Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3389 (PNJ)

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-12-20

M.JEYAPAUL

body2010
JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, J. (Oral) - Harpreet Singh, the husband, and Surjit Kaur, the mother-in-law of the deceased Manjinder Kaur, were convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Of course, Malkiat Singh the father-in-law of the deceased was also arrayed as one of the accused but he was acquitted by the trial Court. Hence the appeal by the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows : (a) Manjinder Kaur was the daughter of the complainant Sukhdev Singh, PW5. Manjinder Kaur was given in marriage to the first accused- appellant Harpreet Singh, resident of village Kalamajra, about two years prior to the occurrence. A son was born out of the aforesaid wedlock in the month of March,1998. Sufficient dowry was given by PW5 to his daughter at the time of marriage. (b) After the birth of the male child, on 12.7.1998, the first accused-appellant and his mother Surjit Kaur second accused- appellant came to the house of PW5 and demanded a scooter. They also warned that, if the dowry demanded by them was not given, PW5 would receive only the dead body of his daughter. (c) On 13.7.1998 at about 5.45 PW5 and one Piara Lal visited the house of the appellants. Even in their presence the appellants gave slaps to Manjinder Kaur. PW5 promised that he would give scooter, as demanded, by the next month. Manjinder our entreated that she should be saved from the accused. PW5 and his companion Piara Lal took their seat in one of the rooms of the house of the appellants. The first accused-appellant caught hold of Manjinder Kaur by holding her arms, his father poured kerosene on her body and the second accused-appellant set fire to her. PW5 and Piara Lal proceeded to Dadhadur to bring the Sarpanch. When they returned, they came to know that Manjinder Kaur was hospitalized with burn injuries. PW5 proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Barnala and found that his daughter was lying unconscious. She died about 12 minutes of their arrival. PW5 gave a complaint, based on which formal FIR was recorded. PW8 ASI Gurdit Singh took up the case for investigation. (d) PW1 Dr. PW5 proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Barnala and found that his daughter was lying unconscious. She died about 12 minutes of their arrival. PW5 gave a complaint, based on which formal FIR was recorded. PW8 ASI Gurdit Singh took up the case for investigation. (d) PW1 Dr. Ashok Kumar Bansal, having noted the burn injuries found on the body of Manjinder Kaur, when she was admitted for treatment on 13.7.1998 at about 7.40 pm, sent ruqa to Police Station Barnala. Though she was conscious when she was brought the hospital, he did not ask about the reasons behind the burn injuries she sustained. Though he did notice the smell of kerosene he did not note the smell of kerosene in the records. (e) PW2 Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala having found that Manjinder Kaur who was admitted in the hospital, had expired on 13.7.1998 at about 10.40 pm, sent ruqa Ex.PB to Police Station Barnala informing the death of Majinder Kaur. (f) PW3 Dr. Krishan Gopal Singla, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Manjinder Kaur on 14.7.1998 at about 9.45 am. He found superficial to deep burns all over the body. There was no smell of kerosene in his report. In his opinion Manjinder Kaur had died due to shock as a result of burn injuries she sustained. (g) PW8 ASI Gurdit Singh arrested the accused, remanded them to judicial custody, and having completed the investigation, laid the final report as against the accused. (h) On the side of the defence, Dr. Hari Singh, Incharge of Hans Maternity Home, Jagroan was examined as DW1. He speaks to the fact that a male child was born to Manjinder Kaur in the said maternity home on 3.2.1998. DW2 Boota Singh who was one of the neighbours of the accused at Kalamajra deposed that at about 7.00 pm when Manjinder Kaur was cooking food at verandah, she caught fire on account of burst of the stove. He and others extinguished the fire. One of the other family members was present. Jaspal Singh brought jeep and took Majinder Kaur to the hospital at Barnala. DW3 Madan Lal corroborated the version of DW2. 3. He and others extinguished the fire. One of the other family members was present. Jaspal Singh brought jeep and took Majinder Kaur to the hospital at Barnala. DW3 Madan Lal corroborated the version of DW2. 3. The trial Court disbelieved the version of PW5 that he was present when the appellants committed the murder of his daughter but it relied upon a part of the evidence of PW5 to come to the decision that Majinder Kaur committed suicide on account of the demand of dowry made by the appellants herein. The trial Court ultimately convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. There was no representation on the side of the appellants-accused. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit while referring to a decision of this Court that the facts and circumstances would go to show that Manjinder Kaur committed suicide. He would further submit that though the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt that Manjinder Kaur was done to death by the appellants. As there is evidence to show that there was a demand of dowry followed by cruelty, the suspicious death of Manjinder Kaur would fall squarely under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, he would further submit. 