Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3407 (PNJ)

Sahib Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-12-23

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4/11/2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted for the offence 498-A and 304-B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of seven years under Section 304-B IPC only. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 5.7.1998 Jit Singh son of Kartar Singh, herein ‘complainant’ got recorded his statement to the effect that he had four daughters. Jaswinder Kaur, herein deceased’ was married to accused Sahib Singh, herein appellant No.1, about five months prior to the incident, on 18.2.1998. Few days after the marriage, appellant No.1 Sahib Singh, Anup Singh, herein appellant No.2, (father-in-law of deceased) Baljit Kaur, herein appellant No.3 (mother-in-law of deceased) and Raj Kaur, (sister-in-law) since acquitted, started maltreating her daughter for bringing inadequate dowry. The accused/appellants had been demanding high power motorcycle and colour television from the deceased and the complainant. The complainant further mentioned in his statement that he is a poor man and gave dowry according to his financial means. About 20 days prior to the occurrence, he visited village Ratta Khera to bring his daughter Jaswinder Kaur, the deceased, and stayed there during night, when his daughter told him that her sister-in-law Raj Kaur, mother-in-law Balbir Kaur, father-in-law Anup Singh and husband Sahib Singh used to harass her and would insist to bring more dowry. The complainant noticed that attitude of the in-laws of his daughter was not good. He gave assurance to his daughter and came to his village. Since, he was having apprehension that in-laws of his daughter may not give beating to his daughter, therefore, on 4.7.1998, he alongwith Sukhwinder Singh, came to the matrimonial house of deceased. After taking meal, they slept in the courtyard of the house and at about 12’ o clock (in night), they woke on hearing raula of his daughter and they saw that the accused Raj Kaur, Balbir Kaur and Anup Singh had caught hold of his daughter Jaswinder Kaur, whereas Sahib Singh was strangulating her and accused Anup Singh was saying that both of them have come empty handed. They have not brought neither motorcycle nor colour television. They have not brought neither motorcycle nor colour television. The complainant and Sukhwinder Singh raised raula upon which, the accused threatened them to kill and stated that they killed Jaswinder Kaur and now it was their turn. Out of fear, both of them ran away from the spot and reached their village Mauliviwala, where they narrated the incident to the relatives and panchayat. The complainant alongwith his son Sukhdev Singh and Sarpanch Nawab Singh came to Police Station Lehra and got recorded his statement. 3. On the basis of above statement, Exhibit PF, FIR was registered. SI Sardara Singh reached the spot and prepared inquest on the body of Jaswinder Kaur. He inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan. On 6.7.1998, the accused were arrested. 4. The accused/appellants were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. 6. PW-1 Dr.M.S.Khipal conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jaswinder Kaur on 7.7.1998 at 9.00 a.m. and observed that the cause of death in the instant case was due to ligation of trachaea with rope or other similar thing. 7. PW-4 Jit Singh (father of the deceased), the complainant, reiterated the version as given in statement, Exhibit PF. 8. PW-6 Sukhwinder Singh corroborated the statement of Jit Singh, PW4 (father of the deceased), regarding ill-treatment being meted out by the accused/appellants to Jaswinder Kaur on account of less dowry. 9. PW-8 Gurbachan Singh deposed that on 7.7.1998, he visited Police Station Lehra, where the accused/appellant made disclosure statement, Exhibit PJ, in his presence to the effect that he had kept concealed a Parna of sky blue clour on the left corner of his house under the ground. In purusance of this, he got recovered the same, which was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PJ/1. 10. PW-10 Inspector Sardara Singh, deposed that on 5.7.1998, Jit Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Nawab Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, visited Police Station and Ajit Singh made statement, Exhibit PF, before him. On the basis of statement, Exhibit, PF, FIR was recorded by him. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not record the statements of the neighbourers of the accused and also did not record the Sarpanch and Panches of Village Ratta Khera. 11. On the basis of statement, Exhibit, PF, FIR was recorded by him. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not record the statements of the neighbourers of the accused and also did not record the Sarpanch and Panches of Village Ratta Khera. 11. PW-2 Major Singh, PW-3 Nazar Singh, PW5-Gurnam Singh, Balwinder Singh, PW7, H.C. Sukhdev Singh, PW9 and Gurcharan Singh, PW11 are formal witnesses. 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 Nidhan Singh as DW1. 13. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as noticed at para 1 of this judgment. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of learned trial Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal, which was admitted by this Court on 11.12.2000 for regular hearing and they were enlarged on bail 1.8.2001. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the presence of Jit Singh, PW4, and Sukhwinder Singh, PW6, is highly doubtful at the spot. The occurrence is allegedly witnessed by them but none of them tried to intervene in order to save the deceased while she was allegedly being strangulated. It is highly improbable that the father and close relative of the deceased would not intervene and try to save their family member. 16. It has further been submitted that the conduct of these two witnesses before and after the alleged occurrence is also unnatural. As per the statements of Jit Singh, PW4, and Sukhwinder Singh, PW6, the accused/appellants except accused Sahib Singh caught hold of the deceased from back side and were holding the hands of the deceased, whereas accused Sahib Singh was throttling by using parna (piece of cloth normally used in countryside around neck). The deposition of these witnesses creates doubt about the manner in which the accused killed Jaswinder Kaur. It has come in the evidence of these witness that the accused caught hold the hands of the deceased from back side. The learned counsel thus submits that in that eventuality, the deceased would have remained invisible. These witnesses also did not try to intervene in order to save the deceased, which suggests that they were not present at the spot. The learned counsel thus submits that in that eventuality, the deceased would have remained invisible. These witnesses also did not try to intervene in order to save the deceased, which suggests that they were not present at the spot. The immediate conduct of these witnesses also suggests that they were not the eye-witnesses as instead of reporting the matter to the police, they chose to run away from the spot. Thus, the learned counsel has argued that conduct of these witnesses before and after the alleged occurrence is unnatural. 