Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 332 (PNJ)

Gurdev Kaur (Gurdebo) v. State of Punjab

2011-01-27

ARVIND KUMAR, HEMANT GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Arvind Kumar, J.:- The appellants are the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of deceased Baljinder Kaur, for whose murder they were tried and ultimately held guilty by the learned trial Court. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and each of them has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which the defaulter is required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case finds its origin in the statement (Ex.PD) made by Tarlochan Singh (PW5), the father of the deceased Baljinder Kaur, wherein it is mentioned that his daughter Baljinder Kaur was married with Ranjit Singh somewhere in the year 1992 and out of this wedlock two male issues are in existence. There was dispute over partition of property between his daughter and son-in-law on the one hand and mother-in-law, father-inlaw and brother-in-law i.e. the appellants on the other side. On 24.5.1999 when Ajit Singh (PW6), the brother of Baljinder Kaur had gone to her house to meet her, then Baljinder Kaur asked him to inform the parents about the teasing and maltreatment received by her at the hands of her in-laws over the property dispute and requested her father to come and solve the problem. The complainant on 25.5.1999 at about 5:00 p.m. when reached at the matrimonial home of his daughter along with Amarjit Singh (PW9), then they noticed Gurdebo, Balasa Singh and Surjit Singh, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law respectively coming out from the room of Baljinder Kaur. As soon as the complainant and Amarjit entered the room of Baljinder Kaur, they noticed her hanging with the roof by putting a plastic rope. She was made to lie on the ground and found already dead. The complainant suspected that his daughter was murdered by her in-laws, aforesaid on the property dispute. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, case FIR (Ex.PD/1) was registered by ASI Karnail Singh (PW2) and investigated upon by SI Sukhjit Singh (PW10). Special report was sent through C. Jugal Kishore (PW3). The dead body of Baljinder Kaur was sent to the general hospital for postmortem which was done by Dr. H.N. Sharma (PW1) and in his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from strangulation. Jasmeet Singh (PW8) prepared the scaled site plan. The case property was handled by HC Nirmal Singh (PW4). 4. The dead body of Baljinder Kaur was sent to the general hospital for postmortem which was done by Dr. H.N. Sharma (PW1) and in his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from strangulation. Jasmeet Singh (PW8) prepared the scaled site plan. The case property was handled by HC Nirmal Singh (PW4). 4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 27.5.1999 the accused suffered an extra judicial confession regarding committing the murder of Baljinder Kaur before Harpal Singh (PW7) and he produced them before the police, leading to their arrest. 5. Charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellants and during trial the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, referred to above. 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the case of the appellant was of denial and false implication. According to them they were living separately from Baljinder Kaur and have no concern with her death. 7. In defence they examined Ranjit Singh, husband of Baljinder Kaur as DW1 and DW2 Kartar Singh, a co-villager. 8. The learned trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence adduced on record, held the appellants guilty under Section 302 IPC for causing the murder of Baljinder Kaur and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned State counsel and with the assistance rendered by them, have carefully gone through the records of the case. 10. In this case the unnatural death of Baljinder Kaur is not in dispute. According to the prosecution she was murdered by the appellants while according to the latter she committed suicide following the mental distress on account of her ailment. The prosecution case rests upon the testimonies of Tarlochan Singh (PW5), Amarjit Singh (PW9) and Ajit Singh (PW6) the father, uncle and brother respectively of deceased. In their testimonies they claimed that Baljinder Kaur was harassed by the appellants on the property dispute and to end the same, the appellants murdered Baljinder Kaur. It is clear from their statements that none of them saw the appellants committing murder of Baljinder Kaur and the only circumstance the prosecution witnesses alleges is of noticing the appellants coming out of the room of Baljinder Kaur. It is clear from their statements that none of them saw the appellants committing murder of Baljinder Kaur and the only circumstance the prosecution witnesses alleges is of noticing the appellants coming out of the room of Baljinder Kaur. The theory of the prosecution of making extra judicial confession by the appellants before Harpal Singh (PW7) with regard to the murder of Baljinder Kaur received a major set back when PW Harpal Singh showed hostility towards the case of the prosecution and denied that the appellants had ever suffered any such extra judicial confession before him. In other words, there is no direct evidence against the appellant. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature and have shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. It can also not be forgotten that a great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. 11. The statement of Dr. H.N. Sharma (PW1) is very relevant. During autopsy on the dead body of Baljinder Kaur he found an antemortem ligature mark brownish red in colour encircling the neck with upper regions extending both front and back of neck except the area of occipital hair line, situated 3 cm below the right angle of mandible coming down to centre of neck in front and ending upwards the left side assuming a circular shape. Thyroid cartilage lamina was found fractured vertically on right side. The face as well as lips were cyanosed. According to him the death was within few minutes on account of asphyxia resulting from strangulation. 