5. The entire evidence of the star witness PW5 was thoroughly scanned by me. It is found that he has come out with totally artificial version. Therefore,no reliance can be placed on his evidence by the Court of law. It is his evidence that the appellants who had not made any demand of dowry for about two and half years, suddenly demanded a scooter a day before the occurrence and wielded a threat that Manjinder Kaur would be sent as a dead body if such a demand was not met by PW5. It is his version that on the next day he proceeded along with one Piara Lal to the house of the appellants. In his presence, the appellants slapped Manjinder Kaur. Even while they were sitting in one of the rooms in the house of the accused, the husband caught hold of his wife, her father-in-law loured kerosene and the mother-in-law set fire to her. PW5 having seen his daughter with fire coolly left the house to bring the Sarpanch. In his presence, the appellants slapped Manjinder Kaur. Even while they were sitting in one of the rooms in the house of the accused, the husband caught hold of his wife, her father-in-law loured kerosene and the mother-in-law set fire to her. PW5 having seen his daughter with fire coolly left the house to bring the Sarpanch. It is not his case that at that point of time he was alone in the house of the appellants. He was accompanied by one Piara Lal. Therefore, PW5 should have atleast attempted to extinguish the fire that engulfed his daughter with the help of his companion Piara Lal. Strangely the father had not made any effort to take his daughter to the hospital for treatment. It is his version that he came back to the house of the accused thereafter and found that his daughter had already been taken to the hospital for treatment. Such a version of PW5 does not inspire confidence of this Court. Of Course the trial Court has relied upon a part of his testimony, to convict the accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. But in my considered view, as PW5 has come out with a totally concocted story in order to fix all the accused by hook or crook, I am unable to place any reliance on his evidence. 6. Piara Lal who allegedly accompanied PW5 to the house of the appellants was not examined by the prosecution. PW5 would depose that the accused came down to his house along with his daughter Manjinder Kaur and made a demand of a scooter in the presence of Sukhvinder Kaur. The said Sukhvinder Kaur was also not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution in its wisdom has found that those witnesses were not important witnesses to the case of the prosecution. In my opinion, the non-examination of those two important witnesses goes to the very root of the prosecution story. Except the evidence of PW5, there was no material on record that there was any demand of dowry or any cruelty committed by the accused. 7. In my opinion, the non-examination of those two important witnesses goes to the very root of the prosecution story. Except the evidence of PW5, there was no material on record that there was any demand of dowry or any cruelty committed by the accused. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General cited a decision of this Court in Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 932 wherein it has been held that though the prosecution failed to establish a case under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, when there is evidence to show that the victim committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and the accused subjected the victim to cruelty, raising presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1887, the Court can very well convict the accused under Section 306 Indian Penal Code for abetment to commit suicide. 8. To raise a presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, two main ingredients will have to be established by the prosecution; (i) the victim had committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage and (ii) her husband or relatives of her husband subjected her to cruelty. Unless those important two ingredients are established by the prosecution, the Court of law cannot raise any presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. In the aforesaid decision cited by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent, those two ingredients have been established by the prosecution but quite unfortunately in the instant case there is no material on record to establish that the suicide was committed by the victim on account of the cruelty committed by the appellant herein. 9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of DW2 and DW3 to the effect that the victim sustained burn injuries on account of the burst of stove while she was cooking food in the verandah of her house cannot be ignored by this Court. 10. The trial Court has bestowed undue importance to PW5 whose evidence is found to be totally untrustworthy and convicted the accused solely on the basis of evidence of PW5 while rejecting material portion of his evidence to the effect that the appellants committed murder of the victim Manjinder Kaur. Therefore, interference with the judgment passed by the trial Court is warranted in this case. 11. Therefore, interference with the judgment passed by the trial Court is warranted in this case. 11. In this view of the matter, the accused-appellants are entitled to acquittal as no case is made out against them under Section 304-B of the Indian Peal Code. Acquitting both the appellants, under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, the judgment of the trial Court is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. Bail bonds, if any, executed by them, shall stand annulled. Appeal allowed.