Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwaljit Singh Alias Pappu vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001
Date of Decision: July 31, 2013
Kanwaljit Singh alias Pappu
...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Yogesh Gupta, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2001, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, he was held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 306 IPC. However, other co-accused namely Surinder Kaur, Amarpal Kaur, Manpreet Kaur and Amarjit Kaur were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR was registered on the basis of application filed by Gurpreet Singh to the Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -2- SSP, Patiala. As per version of the complainant, his sister Gurbax Kaur was married with Kanwajit Singh on 28.01.1990 and her name was changed to Inderpreet Kaur. It is the case of the prosecution that sufficient dowry was given as per demand of the accused. A few days after the marriage, sister of the complainant came to Phagwara and told the complainant that her husband and his father, mother, sisters are greedy persons and used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Sister of the complainant was beaten and was kept without meals and all this was disclosed to the complainant. Accused demanded colour television and complainant and his father gave `11,000/-. Two other sisters of the complainant were married in Patiala with Harvinder Singh and Satinder Singh and his sister used to tell them about demands made by the accused as well as the beatings given to her. In March, 1992, accused harassed his sister and demanded ` 1 lac to expand the business and at that time ` 60,000/- was paid to Kanwaljit Singh. At that time, accused told them to arrange ` 40,000/-. On 24.04.1997, sister of the complainant telephoned her brother-in-law and the same was attended by his sister Rajni and it was told to her that she was beaten up and was not allowed to come out of the house and asked her to telephone at Phagwara. On the same day, some poisonous substance was administered to sister of the complainant and no relative was informed and after her death, brother-in-law of complainant informed them on telephone about the incident and complainant along with his parents came to Patiala. Sister of the complainant had injury marks on her Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -3- neck, arms as well as hair were pulled, which showed that she has been killed after administering some poisonous substance. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused- appellant and other co-accused.
On presentation of challan against accused-appellants, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case, the accused-appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 306 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Gurbhajan Singh, who is father of the deceased. He deposed as per prosecution version. PW-2 Dr.Deepak Walia mainly deposed regarding conducting of post-mortem examination on the dead body of Inderpreet Kaur on 25.04.1997. As per doctor, no mark of external injury was present. After receiving report of Chemical Examiner, he gave opinion that cause of death in this case was the result of poisoning by aluminium phosphide. PW-3 Gurpreet Singh, is the brother of the deceased and complainant. He deposed as per prosecution version. PW-4 Parminder Kaur, is the mother of the deceased. She also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-5 DSP (D) Bhupinder Jit Singh Virk, who conducted enquiry on the basis of complaint dated 29.05.1997 filed by PW-3 Gurpreet Singh and he proved his report Ex.PE . PW-6 Narinder Singh mainly deposed that on 24.04.1997, he had gone to the house of his sister. When he passed in front of house of Kanwaljit Singh, he heard noise as if Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -4- someone was being beaten. Someone was crying and raising shrieks. It was noon time at about 1.30 P.M. He told this fact to his sister, who cautioned him not to interfere as that was the routine and internal matter of the accused. PW-7 Kulwinder Kaur, is sister of PW- 6 Narinder Singh. She also supported the statement of PW-6. PW-8 Inspector Sat Pal Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding recording of FIR and preparation of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused- appellant and other co-accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Accused-appellant Kanwaljit Singh further pleaded that they were living happily with his parents and unmarried sister. Gurbax Kaur alias Inderpreet Kaur used to remain ill and on 24.04.1997, she took some tablets by mistake being medicine and at that time no family member was present in the house. On coming to know, he took Gurbax Kaur to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where she was given treatment but she expired on the same day and intimation regarding this was given to her parents. Parents, brothers and son along with other relatives of the deceased came to Patiala. After their arrival, they verified the facts and after that DDR No.13 dated 25.04.1997 was lodged in the Division No.2, Patiala by Gurbhajan Singh, father of the deceased. At that time, Gurbhajan Singh was accompanied by other relatives including complainant and they got recorded their statements that their daughter Inderpreet Kaur was Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -5- living with her husband happily and no complaint of whatsoever nature was there. On the basis of that DDR and statements, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were carried out by the police and later on this false application was filed by Gupreet Singh.
In defence, accused-appellant examined DW-1 Ram Dayal, ASI (Retd.), DW-2 Usha Rani, Assistant, DW-3 Harkesh Singh, Senior Clerk, DW-4 C-I Amrik Singh, DW-5 Ajit Singh Chadha, DW-6 Jaspal Singh, DW-7 Sukhdev Singh, DW-8 Anand Mishra, Salesman, DW-9 Janak Dalari, DW-10 Harbhajan Singh, Chief Pharmacist and DW-11 Ajit Singh Chadda, Taxation Advisor.