12. From the above symptoms, the homicidal death of Baljinder Kaur cannot be safely inferred for variety of reasons. Firstly, had she been murdered by the appellants by manual throttling there must have marks of struggle on her person or even bruises or rubbing marks on the neck. No doubt the prosecution claimed that broken bangle was recovered from the spot, but the statement of PW1 Dr. Firstly, had she been murdered by the appellants by manual throttling there must have marks of struggle on her person or even bruises or rubbing marks on the neck. No doubt the prosecution claimed that broken bangle was recovered from the spot, but the statement of PW1 Dr. H.N. Sharma is not suggestive of the fact that as to whether he noticed any external injury on her body or any injury on the hand corresponding the place she the deceased was wearing the bangles. Secondly, it has come in the statement of PW5 Tarlochan Singh and PW9 Amarjit Singh that when they entered the room they noticed Baljinder Kaur in a hanging position and according to PW5 Tarlochan Singh the appellants first committed the murder of Baljinder Kaur and then made her to hang with a plastic rope. But the post mortem report is not suggestive of presence of any kind of poison in the body. Asphyxia is found to be the cause of death and only a single ligature mark was found on her neck, except the area of occipital hair line which might be due to intervening of head hair of the deceased. Therefore, the circumstances, referred to above, points out that the deceased had committed suicide. 13. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses namely Tarlochan Singh, Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh, there is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of the appellants with that of the suicide committed by the deceased. In the FIR which was lodged with utmost promptness i.e. within two hours of the occurrence, it has been specifically said therein by the complainant that his daughter was maltreated by the appellants following the dispute over the partition of the property of Balasa Singh. Even a day before the occurrence, the deceased had sent a message through his brother Ajit Singh, who had come to her, to the effect that there is a continuous dispute and he (Tarlochan Singh) should come there for settlement. Similar is the statements of PW Ajit Singh and PW Amarjit Singh. From it, it is clear that there used to remain quarrel between the deceased and the appellants over the partition of the property. Similar is the statements of PW Ajit Singh and PW Amarjit Singh. From it, it is clear that there used to remain quarrel between the deceased and the appellants over the partition of the property. It has also come on record that though the six sons of appellants Balasa and Gurdebo were residing separately, but they have a common compound and Surjit Singh appellant was residing with his father and mother i.e. Appellants Gurdebo and Balasa Singh. Hence, from the evidence on record it is clear that she was given disrespect from time to time in her matrimonial home, following the dispute over partition of property. In support of the plea that deceased was suffering from some disease and she was mentally upset, under which circumstances she committed suicide, no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the appellants. No medical record or prescription of any kind is produced in this regard. Hence, the same is not acceptable. Thus, There cannot be any iota of doubt that the extreme mental cruelty and torture compelled the deceased to put an end to her life. The appellants were wholly responsible for creating all the circumstances which led the deceased to take an extreme step of putting an end to her life. 14. It was apparently the cruel conduct of the appellants which led the deceased to commit suicide and consequently, the offence of abetment of committing suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC is clearly made out against the appellants. 15. Although, there is no charge against the appellants under Section 306 IPC, but mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before this Court. The provisions of Section 221 of Cr. P.C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of the criminal Court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Reliance can be placed on the case of K. Prema S. Rao & Anr. Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & others, AIR 2003 SC 11 Hence, the case of the appellants fall under Section 306 IPC. 16. Reliance can be placed on the case of K. Prema S. Rao & Anr. Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & others, AIR 2003 SC 11 Hence, the case of the appellants fall under Section 306 IPC. 16. Faced with the situation, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the matter pertains to the year 1999 and the appellants are facing the agony of criminal proceedings for the last about 11 years and hence, a lenient view is sought. 17. Appellants Gurdebo and Balasa Singh were of 55 years and 60 years respectively at the time of judgment rendered by the learned trial Court in the year 2001 and by now they are about 65 and 70 years of respectively. Appellant Surjit Singh @ Shinda was 28 years of age at that time and has lost his fantasies of life in the corridor of the Courts interregnum. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that during all these years, they have acted in a manner prejudicial to the society. A lenient view can be taken towards them but subject to their payment of compensation to the sons of the deceased. 18. For the discussion above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is converted to one under Section 306 IPC and they are awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years and are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs, to be shared equally by them, which on realization shall be paid to the sons of the deceased. In case of non payment of amount, defaulter shall further undergo imprisonment for one year. The appellants since have not completed the aforesaid sentence of four years and are on bail, shall surrender before the CJM concerned forthwith, failing which their warrants of arrest be issued by the CJM concerned. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of CJM concerned forthwith. The Court below shall also ensure the disbursement of compensation, if realized, to the sons of the deceased, in equal shares. 19. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------