Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh @ Kaku & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 14 September, 2011
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003
Date of Decision: 14.09.2011
Sukhdev Singh @ Kaku & Ors. ...Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest.
---
Present: Ms.Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
---
A.N.Jindal, J.
This case relates to the cruelty upon a married lady at the hands of her in-laws and forcible abortion of her child in the womb for which seven accused were challaned in all. Out of them, three accused were acquitted, whereas appellants were convicted vide judgment dated 8.04.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 2 for 2 years and a fine of Rs.500/-, each under section 498-A IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.500/- each under section 313/109 IPC.
Paramjit Kaur in a complaint by way of affidavit dated 16.12.1996 reported to the police that she was married to Sukhdev Singh accused on 1.12.1995 as per Sikh rites. Lot of dowry articles were given to the accused at the time of marriage but still they were not satisfied and continued beating and maltreating her on account of bringing insufficient dowry. On 21.3.1996 they were given a motor- cycle as per their demand but then they placed another demand of furniture articles and 51 beddings. After some time she became pregnant but the accused on 10.4.1996 forcibly took her to Laxmi Hospital, Gurdaspur and while saying that they would not allow her to bear the child till their demands are fulfilled, got her aborted.
When the complainant was in the hospital, her father Dalbir Singh along with lamberdar Ajit Singh reached there and objected to the act of the accused, upon which Sukhdev Singh and Jaspal Singh confessed their guilt and gave in writing by affidavit Ex.PF/Mark X in that regard and regretted about their act, but even thereafter, they did not mend their ways and ultimately they refused to keep her in their house. On the basis of aforesaid affidavit FIR Ex.PW 8/A was recorded. The accused were arrested. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in court.
On commitment, the accused persons were charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 313 Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 3 read with Section 109 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate charges, the prosecution examined complainant Paramjit Kaur (PW 1), Dr.Anju Bahri (PW 2), Jagir Singh Draftsman (PW 3), Kewal Krishan (PW 4), Ajit Singh (PW
5), Smt. Deepo (PW 6), Dalbir Singh (PW 7), SI Pritam Singh (PW 8) and SI Jagtar Singh PW 9). PWs HC Palwinder Singh, C.Rajesh Kumar. However, Vikram Chohan, Harbans Singh, Balwinder Singh, Baljit Singh, Swaran Singh and Surinder Singh were given up being unnecessary and Dr.Vijay Laxmi and Om Parkash were not examined having been won over.
When examined under section 313 Cr.PC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Om Parkash (DW 1) Narinder Kumar Clerk (DW 2) and Hardial Singh (DW 3); and tendered copy of judgment Ex.DD and copy of order Ex.DE.
The trial resulted into conviction.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Ms.Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, representing the appellants has assailed the judgment on various grounds viz. statement of Paramjit Kaur being contradictory has lost credibility and reliability. There is delay in lodging the FIR. No specific evidence has come forth to prove the cruelty upon the complainant. No authenticity could be attached to the affidavit Ex.PF and the letters Ex.P.1 and Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 4 Ex.P.2 written by the complainant to her father, as the same are concocted documents.
Heard. Sukhdev Singh is the husband, Kashmir Kaur, mother-in-law and Jaspal Singh is husband's brother and Jaswinder Kaur is the husband's sister of the complainant.
The allegations against the appellants are two fold; i) that they had been harassing and maltreating her on account of demand of dowry and (ii) they, with mala fide intention, got aborted Smt. Paramjit Kaur forcibly from the doctor at Laxmi Hospital, Gurdaspur.
In order to prove these allegations, complainant Paramjit Kaur, while appearing in the witness box as PW 1, has fully supported the prosecution case. She has narrated the above story in the manner that all the accused were harassing her on account of demand of dowry. First they had demanded motor-cycle and thereafter they started demanding TV and refrigerator and other articles and they were threatening for not to rehabilitate her unless their demands are fulfilled. She has further stated that in the month of January, 1996, when the pregnancy was confirmed by the doctor at Bahri hospital, Dina Nagar, the accused threatened that they would not allow the child to take birth unless their demands are fulfilled by her parents. She conveyed this message to her parents through letter Ex.P.1. Both the letters Ex.P.1 and P.2 indicate about the cruelty committed upon the complainant by the accused and demands raised by them. Letter Ex.P.2 further reveals that the complainant was pregnant. She has further stated that after the Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 5 pregnancy was confirmed she was taken to Dhariwal Hospital for abortion but she refused saying that she (complainant) was week, thereafter she was again taken to Pannu Hospital, Gurdaspur where also the doctor refused to do so. Then on return to the house, she was beaten by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law in the presence of the accused. She tried to put off the matter with regard to the abortion saying that she would undergo abortion after the marriage of her cousin but the accused did not agree. She wrote a letter Ex.P.2 conveying the intention of the accused but even thereafter she was maltreated continuously by the accused. While narrating the story with regard to the abortion, she has testified that on 9.04.1996 she was taken to Laxmi Hospital, Gurdaspur owned by Dr.Vijay Laxmi, where she was forcibly administered medicines resulting into abortion. She also proved prescription slips Mark X.1 and Mark X.2 given by the doctor. She has also proved the writing Ex.PF on the stamp paper wherein the accused had confessed having got aborted the complainant against her wishes.
Her testimony stands corroborated by her father Dalbir Singh (PW 7) and Ajit Singh lamberdar (PW 5). They have duly narrated the sequence of events explaining as to in what manner the accused had been demanding dowry, harassing her and got her aborted. Dalbir Singh (PW 7) has also proved letters Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 written by her to him and affidavit Ex.PF sworn by Sukhdev Singh and Jaspal Singh confessing their guilt. Smt.Deepo (PW 6) who was go of the marriage between the parties, has identified Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 6 appellants in the court and has testified that the letters written by Smt. Paramjit Kaur were handed over to her by her father Dalbir Singh. Kewal Krishan (PW 4) is another witness. He has proved the writing Ex.PF, whereby the accused had admitted their guilt.
The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding delay in lodging the FIR sans any merit. No doubt, miscarriage had taken place on 10.4.1996 but the complaint was lodged against the accused on 16.12.1996 and FIR was registered against them on 27.12.1996 but this delay stands duly explained. Evidence reveals that after the abortion on 10.4.1996, the accused Sukhdev Singh and Jaspal Singh had confessed their guilt vide affidavit Ex.PF on the same day i.e. 10.4.1996. However, it transpires that after tendering the apology, they had taken the complainant to their house. Obviously, the father of the complainant with a view that marriage between the parties may not go to rough weather, did not proceed against the accused but unfortunately the accused again started harassing and maltreating her and turned her out of the house. Then she complained to the police forthwith. Thus, this delay in lodging the FIR took place on account of the reason that Dalbir Singh wanted the matrimonial life of his daughter to be destroyed but the accused did not mend their ways, therefore, ultimately case was got registered.
The other argument, that letters Ex.P.1 and P.2 are concocted and fabricated, is without any merit. On perusal of the record it transpires that the letters Ex.P 1 and P.2 were taken by the Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 7 Investigating Officer into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW8/B immediately after the registration of the case. Dalbir Singh (PW 7) has also supported this fact that the complainant had written these letters to him. No evidence has been led by the accused in order to prove if these were forged or fabricated documents.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that Kewal Krishan (PW 4) an attesting witness to the writing/affidavit Ex.PF, has resiled from his statement, therefore, the same cannot be said to have been proved.
Nevertheless, Kewal Krishan (PW 4) was declared hostile, yet during his cross-examination, he has fully supported the prosecution case including the execution of writing Ex.PF by accused Sukhdev Singh and Jaspal Singh. Not only this, Dalbir Singh (PW 7) has also proved the execution of this document. Accused have failed to rebut the execution by stating that the documents do not bear their signatures. The affidavit is on a stamp paper attested by Ajit Singh lamberdar who has also proved the execution of the document. It has been attested by the Executive Magistrate. The accused have not summoned the Executive Magistrate to prove that they had not suffered any such affidavit before him.
Next argument, with regard to non-examination of doctor, who had conducted the abortion, has also no merit, particularly in view of the suggestion given to the complainant Smt. Paramjit Kaur to the effect that she had suffered abortion on account of her Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 8 weakness. This part of the statement of Smt. Paramjit Kaur coupled with the affidavit Ex.PF duly establish that "abortion without consent"
had not been denied by the accused. Further, this fact also stands corroborated by Dr.Anju Bahri (PW 2) who proved the prescription slips/reports Ex.PB, Ex.PC and Ex.PD, which also indicate that Smt. Paramjit Kaur was pregnant and her pregnancy was confirmed from the writing of the complainant and the statement of Dr.Anju Bahri PW (PW 2) and affidavit Ex.PF.
Thus, no doubt to the following facts could be raised:-
1. The complainant was married to accused Sukhdev Singh;
2. She had become pregnant and her pregnancy was confirmed on 10.1.1996 by PW 2 Dr.Anju Bahri;
3. The accused did not want the child and were threatening her that they would not allow child to be born unless their demands are fulfilled.
4. They took her to the hospital of Dr.Vijay Laxmi at Gurdaspur and got her aborted on 19.4.1996.
An independent witness Ajit Singh (PW 5) has also specifically stated that abortion of Smt. Paramjit Kaur was conducted by the doctor on the instigation of accused forcibly and without her consent. Thus, non-examination of Dr. Vijay Laxmi is insignificant and does not in any way create any doubt over the prosecution case.
It may further be observed that document Ex.PF suffered Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 9 by Sukhdev Singh and Jaspal Singh before the Executive Magistrate would be treated as an admission made by the accused with regard to their guilt. In other words, an extra-Judicial confession has been proved by Kewal Krishan (PW 4) and Dalbir Singh (PW 7). In the absence of any plausible evidence, this document cannot be ignored which is sufficient to lend strength to the prosecution case and the court to form an opinion that the accused had been maltreating Smt.Paramjit Kaur and got her forcibly aborted.
The accused have tried to establish that there was no demand of motor-cycle as Smt. Paramajit Kaur had sold this motor- cycle to Rajwant Singh. Nevertheless the aforesaid documents do not prove the case of the defence to the hilt. The documents indicate that father of the complainant had purchased motor-cycle and given it to the accused though it was registered in the name of the complainant. Mere fact that the said motor-cycle was sold after registration of the case, it hardly affects its merits.
The defence plea as set up by the accused is not of any consequence. The order Ex.DE, which is being tried to be projected as a protection to the accused, indicates that they were released on bail on 28.5.1997 after the custody of more than 90 days. The documents Ex.D.1 and Ex.DD to Ex.DH reveal that motor-cycle was in the name of Smt. Paramjit Kaur which was sold by her to Rajwant Singh after the registration of the case.
Other defence witness namely Om Parkash (DW 1) has proved deed of dissolution of marriage. Narinder Kumar (DW 2) has Crl. Appeal No.836-SB of 2003 10 proved the document regarding motor-cycle. Hardial Singh (DW 3) has simply stated that the accused Jaspal Singh is living at village Mahadev Kalan for the last 13-14 years. But all these witnesses are of no help to the case of the accused and hardly sufficient to discard the prosecution version as a whole. Accused appear to be dare devils. They misused the helplessness of the complainant who had come to their house after being married with Sukhdev Singh and started exploiting her womanhood and by torturing her placing conditions on her well being in the house, They were not satisfied with the fulfillment of the demand of motor-cycle but they started placing other demands and got her aborted forcibly.
Resultantly, the case of the prosecution could be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
No other argument has been raised.
No grounds to interfere.
In the wake of aforesaid discussion, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) 14.09.2011 Judge rp