Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1361 (PNJ)

Lovpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab

2014-09-29

MUTTACI JEYAPAUL, SNEH PRASHAR

body2014
Sneh Prashar, J. 1. Appellants-accused Lovepreet Kaur and Gurmit Kaur were held guilty and were convicted for the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each vide order dated 19.07.2003. It was ordered that the fine amount, if recovered, shall go to the complainant and that the period of detention already undergone by each convict shall be set off against the period of sentence awarded to them. Precisely, the story of the prosecution was that Gurjant Singh was resident of Malli Patti, Sehna and was running a Kiryana shop alongwith Jasbir Singh son of Gurcharan Singh at Village Nainewal. He was married with Lovpreet Kaur alias Raj Kaur daughter of Gurmail Singh, resident of Khaiala Kalan about three and a half years ago. A female child was born out of their wedlock. The parents of Lovepreet Kaur were poor persons and about one and a half years prior to the date of occurrence, father of Lovepreet Kaur had borrowed a sum of ` 50,000/- from Gurjant Singh, which he did not return. Subsequently, Lovepreet Kaur again raised a demand of ` 50,000/- before Gurjant Singh for her parents. Gurmit Kaur, mother of Lovepreet Kaur, had come to their house for that purpose, but he was not ready to pay the money. Lovepreet Kaur threatened him that in case the demanded amount is not paid, she would kill the daughter and would also kill herself. On 24.08.2001, at about 8:00 P.M., after closing the shop Gurjant Singh alongwith his partner Jasbir Singh came back home. As they entered, they saw that in a room of the house, Gurmit Kaur, his mother-in-law was holding his daughter Kulbir Kaur from her arms and his wife Lovepreet Kaur was forcibly pouring some poisonous substance in her mouth. On being questioned, Lovepreet Kaur replied that she had given poison to the daughter to teach him a lesson for not giving money to her parents. Gurjant Singh and his companion Jasbir Singh raised an alarm on which the ladies left Kulbir Kaur and fled away. Gurjant Singh resorted to rescue his daughter but she died. On being questioned, Lovepreet Kaur replied that she had given poison to the daughter to teach him a lesson for not giving money to her parents. Gurjant Singh and his companion Jasbir Singh raised an alarm on which the ladies left Kulbir Kaur and fled away. Gurjant Singh resorted to rescue his daughter but she died. Hearing their shouts, Basant Singh son of Mohinder Singh came at the spot. Gurjant Singh while reporting the matter to the police stated that the motive behind the occurrence was that his in-laws were demanding money from him and he was reluctant to pay the same because the money earlier paid by him had not been returned. He added that nourishing the said grievance and with the common intention, Lovepreet Kaur and her mother Gurmit Kaur had killed his daughter by administering some poisonous substance to her. 2. Based on the statement of complainant Gurjant Singh, formal First Information Report was recorded and investigation commenced. The dead body of Kulbir Kaur was subjected to postmortem examination. In his report, the doctor opined that the mode of death was "asphyxia". Subsequently, on receipt of chemical examiner report on the viscera, the doctor gave opinion that the cause of death was chloro compound group of insecticide which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 3. Initially, the prosecution filed charge-sheet only against Lovepreet Kaur (accused No. 1) and Gurmit Kaur (accused No. 2) was found to be innocent and was not challaned. Subsequently, during the trial, on an application, presented by the prosecution, invoking the provision of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finding that Smt. Gurmit Kaur was equally liable for commission of offence, she was summoned by the Court to face trial alongwith accused Lovepreet Kaur. 4. Both the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. As many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges. After closure of prosecution evidence, in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Lovepreet Kaur pleaded that her husband Gurjant Singh had illicit relations with Jaswinder Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh, their neighbour. 5. As many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges. After closure of prosecution evidence, in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Lovepreet Kaur pleaded that her husband Gurjant Singh had illicit relations with Jaswinder Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh, their neighbour. Since she used to object and desist her husband to sever the illicit relationship and brought this fact to the knowledge of her mother Gurmit Kaur, Gurjant Singh considered her a major obstacle and he in conspiracy with Jaswinder Kaur killed her daughter in the house of Jaswinder Kaur and falsely implicated her and her mother in the present case. Accused Gurmit Kaur pleaded that on 25.08.2001, she was present in her house at village Khaiala, District Mansa and was taken by the police in the presence of Boota Singh, Member Panchayat, Gurdev Singh, Numberdar and Harmel Singh, Sarpanch. She too alleged that Gurjant Singh (complainant) had illicit relations with Jaswinder Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh and they both in connivance with each other had implicated her and her daughter falsely. 