Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3417 (PNJ)

Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-12-24

A.N.JINDAL

body2010
JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J 1. This is yet another case which involves the sordid story of the greedy accused who having remained frustrated over non satisfaction of their demand of dowry, harassed the deceased to such an extent that she could not think anything more than to leave this world so that she may not be again burden over her parental family. Consequently, the accused was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years under Section 304-B IPC. 2. Kamaljit Kaur was married to Gurjit Singh accused-appellant (herein referred as, 'the accused') on 7.2.1999. The marriage was arranged through Taro a mediator and at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given. However, soon after the marriage, the accused being dis-satisfied with the articles of dowry started maltreating her saying that she had brought insufficient dowry and no scooter and fridge has been given in dowry. The accused prevented her from visiting her parents. However, on the eve of Rakhi, she came to her parental house and disclosed that the accused was demanding a fridge. However, her parents prevailed upon her and regretted their inability to satisfy such demand as they were poor persons and not in a position to meet the demand. They further promised that they will do so after some time. On this, the accused took her back. However, on 29.9.1999, at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased conveyed a message to her brother Balraj Singh that she was being badly maltreated and she be taken back. 3. On receipt of this message, the complainant Balraj Singh (herein referred as, 'the complainant') accompanied by Chuhar Singh his father's sister's husband, went to the village Dhak Mazara (village of the accused) where they met the accused and expressed their willingness to take Kamaljit Kaur back but the accused instead of sending her back insulted and abused them and he did not agree despite persuasions made by them. At about 4.00 p.m. the complainant along with Chuhar Singh went to Taro (a mediator of the marriage) who was not found at home. However, when they came back, they found Kamaljit Kaur lying in the courtyard and was trembling like fish. They arranged a conveyance and shifted her to the hospital at Apra, however, on the advise of the doctor, they took her to D.M.C. Ludhiana where she had died. However, when they came back, they found Kamaljit Kaur lying in the courtyard and was trembling like fish. They arranged a conveyance and shifted her to the hospital at Apra, however, on the advise of the doctor, they took her to D.M.C. Ludhiana where she had died. At this, they brought the body of Kamaljit Kaur back to the village Dhak Mazara. The complainant informed his parents on telephone upon which they accompanied by other relatives reached the house of the accused. On the aforesaid statement Ex.PA made by the complainant before S.H.O. Sarabjit Rai on 29.9.1999 at 10.00 p.m., FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered and investigated. 4. The Investigating Officer collected the photographs and wedding card of the marriage, inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report, got conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body, recorded statements of the witnesses, sent viscera to the Chemical Examiner who opined that the cause of death was cholrocompound a group of insecticides. Ultimately, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the court. 5. The accused was charged under Section 304-B IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Balraj Singh complainant (PW1), Balwant Singh (PW2), Varinder Kumar (PW3), Tara Singh (PW4), HC Baljit Singh (PW5), C. Resham Singh (PW6), Devinder Singh (PW7), Dr. Karnail Singh (PW8), Sarbjit Rai (PW9), HC Sikander Singh (PW10), C. Varinder Singh (PW11) and Dr. Sarabjit Singh (PW12). 7. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained as under :- “I am innocent. I neither raised any demand of dowry including that of scooter or fridge and nor maltreated or beat her on that ground. The deceased took some medicine accidentally. I obtained best treatment for her and in spite of my best efforts she could not be saved. Intimation about her death was given to her parents by me and thereafter this false case has been registered against me and I have been falsely implicated.” The trial resulted into conviction. 8. Arguments heard. Record perused. 9. I obtained best treatment for her and in spite of my best efforts she could not be saved. Intimation about her death was given to her parents by me and thereafter this false case has been registered against me and I have been falsely implicated.” The trial resulted into conviction. 8. Arguments heard. Record perused. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant while urging that no doubt the death of an young girl took place within seven months of her marriage, yet, on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution the accused cannot be blamed. The case is based on the testimonies of two interested witnesses namely Balraj and Balwant Singh. It is not probable that the accused would start maltreating the deceased as soon as she came to his house. The prosecution has failed to establish if he had provided any poisonous substance to the deceased. No specific evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to prove the maltreatment caused by the accused. In the absence of any proof of harassment, torture or maltreatment, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can not be attracted. 