Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 88 (PNJ)

Gurprit Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-01-30

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18/22.09.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby, they were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case as recorded by the learned trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as follows:- “2. In nut-shell, the case of the prosecution, as unfolded by Manjinder Singh son of Satnam Singh, resident of House No.319, Azimgarh Road, Azimgarh Road, Abohar before ASI Atma Singh, is that the marriage of his elder sister Manjit Kaur was got arranged by Kulwant Singh son of Jagtar Singh resident of Village Khai Pheme Ke, who is the husband of the sister of Gurcharan Singh and Gurcharan Singh aforesaid is the husband of his (complainant) another sister. Her marriage was solemnized with Gurprit Singh accused on 14.10.2007 according to Sikh rites. Since it was simple marriage, no dowry was given at the time of marriage, but after some days of the marriage, Gurprit Singh accused, his father Gurcharan Singh and mother Manjit Kaur started harassing Manjit Kaur for not bringing dowry and also started raising the demand of dowry, upon which he (complainant) and Kulwant Singh who acted as mediator in the marriage of his sister with Gurprit Singh accused, visited the house of the accused and took up the matter with them. At that time, all the three accused started that they felt insulted and humiliated in the Mohalla as no dowry was given at the time of marriage and further that in order to habilitate Manjit Kaur (since deceased) in her in-laws house, he (complainant) and Gurcharan Singh visited the house of accused after 2/3 days of DIWALI and purchased furniture worth about Rs.30000/- and handed over the same to them. But even then, the in-laws of her sister were not satisfied. They started harassing and maltreating his sister to fulfil the demand of gold ornaments. Then he came to Ferozepur at the in-laws house of his sister and took her to her parental house at Abohar. But even then, the in-laws of her sister were not satisfied. They started harassing and maltreating his sister to fulfil the demand of gold ornaments. Then he came to Ferozepur at the in-laws house of his sister and took her to her parental house at Abohar. On 1st December 2007, the marriage of Sukhwinder Kaur, sister of accused Gurprit Singh was scheduled to take place on the occasion of marriage of Sukhwinder Kaur, he (complainant) gave a gold necklace weighing 2 ½ tolas including ear rings to his sister and gold rings were given to Gurprit Singh and his father Gurcharan Singh. Manjit Kaur was left at the house of her in-laws at that time. But despite that fact, accused did not desist from harassing and maltreating his sister. He took up the matter with his relatives and mediator Kulwant Singh and asked him to visit the house of in-laws of his sister to make them understand and accordingly, on 7.1.2008, Kulwant Singh visited the house of the accused and left the house after making them understand. Kulwant Singh told the entire matter to him (complainant) telephonically. He also ran up his sister from his cell phone on 7.1.2008 at night and at that time, it was told by Manjit Kaur (since deceased) that in case Kulwant Singh would not have come and intervened, he (complainant) would have found her dead body. 3. On the following day i.e. 8.1.2008 at about 9 AM, Gurcharan Singh accused informed him (complainant) telephonically that Manjit Kaur is in precarious condition and they should reach immediately at her in-laws house. Then he accompanied by his mother Krishan Kaur and brother-in-law (sister's husband) Gurcharan Singh went to the house of in-laws of his sister and found the dead body of his sister hanging with the iron grills of the staircase. At that time, Kulwant Singh had also reached there. By leaving his family members by the said of the dead body of Manjit Kaur, he (complainant) accompanied by Kulwant Singh was going to inform the matter to the police station, but ASI Atma Singh met him near the railway crossing to whom he got recorded his statement Ex.P15. The contends of his statement were read over and explained to him by SI Atma Singh and after admitting the same to be correct, he appended his signatures in English script. The contends of his statement were read over and explained to him by SI Atma Singh and after admitting the same to be correct, he appended his signatures in English script. It has been categorically stated by him that Manjit Kaur has committed suicide due to the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by Gurprit Singh and his parents Manjit Kaur and Gurcharan Singh on account of bringing insufficient dowry.” 3. All the accused-appellants were charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, to which, they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, which are as under:- PW1 Jiwan Lal, proved the quotation/bill of purchase of furniture, Ex.P1. PW2 Rajnish Chawla, proprietor, Hind Radios, Sadar Bazar, Ferozepur Cantt, who proved bill, Ex.P2, regarding purchase of one TV 20 inches on 11.11.2007. PW3 HC Balbir Singh, tendered his affidavit, Ex.P3. PW4 Dr. NP Singh, senior member of the board of Doctors, which conducted autopsy on the dead-body of deceased, Manjit Kaur, proved copy of the post-mortem report, Ex.P4/A. PW5 Constable Rajesh Kumar, photographer, clicked the photographs on the dead body of Manjit Kaur and prepared video CD of the place of occurrence. PW6 Manjinder Singh, complainant, is the brother of the deceased, Manjit Kaur. PW7 Krishan Kaur, the mother of the deceased, corroborated the version of her son Manjinder Singh, complainant. PW8 SI Atma Singh, the Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation and upon its completion, presented the challan against the accused. PW9 Mohinder Soni, is the jewellery who proved preparing of gold ornaments in lieu of old jeweller given by Manjinder Singh, complainant and proved the bill, Ex.P30. 