6. To prove the defence, set up by the accused, they examined DW 1 Boota Singh, DW 2 Sukhdev Singh, DW 3 Brij Mohan, Complaint Clerk of the Office of S.S.P., Barnala, DW 4 D.S.P. Darshan Singh, DW 5 Jagroop Singh, Record Keeper of Sessions Courts, Barnala and DW 6 Kulwant Singh, Judgment Writer of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barnala. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel representing the accused, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused (appellants) as indicated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts (appellants) preferred the instant appeal. 9. Heard the submissions made by Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel and Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Addl. AG Punjab. 10. The two star witnesses of the prosecution were Gurjant Singh, father of the deceased and Jasbir Singh, a neighbour, who both during the trial appeared as PW 2 and PW 3 respectively. Heard the submissions made by Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel and Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Addl. AG Punjab. 10. The two star witnesses of the prosecution were Gurjant Singh, father of the deceased and Jasbir Singh, a neighbour, who both during the trial appeared as PW 2 and PW 3 respectively. They unequivocally deposed that they were jointly running a shop in village Nanewal and on 24.08.2001 at about 8:00 P.M., when after closing their shop, they returned to their village Sehna and entered the house of Gurjant Singh they saw that in a room of the house, accused Gurmit Kaur was holding the small girl Kulbir Kaur from her arms, who was lying on the ground and Lovepreet Kaur was pouring some blue coloured poisonous substance into her mouth. When Gurjant Singh questioned what was happening, Lovepreet Kaur replied that since he had refused to pay ` 50,000/- demanded by her for her father, she had killed Kulbir Kaur to teach him a lesson. They raised shouts, which attracted Basant Singh to the spot and when they were taking care of Kulbir Kaur, both the ladies managed to flee away. The witnesses added that Kulbir Kaur died due to the poison administered to her. 11. PW 1 Dr. Subhash Singla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Kulbir Kaur, a small girl aged 1-1/2/2 years. He stated in detail the condition of the dead body found at the time of examination and proved the carbon copy of the postmortem report Ex. PA. He stated that the stomach, which was congested, was taken out for being sent to the Chemical Examiner with its contents. PW 1 proved Ex. PC the inquest report which was initialled by him. He further proved his opinion Ex. PE given on the basis of report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PD and deposed that in his opinion the cause of death was chloro compound group of insecticide which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He added that the mode of death in this case was "asphyxia". 12. The foremost argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants was that the police after investigation had found Gurmit Kaur was innocent and for that reason had not filed a charge sheet against her. He added that the mode of death in this case was "asphyxia". 12. The foremost argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants was that the police after investigation had found Gurmit Kaur was innocent and for that reason had not filed a charge sheet against her. DW 4 DSP Darshan Singh, Sub Division, Ferozpur, who conducted investigation on an application Ex. DX given by Gurmail Singh (husband of Gurmit Kaur) to DSP Ajaib Singh, proved his inquiry report Ex. DX/1 and the discharge report Ex. DY, according to which verification of facts revealed that Gurmit Kaur was innocent. Learned counsel contended that it was during the course of trial that the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, on which Gurmit Kaur was summoned as an additional accused. Admittedly, Gurmit Kaur was mother of Lovepreet Kaur wife of complainant Gurjant Singh and was resident of village Khaiala, Police Station Mansa. There was no occasion for her to be present in the house of Gurjant Singh and Lovepreet Kaur on the day of occurrence. It is only with a view to harass and pressurize Lovepreet Kaur that her mother was implicated as an accused with her. 13. Learned counsel emphatically argued that the statements of PW 2 Gurjant Singh and PW 3 Jasbir Singh, the two witnesses on whom the story of the prosecution rests, are not in tune with various material aspects of the case. They both stated that Lovepreet Kaur died at the spot whereas according to PW 1 Dr. Subhash Singla, fatal period of chloro compound group of insecticide is 30 minutes to several hours. Had the witnesses seen the accused pouring the insecticide in the mouth of Kulbir Kaur, the girl would not have died immediately when they had resorted to rescue her. It was not the story that the small girl died after 30 minutes or more than that after consumption of the insecticide. The inconsistency goes to the root of the case because it proves that the occurrence had not taken place at the time and place stated by the witnesses. It was not the story that the small girl died after 30 minutes or more than that after consumption of the insecticide. The inconsistency goes to the root of the case because it proves that the occurrence had not taken place at the time and place stated by the witnesses. Rather, it indicates that the insecticide was administered to the child much prior to the time stated by the witnesses and that further supports the plea of the accused that complainant Gurjant Singh himself in conspiracy with Jaswinder Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh, with whom he had developed illicit relations, had murdered Kulbir Kaur and had falsely implicated his wife Lovepreet Kaur to remove the hurdle in their way. 14. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel asserted that Gurjant Singh and Jasbir Singh were two young men aged about 25 years, yet they made no effort to overpower or chase and apprehend accused Lovepreet Kaur and her mother, who were both ladies. It also appears improbable that the ladies waited upto 8:00 P.M. i.e. the time when complainant Gurjant Singh used to normally return home, to administer insecticide, a poisonous substance, to the small girl Kulbir Kaur even when admittedly she was in their custody throughout the day when Gurjant Singh was away to his shop. 15. Likewise, learned counsel pointed out, both PW 2 Gurjant Singh and PW 3 Jasbir Singh stated that the small tin (Dabbi) from which blue coloured liquid was poured in the mouth of the deceased was left at the spot by the accused when they ran away and was taken in possession by the police. On the contrary, the Investigating Officer stated that no such tin (Dabbi) was lying at the spot or was taken in possession by him. Last but not least, both PW 2 Gurjant Singh and PW 3 Jasbir Singh stated that on shouts raised by them 15-20 persons from the neighbourhood had gathered at the spot. Despite availability of independent public witnesses, the police did not make an attempt to join them in investigation which shows that the investigation was tainted and the entire story was fabricated. 16. Having considered the above arguments in the light of evidence available on record, we find that they are completely devoid of merits. Despite availability of independent public witnesses, the police did not make an attempt to join them in investigation which shows that the investigation was tainted and the entire story was fabricated. 16. Having considered the above arguments in the light of evidence available on record, we find that they are completely devoid of merits. Indeed, at the initial stage, accused Gurmit Kaur was not challaned by the police on the pretext that she had been found innocent during investigation. However, the fact remains that at the time of lodging First Information Report, she was specifically named as co-accomplice of Lovepreet Kaur by complainant Gurjant Singh. The complainant had stated that he had seen the small girl lying on the ground and held by Gurmit Kaur from the arms when Lovepreet Kaur was putting some blue coloured liquid from a small tin (Dabbi) in her mouth. When Gurjant Singh stepped into the witness box for the first time on 16.02.2002, he reiterated his allegation contained in the First Information Report. Nothing new was added by him and the narration of occurrence already recorded in the First Information Report was reiterated in his deposition. The other eyewitness of the occurrence PW 3 Jasbir Singh corroborated his version on all material aspects without any flaw. 17. Importantly, the plea of accused Gurmit Kaur was that on the day of occurrence she was present in her own house situated in village Khaiala Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa and was not in the house of Gurjant Singh in village Sehna, as stated by him. However, her plea was not supported by her own witness DW 4 D.S.P. Darshan Singh, who conducted an inquiry into the incident on an application Ex. DX given by her husband Gurmail Singh to Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala. According to the report Ex. DX/1 of DW 4 D.S.P. Darshan Singh, at the time of occurrence, Gurmit Kaur was in the toilet of the house of complainant Gurjant Singh and therefore was innocent. Based on his findings, the discharge report Ex. DY was filed by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, DW 4 admitted that as per the inquiry held by him and his report Ex. DX/1, on the date of occurrence Gurmit Kaur was present in the house of Gurjant Singh. Here, it is also worthwhile to note that in his application Ex. Based on his findings, the discharge report Ex. DY was filed by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, DW 4 admitted that as per the inquiry held by him and his report Ex. DX/1, on the date of occurrence Gurmit Kaur was present in the house of Gurjant Singh. Here, it is also worthwhile to note that in his application Ex. DX, Gurmail Singh had remained completely silent about presence of Gurmit Kaur. He neither stated that on the day of occurrence his wife Gurmit Kaur was present in her own house in village Khaiala Kalan nor that she was not in the house of complainant Gurjant Singh. When presence of Gurmit Kaur at the site of occurrence could not be disputed by her witnesses, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the complainant that she was present in his house with accused Lovepreet Kaur and had actively participated in administering poison to the small girl