On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case firstly Inderpreet Kaur deceased died after seven years of the marriage. The marriage took place on 28.01.1990 and she died on 24.04.1997 and she had three children at that time. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that there was no evidence regarding any immediate demand of dowry or any harassment to the deceased. At the time of death of Inderpreet Kaur, intimation was given to her parents, brother and everybody was present and they got lodged a DDR in the police station that Inderpreet Kaur was living happily with her husband and the statements were also recorded and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted and none of the relatives of the deceased Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -6- including father, brother, mother etc. stated any facts regarding demand of dowry, harassment, beatings etc. The complaint was filed on 29.05.1997 i.e. after more than one month by Gurpreet Singh, brother of the deceased, after due deliberation and concoction, which itself creates doubt in the prosecution version. He next argued that there is not an iota of evidence to show any maltreatment, abetment or demand of dowry immediate before the occurrence. Even, statements of PWs that there were marks of injury on the dead body of Inderpreet Kaur, are not supported and corroborated by medical evidence. PW-2 Dr.Deepak Walia has not found any such injury. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the version of the complainant is improbable. If there would have been any demand of dowry, or harassment to Inderpreet Kaur or any beatings would have been given on that day and injuries would have been there on the dead body, then there was no reason for the complainant and his other family members, not to lodge report against the accused at that very time. Rather, as per evidence, PWs have stated that accused Kanwaljit Singh himself took the complainant to police station Division No.2. If there would have been any guilty mind, why the accused- appellant will take the father and other family members to police station himself. He next argued that DDR Ex.D11 also shows that accused-appellant is innocent. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, argued that there being merit in the appeal, it should be accepted and accused-appellant should be acquitted.
On the other hand, learned Asstt. Advocate General, Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -7- Punjab argued that case of the prosecution has been duly proved. The FIR has been registered against the accused after due enquiry. He further argued that PWs have proved abetment to suicide, harassment and beatings given to the deceased and also demand of dowry. Learned State counsel, therefore, argued that there being no merit, the appeal should be dismissed.
I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
From the evidence on record, I find that admittedly an unnatural death took place after seven years of the marriage. Three children were born out of the wedlock of deceased and accused- appellant Kanwaljit Singh. There is no evidence on record that at any earlier occasion, any matter was reported to the police, Women Cell or any Panchayat was convened. There is only one allegation regarding demand of dowry of ` 1 lac and payment of the same in the year 1992. After that there is also another statement that ` 11,000/- has been paid in the year 1996, but there is no documentary evidence to prove these payments. Similarly, there is nothing on the record that any demand was raised or it was pending. There is also no evidence on record that immediate before the occurrence, there was any dispute between the parties. The prosecution has tried to build up a case that on 24.04.1997 when Inderpreet Kaur died, she was given beatings. All the material PWs have also deposed regarding injuries on the dead body of Inderpreet Kaur. PW-6 Narinder Singh and his Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -8- sister PW-7 Kulwinder Kaur also stated that some beatings were given on that day at the time of occurrence to Inderpreet Kaur. But all these oral statements have not been supported and corroborated by medical evidence. No injury of any type on the dead body of Inderpreet Kaur was found at the time of post-mortem. So, no reliance can be placed on these statements that injuries were given on that very day to the deceased by accused-appellant. Therefore, on this ground, a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version.
Further, I find that the version of the prosecution also looks improbable. If father, brother and other relatives were in the knowledge that accused-appellant Kanwaljit Singh and his family members were harassing or maltreating or giving beatings to Inderpreet Kaur or raising demand of dowry etc., then the natural course for them was to lodge a report immediately at that time. Similarly, if they have found injuries on the person of dead body, then the natural course for them was to lodge a report at that very time. It is in the evidence that the parents, brother, relatives along with some 18-20 persons were present on that day at Patiala and many persons were also present when the DDR was got registered by father of the deceased, that they do not want to take any action and Inderpreet Kaur was living happily. Now, the explanation of PW-1 that his signatures were obtained by the police on blank papers, cannot be believed. No educated person will sign blank papers on asking of the police or anybody, especially when he was the victim and not the accused. Even, the present complainant Gurpreet Singh was also Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -9- present at that time. Their statements were also recorded in the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. but no such allegation was levelled at that time either in the DDR or in the statements nor any application was given to the SHO or to the higher authorities for registration of the case. Even, no complaint was sent by post immediately after the occurrence. The complainant Gurpreet Singh, who is brother of the deceased Inderpreet Kaur filed this complaint after one month and four days levelling all these allegations. Therefore, there was sufficient time for concoction and it is a delayed version and not supported by any cogent documentary evidence. Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version. The accused-appellant has examined DW-1 to DW-11 to prove defence version. The copy of the DDR Ex.D11 supports and corroborates the defence version. It is written in the DDR that Inderpreet Kaur was residing in her in-laws' house in proper manner and there was no complaint regarding any beating nor there was any other complaint. It is also written in the DDR that Inderpreet Kaur has taken the tablet inadvertently or by mistake. This DDR which was got registered by the complainant side on that very day supports and corroborates the defence version, which creates doubt in the prosecution version.
Further, I find that there is no cogent evidence on record to prove any abetment immediate before the occurrence. The version that on that day beatings were given, cannot be believed as it is not supported and corroborated by any medical evidence.
Therefore, from the above, I find that a reasonable doubt Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-97-SB of 2001 -10- exists in the prosecution version and benefit of doubt is to go to the accused-appellant. Hence, giving benefit of doubt, the accused- appellant Kanwaljit Singh alias Pappu is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala are set aside. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
Resultantly, the present appeal stands allowed.
(INDERJIT SINGH)
July 31, 2013 JUDGE
Vgulati
Gulati Vineet
2013.08.29 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh