Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 781 (PNJ)

Pal Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-03-10

M.JEYAPAUL

body2011
JUDGMENT : M. Jeyapaul, J. Accused Pal Singh, Santokh Singh and Gian Kaur were convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each u/s 304-B IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo a further period of rigorous imprisonment for two months each u/s 498-A IPC. Both the sentences of all the accused are ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the appeal by all the accused before this Court. 2. The brief story of the prosecution is that the victim Surjit Kaur was given in marriage to accused Pal Singh on 3.12.1993. At the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry. But still PW4 Bakshish Singh, the father of the victim Surjit Kaur, gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. Just 20 days prior to the occurrence, the victim Surjit Kaur came down to the parental home and informed PW3 Baljit Singh and PW4 Bakshish Singh, the brother and father of the deceased respectively, that a scooter was demanded by all the accused. PW3 and PW4 alongwith ex-Sarpanch Jatinder Singh proceeded to the house of the accused. All the three accused made a demand of scooter. Four days prior to the occurrence, Surjit Kaur informed PW3 that the accused taunted her, but no demand of scooter was made at the time of such taunting. On 14.12.1996 Surjit Kaur was taken to the hospital by the first accused Pal Singh. She died in the hospital itself. 3. PW1 Dr. Gurpal Singh, Senior Medical Officer attached to Civil Hospital, Batala, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Surjit Kaur on 15.12.1996 and found that her nails, limbs and ear lobulus were bluish in colour. He has opined that Surjit Kaur died due to aluminum phosphide pesticide within about 36 hours prior to the post mortem examination. 4. On the side of the defence as many as four witnesses were examined including the first accused Pal Singh. 5. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW3 Baljit Singh and PW4 Bakshish Singh in the background of medical evidence returned a verdict of conviction as stated supra. 6. 4. On the side of the defence as many as four witnesses were examined including the first accused Pal Singh. 5. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW3 Baljit Singh and PW4 Bakshish Singh in the background of medical evidence returned a verdict of conviction as stated supra. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 are found to be self contradictory. It is his submission that no case for demand of dowry was made out. It is his submission that the trial Court has completely misread the evidence on record and convicted all the three accused inspite of the fact that the second and third accused had already crossed 75 years of age. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the testimony of PW4 was amply corroborated by the testimony of PW3. The medical evidence also lends support to the case of the prosecution. It is his submission that the trial Court has rightly returned verdict of conviction as against all the accused. 8. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that no demand of dowry was made either prior to the marriage or at the time of marriage. Even subsequent to the marriage till about 20 days prior to the occurrence, there was no demand of dowry. It appears that the husband and wife lived for about three long years. They had been blessed with a child also. The above factum is corroborated by DW1 Kulwant Singh who in fact made arrangement of this alliance between accused Pal Singh and deceased Surjit Kaur. It is his version that no demand of dowry was made at all at the time when the marriage was performed between the first accused and Surjit Kaur. 9. Now the Court will have to analyse the evidence available on record to find whether there was any demand of dowry after about three years of marriage of the first accused with Surjit Kaur. PW3, the brother of the deceased Surjit Kaur, would depose during the course of chief examination that about 20 days prior to the occurrence Surjit Kaur came down to the parental home and informed him and his father that all the accused made demand of a scooter as dowry. PW3, the brother of the deceased Surjit Kaur, would depose during the course of chief examination that about 20 days prior to the occurrence Surjit Kaur came down to the parental home and informed him and his father that all the accused made demand of a scooter as dowry. But during the course of cross-examination he would depose that about 3/4 months prior to the occurrence such a demand of scooter was made by the accused. PW3 has come out with a further version that about four days prior to the occurrence, Surjit Kaur happened to meet him and informed him that the accused were taunting her. But PW3 was very assertive that Surjit Kaur has not complained that there was a demand of dowry at that point of time. He would further depose that when PW3 and PW4 proceeded to the matrimonial house of Surjit Kaur, a demand of scooter was made by the first accused Pal Singh in the presence of his parents. It is not the version of PW3 that all the three accused made a demand of scooter at the time when they went to the house of the first accused to enquire about the complaint Surjit Kaur had made with them, It is also in evidence that it was only the first accused Pal Singh who took Surjit Kaur to the hospital for treatment. PW4 Bakshish Singh, the father of the deceased, would also admit that there was no demand of dowry made 20 days prior to the occurrence. He had made an improvement in his testimony that all the three accused made a demand of scooter when PW3 and PW4 alongwith ex-Sarpanch of the village went to the house of Pal Singh. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, I find that PW3 and PW4 have come out with a self contradictory version as to the demand of dowry made by all the three accused. The materials on record do not suggest any nexus between the death of the deceased Surjit Kaur and the alleged demand of dowry made by the accused. It is on record that the second accused Santokh Singh and the third accused Gian Kaur were 79 and 74 years old respectively at the time of occurrence. The materials on record do not suggest any nexus between the death of the deceased Surjit Kaur and the alleged demand of dowry made by the accused. It is on record that the second accused Santokh Singh and the third accused Gian Kaur were 79 and 74 years old respectively at the time of occurrence. The allegation that the second and third accused at such an old age made a demand of dowry and taunted the deceased Surjit Kaur does not stand to reason. 11. But PW3 Baljit Singh has categorically deposed that deceased Surjit Kaur about four days prior to the occurrence expressed her insecurity in the matrimonial house on account of continuous taunting by the first accused. First accused has come out with totally malicious defence to suppress the suicide committed by his wife. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the provision u/s 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When cruelty at the hands of the husband is established in a case where the wife committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, presumption arises u/s 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the wife had committed suicide on account of abetment by the husband. 12. In view of the above, I find that the prosecution has established that the first accused Pal Singh has committed an offence u/s 306 IPC as Surjit Kaur had committed suicide on account of cruelty committed by him. As far as the other two accused are concerned, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the offences charged against them. 13. Therefore, the conviction of all the three accused u/s 304-B and u/s 498-A IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court stand set aside. Instead, the first accused Pal Singh alone is convicted for the offence u/s 306 IPC and he is sentenced to the period of four years, four months and eight days he had already undergone. The fine amount of Rs. 500/- as well as default sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is maintained. The first accused Pal Singh shall pay the said fine within 15 days from the date of judgment. Failing which non bailable warrant be issued by the trial Court to apprehend the accused to undergo the default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment. 500/- as well as default sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is maintained. The first accused Pal Singh shall pay the said fine within 15 days from the date of judgment. Failing which non bailable warrant be issued by the trial Court to apprehend the accused to undergo the default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment. The second and third accused, namely, Santokh Singh and Gian Kaur respectively, are acquitted of all the charges. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.