW5 at the scene is highly doubtful and unnatural as they did not try to chase the accused. This seems to be an attempt to falsely implicate all the family members as 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 of the husband. The testimony of these witnesses is disbelieved to the extent that they were present at the house of in-laws of the deceased daughter. As per prosecution case, the accused/appellants were raising a demand of `50,000/-for purchasing taxi car, which in my opinion, if had been fulfilled, appellant No.2 would not have been beneficiary in any manner. This Court also feels that old mother-in-law would be dependent upon his daughter-in-law and would not harass her. In the circumstances, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful qua appellant No.2 Gurdev Kaur. 21. In the instant case, an unnatural death of a married woman has taken place at her in-laws' house 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/appellant No.1 in connection with demand of dowry. It is for the accused/appellant No.1 to explain as to how the deceased has taken place. It is for the accused/appellant No.1 to explain as to how the deceased has taken place. 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. The prosecution case is established to the extent that appellant No.1 raised the demand, which continued throughout till the unfortunate occurrence. This demand was raised only by the from husband/appellant, who would have been the only beneficiary, in the event of the demand having been fulfilled. It has also come on record that about one month prior to the incident, the deceased complained regarding maltreatment given to her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of `50,000/-. The partial testimony of Piara Singh, PW3 and Bhajan Singh, PW4, regarding demand of dowry by husband/appellant soon before death is proved. 22. 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. On the basis of statements of Piara Singh, PW4 and Bhajan Singh, PW5, 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 the basis of which, the guilt of Harvinder Singh, appellant No.1 is fully proved and his conviction under Section 304B IPC and 498-A is maintained. However, appellant No.2 Gurdev Kaur is given benefit of doubt by way of abundant caution. 23. In view of the above, the present appeal qua appellant No.2 Gurdev Kaur is allowed, judgment of conviction and sentence of order qua her is set aside and she is acquitted of the charge. Her bail bonds are discharged. 24. However, the appeal qua appellant Harvinder Singh, husband of the deceased, is dismissed. He is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be taken into custody forthwith to serve his remaining part of sentence. Appeal dismissed.