Kulbir Kaur. The fact that she fled away from the spot alongwith her daughter/co-accused Lovepreet Kaur affirms the role attributed to her. 18. As proved from the medical evidence consisting of testimony of PW 1 Dr. Subhash Singla and the Chemical Examiner Report Ex. PD the small girl Kulbir Kaur died due to consumption of chloro compound group of insecticide which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW 1 Dr. Subhash Singla stated that the fatal period of chloro compound group of insecticide is 30 minutes to several hours. No doubt, PW 2 Gurjant Singh and PW 3 Jasbir Singh stated that the girl died at the spot but that was a statement made by laymen on the basis of their observation. Possibly the child on having been administered insecticide, that too by using force on her, may have become unconscious and had steadily slipped into COMA because of which PW 2 Gurjant Singh and PW 3 Jasbir Singh, who were looking after her, had observed that she was dead. Moreso, the statement of the doctor was not specifically with regard to a small child aged two years. In the postmortem report Ex. PA, the doctor specified that the time between the injury and death could not be ascertained and between the death and postmortem was more than two hours but less than 36 hours. The postmortem examination was conducted at 12:15 P.M. on 25.08.2001. In the postmortem report Ex. PA, the doctor specified that the time between the injury and death could not be ascertained and between the death and postmortem was more than two hours but less than 36 hours. The postmortem examination was conducted at 12:15 P.M. on 25.08.2001. From the statement of the doctor, it can be analyzed that since a very strong poisonous substance had been administered to the child aged hardly two years, it could have caused her death at the spot. 19. It was indeed, per chance that complainant Gurjant Singh and his companion Jasbir Singh arrived when accused Gurmit Kaur and her daughter Lovepreet Kaur were pouring the poisonous substance into the mouth of the small girl and were able to witness the occurrence. There appears nothing improbable in the story. It is not necessary that a mischievous mind would choose a particular time to commit the crime. It would go ahead with the planned objective at any time irrespective of the consequences. The complainant and Jasbir Singh could have chased and caught the ladies but that was not the priority for them at that critical moment. The natural reaction expected from them after they had witnessed the ladies giving poison to the small girl, was to take care of the girl and not run after the ladies to catch them. 20. It was one of the plea of the accused in their defence that complainant Gurjant Singh in conspiracy with Jaswinder Kaur wife of Jasbir, with whom he was having illicit relationship, had murdered Kulbir Kaur in the house of Jaswinder Kaur and had falsely implicated them to remove the hurdle in his way. The story was nothing but a counter allegation against the complainant. Had there been illicit relationship between complainant Gurjant Singh and wife of Jasbir Singh, they would not have been engaged in joint business and the later would not have come forward to appear as an eyewitness of the occurrence to support complainant Gurjant Singh. Rather, he would have been the first one to depose against Gurjant Singh. 21. No doubt, from the statement of PW 2 Gurjant Singh and PW 3 Jasbir Singh, it appears that on shouts raised by them, people from the neighbourhood had gathered but none was joined as witness in the investigation or was examined by the prosecution. Rather, he would have been the first one to depose against Gurjant Singh. 21. No doubt, from the statement of PW 2 Gurjant Singh and PW 3 Jasbir Singh, it appears that on shouts raised by them, people from the neighbourhood had gathered but none was joined as witness in the investigation or was examined by the prosecution. That again would not belie the statement of complainant and Jasbir Singh. The requirement of law is not to burden the file with voluminous ocular/documentary evidence. Only material, substantial and reliable evidence is required for proving the charges. Complainant would have been the last person to implicate his own wife for administering poison to his daughter. Jasbir Singh was not only a partner in business with Gurjant Singh but was also a neighbour and an independent witness. There is nothing on the file to indicate that he had any reason for being hostile against Lovepreet Kaur and her mother Gurmit Kaur. Being a neighbour he would not have implicated the appellants-accused falsely in a criminal case that too relating to murder of their own small daughter. Thus the genesis of the above discussion is that in our considered opinion, there is sufficient ocular evidence duly supported by medical evidence to prove that deceased Kulbir Kaur, a girl aged two years, was administered poison by her own mother accused Lovepreet Kaur and grand mother accused Gurmit Kaur. She died due to the poison given to her. The evidence of the prosecution being very much consistent cogent truth inspiring was sufficient for convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 302 read with Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentenced imposed on the appellants was quite justified. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.