17. It has further been argued that if the appellants wanted to eliminate the deceased, the appellants would not have chosen the day when two family members of the family of the deceased were present at their house. 18. It is further submitted that that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Jit Singh, PW4, and Sukhwinder Singh, PW6, being close relatives of the deceased and, therefore, are interested witnesses. The evidence given by them as to 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 money and whether they paid money 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. As regards raising the demand of motorcycle and colour television by appellant No.2-Anup Singh and appellant No. 3-Balbir Kaur, learned counsel has submitted that the said demand does not seem to fit well in the facts of the present case as they would not be beneficiary to it. 19. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the unnatural death of a young wife 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. Jit Singh, PW4 and Sukhwinder Singh, PW6, and also from the medical evidence. 20. I have heard he learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 21. The prosecution case is fully proved from the statements of eye-witnesses i.e. Jit Singh, PW4 and Sukhwinder Singh, PW6, and also from the medical evidence. 20. I have heard he learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 21. The present case is based on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses i.e. Jit Singh, PW4 (father of the deceased) and Sukhwinder Singh, PW6 (close relative of the deceased). Both these witnesses have deposed about the sequence and manner in which the occurrence took place. 22. As per their deposition, they went to the house of the deceased on 4.7.1998. After taking meal, they slept in the court-yard and at about 12.30 night, they heard noise of the deceased Mar Dita Mar Dita. Then they saw that the hands of the deceased were caught hold by accused/appellants Raj Kaur, Balbir Kaur and Anup Singh and Sahib Singh was throttling by using Parna. They shouted not to kill. On that the accused/appellants threatened them that, in case they come here without motorcycle and T.V. they shall meet the same fate. The victim, Jaswinder Kaur, was killed in their presence. Out of fear, they ran away from the spot to Lehra first and then to their village Molviwala. From the above testimonies, the conduct of these two witnesses before and after the alleged occurrence appears to be unnatural. As per the statements of these witnesses, the accused/appellants except accused Sahib Singh caught hold of the deceased from back side and were holding the hands of the deceased and accused Sahib Singh was throttling her by using parna. The deposition of these witnesses raises doubt that the holding of the hands of the deceased on back side would not be visible if all of them had caught hold of her from hands on the back side. It is highly unnatural and improbable that the father and close relative of the deceased would not intervene and try to save their family member. After the occurrence, they were expected to report the matter to the Police Station, Lehra, however, they chose to run away from the spot. In the circumstances, the conduct of these two witnesses prior to occurrence, at the time of occurrence and post occurrence, makes their presence at the scene of occurrence highly doubtful. After the occurrence, they were expected to report the matter to the Police Station, Lehra, however, they chose to run away from the spot. In the circumstances, the conduct of these two witnesses prior to occurrence, at the time of occurrence and post occurrence, makes their presence at the scene of occurrence highly doubtful. Therefore, I hold that the presence of these two witnesses is not proved at the time of occurrence in the present case. 23. 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 resorted to. Therefore, the statements of Jit Singh, PW4, and Sukhwinder Singh, PW6, regarding the demand of dowry as well as maltreatment by appellants No.2 and 3 do not seem to fit well in the facts of the present case as they would not have been the beneficiaries in case the demand had been met. The case of the prosecution becomes doubtful qua these appellants Anup Singh and Balbir Kaur. 24. Admittedly, the deceased died within few months of marriage under unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home. It is for the accused/appellant Sahib Singh to explain that the unnatural death of Jaswinder Kaur was not due to cruelty being meted out to her in the matrimonial home. 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 No.1 in connection with demand of dowry. It has also come on record that in the instant case there is a demand of high power motorcycle and colour television, which persisted throughout till the unfortunate occurrence. The demand emanated from husband/appellant, who would have been the only beneficiary, in the event of the demand being fulfilled. 25. There is not much gap between the cruelty/harassment and death. Keeping in view 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. 25. There is not much gap between the cruelty/harassment and death. Keeping in view 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 within a few months of marriage under unnatural circumstances i.e. pressing of tracheea with rope. On the basis of statements of Jit Singh, PW4 and Sukhwinder Singh, PW6, 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 Sahib Singh, appellant No.1, is fully proved on record and his conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC is maintained. However, accused/appellants Anup Singh and Balbir Kaur are given benefit of doubt by way of abundant caution. 26. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal qua appellants Anup Singh and Balbir Kaur is accepted, their conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. The appeal qua Sahib Singh is dismissed. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo remaining part of sentence. Appeal allowed.