5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellants denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. Accused-Gurprit Singh pleaded that “I work as Granthi in Gurudwara. I and my wife were living separately from my parents. Prior to the occurrence, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha son of Diwan Singh of village Jand Wala Meera Sangla, who is massi's brothher-in-law (Dewar), son of the deceased, came to my house and stayed there for one week under the pretext of selling medicines. I and my wife were living separately from my parents. Prior to the occurrence, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha son of Diwan Singh of village Jand Wala Meera Sangla, who is massi's brothher-in-law (Dewar), son of the deceased, came to my house and stayed there for one week under the pretext of selling medicines. During this period, I suspected some relation between deceased and said Sukhwinder Singh and complained about that to Kulwant Singh was the mediator in my marriage, who came on 7.1.2008 at our house and made her understand and further told this fact to the mother of deceased, who telephonically rebuked her, because of which she committed suicide. There was no demand at all by me. My farther called the parents of the deceased and mediator Kulwant Singh and informed them. I have been falsely implicated in this case”. Accused Gurcharan Singh and Manjit Kaur, also took the plea that they live separately from their son Gurprit Singh. It was a simple marriage and there was no demand of dowry. 6. Before the trial court, it was argued on behalf of the defence that the marriage in question was a simple marriage; there was no demand of dowry either before or after the marriage; and the articles allegedly purchased by the complainant for giving as dowry were purchased by the accused for giving the same in the marriage of his sister, Sukhwinder Kaur. 7. After analyzing the entire evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as noticed at the outset. Hence, the present appeal, which was admitted by this Court on 12.01.2010. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that it was a simple marriage and deceased, Manjit Kaur, came to her matrimonial home in three wearing apparels; neither dowry was demanded nor given in the marriage; there is no specific allegation against accused-Gurcharan Singh and Manjit Kaur and there is no specific entrustment of dowry articles. He further argued that Kulwant Singh, mediator, who could be the witness, was not examined and there is no independent corroboration to the statements of PW6 and PW7. He further argued that recovery of articles was from the bedroom of the husband-wife, which proves that both were living separately from the parents of the husband. He further argued that Kulwant Singh, mediator, who could be the witness, was not examined and there is no independent corroboration to the statements of PW6 and PW7. He further argued that recovery of articles was from the bedroom of the husband-wife, which proves that both were living separately from the parents of the husband. He argued that Gurcharan Singh and Manjit Kaur have been falsely involved, being the parents of the husband. 9. On the other hand, the learned State counsel vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. He further argued that the prosecution case is proved by the statement of PW6, Manjinder Singh, brother of deceased-Manjit Kaur, which is corroborated by PW7-Krishan Kaur, mother of the deceased. He argued that both the witnesses have categorically proved that there was demand of dowry by the appellants, soon before death. He prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 11. In a case of dowry death, the prosecution has to prove the following essentials in order to bring the case under the purview of section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code:- (1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (3) She must have been subject to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. 12. Section 113 B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before the death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, then the Court shall presume that such person has committed the “dowry death”. 13. In this case, the fact of marriage of accused-Gurprit Singh and Manjit Kaur, since deceased, on 14.10.2007, and that Manjit Kaur died an unnatural death on 08.01.2008, are not in dispute. 14. The only question to be decided in this case is as to whether the unnatural death was due to the demand of dowry soon before the death. 15. This Court has carefully perused the entire evidence on record. 14. The only question to be decided in this case is as to whether the unnatural death was due to the demand of dowry soon before the death. 15. This Court has carefully perused the entire evidence on record. In his deposition, PW6, Manjinder Singh, has deposed that the marriage of his sister Manjit Kaur took place on 14.10.2007, with accused-appellant Gurprit Singh. It was a simple marriage. At the time of marriage, no dowry was given. He proves that after marriage, Gurprit Singh, his father Gurcharan Singh and mother Manjit Kaur, started harassing his sister Manjit Kaur for not bringing dowry. He proves that he purchased furniture worth Rs.30000/- which was given to all the accused. The accused continued harassing his sister and raised the demand of gold ornaments. This witness further proves that he gave gold ornaments to the appellants but they continued to harass the deceased to bring more dowry. This witness further proved that on 08.01.2008, her sister committed suicide while hanging on the grills of the staircase the help of her 'chunni'. This statement is corroborated by PW7, Krishan Kaur, mother of the deceased. 16. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Gurprit Singh, took the plea as stated above in para No.5. This plea does not find favour with the Court because the stand taken by the husband is not proved by any defence witness. There is no evidence regarding the staying of Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha for one week at the residence of the husband-wife under the pretext of selling medicines. Kulwant Singh, mediator of the marriage, who could be the best witness, was not examined in support of his defence plea. So, the plea taken by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not supported by any defence witness and is not accepted. 17. The testimony of PW6 Manjinder Singh, and PW7 Krishan Kaur, is assailed on the ground that there is no independent corroboration to the statements of these witnesses. PW7 is the mother of the deceased while PW6 is the brother of the deceased. This argument is not acceptable as statements of both the witnesses are cogent, trustworthy and reliable, so far as demand of dowry is concerned qua the husband. PW7 is the mother of the deceased while PW6 is the brother of the deceased. This argument is not acceptable as statements of both the witnesses are cogent, trustworthy and reliable, so far as demand of dowry is concerned qua the husband. PW6 Manjinder Singh categorically stated that after some time of the marriage, the accused started harassing his sister, Manjit Kaur, for not bringing dory; this fact was disclosed to him by Manjit Kaur telephonically upon which he and mediator, Kulwant Singh, went to the house of accused at Ferozepur and talked to the accused. He further stated that the accused replied that they have suffered insult in the mohalla for not giving the dowry. He further stated that after Diwali, 2007, he purchased furniture worth Rs.30,000/- and gave to the accused. He further stated that the accused did not desist from causing harassment to his sister and again started raising demand of gold, which too, was met in December 2007, but they continued to harass Manjit Kaur. This statement is fully corroborated by PW7, Krishan Kaur. Their statements are in consonance with each other on material aspects. They were cross-examined but nothing favourable could be found by the defence. This being a family affair, they might have thought it improper to join an outsider. PWs Kulwant Singh and Manjit Kaur, wife of Kulwant Singh were given up as having been won over by the accused. 18. From the statements of these witnesses, it is held that there was demand of dowry soon before death. The judgment of conviction and sentence, qua husband-Gurprit Singh, is hereby affirmed, and the same is maintained. 19. Now coming to the appeal filed by father-in-law Gurcharan Singh, and mother-in-law, Manjit Kaur, there is evidence on record that they had been residing separately. This is admitted in cross-examination of PW6, Manjinder Singh, which is reproduced as under:- “XXX by Sh. AS Kamboj, Adv. It is correct that all the articles MO-1 to MO-21 were got recovered by Gurprit Singh from the room in which he along with his wife, Manjit Kaur, since deceased, used to live. The receipts bill were handed over by me to the police in respect of all these articles. XXXX XXXX XXXX” These lines support the defence plea that the parents-appellants were residing separately from the husband and the deceased. 20. The receipts bill were handed over by me to the police in respect of all these articles. XXXX XXXX XXXX” These lines support the defence plea that the parents-appellants were residing separately from the husband and the deceased. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and ors. (2000)5 SCC 207 has held as under:- “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.” 21. It is argued that if at all any demand of dowry was raised, these appellants would not have been the beneficiary of the dowry articles. The husband was to receive and enjoy the dowry articles. When a lady dies in her in-law's family on account of demand of dowry, some times, the family of the lady choose to rope in all the family members in the dowry death case, because they had to severe all relations with the in-law's family. Thousands culprits may go scot-free but a single innocent person may not languish in jail by any error of judicial judgment. There is possibility of roping father-in-law Gurcharan Singh and mother-in-law Manjit Kaur, being the parents of the husband, to take revenge of the death of the deceased, so, they are given benefit of doubt without commenting on the prosecution evidence. 22. Thus, the appeal qua appellants Gurcharan Singh and Manjit Kaur, is accepted, their conviction and sentences are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them, by way of abundant caution. They are on bail. Their bonds shall stand discharged. 23. 22. Thus, the appeal qua appellants Gurcharan Singh and Manjit Kaur, is accepted, their conviction and sentences are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them, by way of abundant caution. They are on bail. Their bonds shall stand discharged. 23. The appeal qua appellant-Gurprit Singh, is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.