10. To the contrary, learned State counsel while taking me through the evidence has urged that an young girl who had just seen dreams of happy matrimonial life, was to enjoy the company of her husband, bear the new clothes and anxious to be a good mother or grand mother forced to close all her dreams and took the extreme step. Lot of evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to prove the maltreatment as well as demand of scooter and fridge on the part of the accused, as such, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is attracted. The judgment is well balanced and does not require any further interference. 11. Having heard the rival contentions, the admitted facts are that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 7.2.1999 with the accused. She was an young girl of 22 years of age and died other than in the normal circumstances at the house of the accused. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PN reveals as under :- “Chlrocompound a group of insecticide was detected in the contents of exhibits No.I, II, III and No.IV. No poison was detected in the contents of exhibit No.V.” 12. Dr. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PN reveals as under :- “Chlrocompound a group of insecticide was detected in the contents of exhibits No.I, II, III and No.IV. No poison was detected in the contents of exhibit No.V.” 12. Dr. Sarabjit Singh (PW12) vide his report Ex.PO also opined that the cause of her death was chlorocompound a group of insecticides. 13. The accused has not led any evidence to prove if she has been treated by any doctor. No such medical evidence has been brought on record in order to establish if he had taken her to any hospital. She had taken poison on 29.9.1999. Though Dr. Kamal Singh (PW8), a private practitioner at village Asra has been made to say that she was brought by her husband to the hospital, yet he has failed to produce any record with regard to the fact that she was brought by her husband. According to him, he had referred her to D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana but no record from the D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana was summoned in order to prove if she had been taken by the accused where she was declared dead. Rather the story set up by the prosecution appears to be correct. 14. Now the question remains to be determined is as to “whether the accused maltreated the deceased on account of demand of dowry?” 15. In order to prove this fact Balraj Singh (PW1) complainant as well as brother of the deceased has stated in unequivocal words that besides the articles of dowry given by them at the time of marriage beyond their capacity, the accused was not satisfied and immediately after the marriage he started maltreating the deceased. He had been beating her and used to say that her father had not given the scooter and fridge in the dowry. He used to stop her from visiting her parental house. He had been allowing her to go only on rare occasions. While further describing about the maltreatment, he has stated that after the marriage the accused had brought Kamaljit Kaur to them only 3-4 times. He did not allow her to stay at the house but used to take her back with him and every time she was not allowed to stay with her parents despite her requests for 2-3 days even. He did not allow her to stay at the house but used to take her back with him and every time she was not allowed to stay with her parents despite her requests for 2-3 days even. The Criminal Appeal No. 626-SB of 2001 -5argument that no such letter disclosing about the maltreatment was written or any telephone was made by the deceased in that connection, is without any merit as it was only within seven months that the matrimonial alliance came to an end and it has been often seen in the families that the women folk in an anxiety and with the hope that her husband may change or mend his ways and with further fear that their matrimonial ties may not come to an end, do not make their torture public and keep it within family. Since it has come in evidence that she had informed her parents within two months of the marriage that the accused had been maltreating her, that is sufficient information and non disclosure of which does not attach any inference against the prosecution to conclude that the story was concocted or an after thought. 16. I also do not approve the other argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that since Balraj Singh (PW1) has stated that the accused did not leave the deceased at her parental house as he used to say that it was not possible for him to live without her, thus, it was contended that this aforesaid statement reflects the extent of love and affection between the accused and the deceased, then why he would torture her and raised demand of scooter and fridge. In this regard it is observed that the case of the prosecution from the very beginning is that the accused had been raising demand of scooter and fridge from the parents of the deceased and she had complained about the same to her parents many a times and the fact that the accused was mentally torturing her and her parents for not allowing her to stay at her parental house. It appears that it was his way of torture that he used to project that it is difficult for him to pull on without her presence. It appears that it was his way of torture that he used to project that it is difficult for him to pull on without her presence. Thus, that does not reflect love and affections but the cleverness of the accused which he has been playing and projecting against the deceased and her parents. 17. Now coming to the statement of Balwant Singh, he has also reiterated the version as set up by the prosecution and corroborated the statement of his son Balraj Sigh. Both are consistent that the deceased had disclosed before them at the Rakhi festival about the demand and he had shown his inability to meet the demand. He is also consistent to the effect that the accused had been demanding fridge and scooter and that the accused had put a demand before him when they had come to meet him on Criminal Appeal No. 626-SB of 2001 -6the Rakhi festival itself. He was not cross-examined to impeach his veracity qua the aforesaid aspects of the case except for giving some suggestions that no such demand of dowry was made. 18. As regards the arguments that at the time when the deceased was beaten or tortured no FIR was lodged and no independent witness had been examined to prove the aforesaid facts. Even Taro was not examined. It may be observed that Taro being the resident of the village of the accused could not be trusted. It is also further seen that in matrimonial cases the dispute being purely of private and secret nature arises within the four walls of the house and such disputes are not normally allowed to be exposed and dragged into the streets so that it may become the talk of the town that is why the family members, who are well conversant with the events going on between the couple, are the best witnesses to prove the incidents happening between them. 19. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides that in cases where the ingredients of dowry death are proved and the witnesses so state with regard to maltreatment of the deceased on account of demand of dowry, then the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 19. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides that in cases where the ingredients of dowry death are proved and the witnesses so state with regard to maltreatment of the deceased on account of demand of dowry, then the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Undoubtedly, that was a rebuttable presumption but in the absence of the accused having rebutted the presumption, the court will have to record the finding that this was the case of dowry death. In the instant case also though the prosecution has come with the specific plea that the accused had maltreated the deceased 3-4 times within seven months of the marriage on account of demand of fridge and scooter and ultimately on receipt of the message when Balraj Singh along with his father's sister's husband had visited her matrimonial house even then the accused were not found persuaded despite the request made by them that they were unable to meet their demands, the accused instead of agreeing to their request pounced upon them and insulted and abused them. It was only when they had gone to see Taro, the mediator of the marriage, in order to lodge the protest about the conduct of the accused, the deceased committed suicide. All this goes to show that the deceased may have been perturbed about the conduct of the accused, not only towards her but towards her brother and relative. 20. The other argument that the demand of scooter and fridge was not soon before her death also sans any merit. The marriage survived only Criminal Appeal No. 626-SB of 2001 -7for seven months i.e. from February, 1999 to September, 1999. The deceased appears to have not allowed her customary visits to her paternal family. It was only in the month of August, 1999 when she was allowed to go and at that time too the accused accompanied him and placed demand before Balwant Singh (PW2). It has also come in evidence that she visited 3-4 times to the house of her parents with the accused and continued talking about the demands of the accused which indicates that the accused never condoned his demands. It has also come in evidence that she visited 3-4 times to the house of her parents with the accused and continued talking about the demands of the accused which indicates that the accused never condoned his demands. It has also been recorded in the FIR and has been stated by Balraj Singh (PW1) that even on the day of the occurrence, Kamaljit Kaur called her brother Balraj Singh that the accused had been torturing her and she may be taken back. All this goes to show that the accused never condoned the act of maltreatment of the deceased on account of the demand of dowry. It has been settled by now that the word “soon before” is relative term which is required to be considered under the specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula could be laid for fixing any time limit. This term cannot be equated with the term “immediately before” and its opposite expression “soon after” as used in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. Thus, the Supreme Court has used the words “proximity” in order to assess if the maltreatment in relation to the demand of dowry was soon before death. As a matter of fact, if the death takes place on account of different reason than on account of harassment on account of demand of dowry and the earlier demand of dowry had no connection or proximity or nexus with the alleged death but if the demand continues subsisting then the said act of demand of dowry cannot be said to have been condoned by the accused. Hence, it is for the court to decide on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the said intervals in that particular case was sufficient to sniff its cord from the concept soon before her death. 21. Hence, it is for the court to decide on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the said intervals in that particular case was sufficient to sniff its cord from the concept soon before her death. 21. If we trace back to the evidence led by the prosecution, then on conjoint appreciation of the evidence and all the material circumstances coming to the surface, it would be observed that the deceased committed suicide on account of the maltreatment suffered by her soon before her death on account of demand of dowry. 22. No other argument has been raised. 23. Since the deceased was at the threshold of her life when she was forced to commit suicide, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be in the fitness of things for taking any lenient view in the matter. 24. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.