Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1347 (PNJ)

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-10-04

INDERJIT SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT : INDERJIT SINGH, J. 1. Appellants Kartar Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Tej Kaur have filed the present appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2003, passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which they have been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each under the aforesaid Section. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of statement Ex. PH of Karnail Singh, complainant, which he got recorded to police on 30.08.1999. The complainant, in his statement, stated that his daughter Paramjit Kaur (deceased) was married with accused Harbhajan Singh about three years prior to the occurrence and one female child was born out of their wedlock. After sometime of the marriage, all the accused started harassing and maltreating Paramjit Kaur for bringing less dowry, about which she had been telling whenever she visited her parental house. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from Paramjit Kaur which she had to take from her parents but the complainant could not meet the said demand. Two years prior to the occurrence, the accused, due to non-fulfilment of their demand, turned Paramjit Kaur out of their house. Paramjit Kaur stayed in her parental house for one year. Thereafter, the complainant and one Mangal Singh, mediator of the marriage, went to the house of accused and after persuading Paramjit Kaur, they left her there. But after few days, the accused again started maltreating and harassing Paramjit Kaur. 3. Two days prior to the occurrence, accused Harbhajan Singh and Paramjit Kaur visited the house of complainant. Harbhajan Singh asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as his parents were insisting for the said demand. Paramjit Kaur also disclosed about giving maltreatment by the accused to her. However, the complainant persuaded accused Harbhajan Singh and Paramjit Kaur was sent back along with Harbhajan Singh. 4. On the next day, Mangal Singh, Mediator of the marriage, came to complainant and informed him that Paramjit Kaur had consumed some poisonous substance and she was lying admitted in the hospital. On the intervening night of 29/30.08.1999, Paramjit Kaur had died. The complainant reached hospital at night time. 4. On the next day, Mangal Singh, Mediator of the marriage, came to complainant and informed him that Paramjit Kaur had consumed some poisonous substance and she was lying admitted in the hospital. On the intervening night of 29/30.08.1999, Paramjit Kaur had died. The complainant reached hospital at night time. In the morning, the complainant went back and got recorded his statement Ex.PH to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Inquest proceedings were conducted and postmortem on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur was also got conducted. After necessary investigation, challan against accused Harbhajan Singh and Kartar Singh was presented before the Court whereas accused Tej Kaur was shown in column No.2 of the challan. Lateron, she was summoned on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused. Finding a prima facie case against all the accused, they were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Karnail Singh, complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW2 Dr. K.K. Aggarwal mainly deposed regarding conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur on 30.08.1999 at 2:10 p.m. As per the doctor (PW2), the cause of death in the present case was due to organo phosphorous poisoning which was ante-motem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW3 Gurbachan Singh, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding scaled site plan Ex.PD. PW4 Shavinder Kumar mainly deposed regarding printing of wedding card Ex.P1 at his press. PW5 Constable Baldev Krishan mainly deposed regarding delivery of special report to Illaqa Magistrate. PW6 ASI Amarjit Singh and PW7 Head Constable Baldev Singh are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.PJ and Ex. PK respectively. PW8 Sub Inspector Davinder Singh, who was with the police party, mainly deposed regarding the investigation. PW9 ASI Gurjant Singh, who was the Investigating Officer of this case, mainly deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present case. 7. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of prosecution. PW9 ASI Gurjant Singh, who was the Investigating Officer of this case, mainly deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present case. 7. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Accused Harbhajan Singh also pleaded that he belongs to Bauria Biradari. In their brotherhood, there is custom that all the expenses of the marriage are incurred by the husband side. There was no demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased on his part. His parents Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur used to live separately from him. His wife Paramjit Kaur, deceased, remained depressed on account of the fact that she was not blessed with a son and due to that reason she had consumed poisonous substance he took her for treatment to G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot where she was treated and later on died. He had sent information to her parents. Statement of Karnail Singh is concocted and it has been fabricated after due deliberations and consultations. 8. In defence, the accused examined DW1 Hari Singh, Member Panchayat, who mainly deposed that in their caste, no dowry is transferred or exchanged. The father of the bridegroom used to bear all the expenses of the marriage. DW2 Avtar Singh, Sarpanch, also deposed the same facts which were stated by DW1 Hari Singh. DW2 Avtar Singh also stated that Harbhajan Singh (accused) and his parents used to live separately from each other. 9. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as stated above. 10. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there are only vague and general allegations against all the appellants-accused. No specific instance of any maltreatment by appellant Harbhajan Singh has been given. There is only one statement of PW1 Karnail Singh regarding demand of dowry etc., which is not supported or corroborated by any other evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that parents of appellant Harbhajan Singh were residing separately from Harbhajan Singh. PW3 Gurbachan Singh, Draftsman, in scaled site plan Ex. PD has also shown two separate compounds in the house of appellants and DWs have also deposed that parents of Harbhajan Singh were residing separately from Harbhajan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that parents of appellant Harbhajan Singh were residing separately from Harbhajan Singh. PW3 Gurbachan Singh, Draftsman, in scaled site plan Ex. PD has also shown two separate compounds in the house of appellants and DWs have also deposed that parents of Harbhajan Singh were residing separately from Harbhajan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that demand of dowry has not been proved. Paramjit Kaur has committed suicide because she desired to give birth to male child instead of female child. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants contended that appeal should be allowed and appellants should be acquitted accordingly. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that case of the prosecution has been duly proved. Demand of dowry has also been proved. All the accused had maltreated and harassed Paramjit Kaur (deceased). She committed suicide within seven years of the marriage in her matrimonial house and there is evidence regarding demand of dowry. Therefore, presumption of dowry death lies against the accused and there is no cogent defence evidence on record to rebut the same. Therefore, learned State counsel contended that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned State counsel. 13. From the evidence on record, I find that Paramjit Kaur (deceased) was married with Harbhajan Singh about 3 years ago from the date of occurrence. About five months prior to the occurrence, she gave birth to a female child. There is no cogent evidence on record to support the defence version that she committed suicide as she desired to give birth to a male child instead of female child except the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is nothing to corroborate this defence version. Therefore, defence version of the accused is not proved by bringing cogent evidence. Otherwise also, female child was born about five months prior to the occurrence then what was the reason for her to commit suicide on that day. The statement of complainant Karnail Singh (PW1), father of deceased Paramjit Kaur, shows that there was demand of Rs. 10,000/- from the side of husband Harbhajan Singh and Paramjit Kaur was maltreated and harassed in her matrimonial house due to non-fulfilment of said demand. The statement of complainant Karnail Singh (PW1), father of deceased Paramjit Kaur, shows that there was demand of Rs. 10,000/- from the side of husband Harbhajan Singh and Paramjit Kaur was maltreated and harassed in her matrimonial house due to non-fulfilment of said demand. She remained at her parental house for one year as per statement of PW1 Karnail Singh. There is no cogent explanation from the accused side as to why Paramjit Kaur (deceased) remained at her parental house for one year. PW1 Karnail Singh has deposed consistently as per prosecution version. He has stated that two days earlier to the occurrence, accused Harbhajan Singh came to him and demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from him. There is no material contradictions or material improvements in the statement of PW1 Karnail Singh. There is also nothing in his cross-examination which may make his statement unreliable. 14. From the evidence on record, I find that PW1 Karnail Singh is truthful, trustworthy and reliable witness and the Court can safely place reliance on his statement. His statement is duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and investigation of the case. Otherwise also, there is nothing on the record to show as to why PW1 Karnail Singh would depose falsely against accused Harbhajan Singh, husband of Paramjit Kaur (deceased). The version given by DW1Hari Singh and DW2 Avtar Singh that in Bauria caste, no dowry is exchanged also extends no benefit to the accused in the present case. The demand was of Rs. 10,000/- in cash and these DWs have not filed any representation or passed any resolution in Gram Panchayat or made any complaint regarding false implication of the accused. Both these DWs belong to the village of accused Harbhajan Singh and, therefore, they seem to be procured witnesses. The prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence against appellant Harbhajan Singh, husband of Paramjit Kaur (deceased). He is to rebut the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act by producing the evidence but he has not led any evidence to rebut the same. Paramjit Kaur died within seven years of marriage and the occurrence took place in her matrimonial house. He is to rebut the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act by producing the evidence but he has not led any evidence to rebut the same. Paramjit Kaur died within seven years of marriage and the occurrence took place in her matrimonial house. The fact that two days prior to the occurrence also demand of dowry was raised by accused Harbhajan Singh supports that maltreatment and harassment on the ground of demand of dowry had been given soon before the occurrence. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal qua appellant Harbhajan Singh. 15. As regarding appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur, I find that there are vague and general allegations against them regarding maltreatment and harassment. No specific instance of maltreatment or harassment and how it was given by appellants Tej Kaur and Kartar Singh to Paramjit Kaur (deceased) has not been given either in the FIR or in the statement of complainant Karnail Singh in the Court. PW3 Gurbachan Singh, Draftsman, who prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD, has shown two courtyard in the same house, one belonging to Paramjit Kaur (deceased) wife of accused Harbhajan Singh and other to Tej Kaur and her two sons. The statement of PW3 Gurbachan Singh creates doubt in the prosecution version regarding the fact whether Tej Kaur and Kartar Singh were residing with accused Harbhajan Singh or not. Further, DWs have also deposed that parents of Harbhajan Singh were residing separately from Harbhajan Singh. This is further supported from the fact that during investigation accused Tej Kaur was found innocent and was kept in column No.2. As there are only vague and general allegations without any specific particulars or specific instances regarding harassment or demand of dowry against appellants Tej Kaur and Kartar Singh and in view of the fact that demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made by accused Harbhajan Singh prior to the occurrence and in view of the fact that reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version whether accused Tej Kaur and Kartar Singh were residing jointly or separately from Harbhajan Singh, a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version regarding the involvement of appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur and the benefit is to go to them. Hence, giving benefit of doubt to appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur, they are acquitted of the charges, as framed against them. 16. Hence, giving benefit of doubt to appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur, they are acquitted of the charges, as framed against them. 16. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal qua appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur is accepted and qua appellant Harbhajan Singh is dismissed. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur stand discharged. 17. Since appellant Harbhajan Singh is on bail, granted by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2003, therefore, he is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities to complete remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authorities shall proceed against him in accordance with law.