Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cra-S-463-Sb Of 2003 vs State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRA-S-463-SB of 2003
Harjinder Singh
...... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
2. CRR No. 1474 of 2003
Gamdoor Singh
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
Date of decision: 16.08.2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate,
for the appellant (in CRA-S-463-SB of 2003) and
for respondents No. 2 and 3 (in CRR No. 1474 of 2003).
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRR No. 1474 of 2003) and
for the complainant (in CRA-S-1474-SB of 2003).
JORA SINGH, J.
Harjinder Singh-appellant preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.2.2003, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in Sessions Case CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -2- No. 18 dated 25.9.2001, arising out of FIR No. 54 dated 7.6.2001, registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Section 304- B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of ` 20,000/- as compensation payable to Gamdoor Singh-complainant, father of deceased Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur. The period of detention during investigation or trial be deducted from the period of sentence of the convict.
Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, father and mother of Harjinder Singh-appellant were acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
Against acquittal of Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, CRR No. 1474 of 2003, was preferred by the complainant-Gamdoor Singh.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur (deceased) daughter of Gamdoor Singh-complainant was married to Harjinder Singh-appellant three months prior to the occurrence. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given but in-laws of Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, were not satisfied with the dowry articles. After the marriage, Harjinder Singh, father-in-law and Kuldip Kaur, mother-in-law, started maltreating and taunting Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, used to convey about harassment and demand of dowry to her father and other members.
About 4-5 days earlier to the occurrence appellant gave beatings to Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur (deceased) and had CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -3- demanded ` 50,000/-. Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, on telephone informed the complainant about the demand of ` 50,000/-. ` 10,000/- was arranged by the complainant and the payment was made to the appellant by Gamdoor Singh-complainant in the presence of Iqbal Singh S/o Bachitter Singh resident of village Kotli Ablu and Naib Singh, Member Panchayat, with a request to arrange the remaining payment at an early date. When the complainant along with Iqbal Singh and Naib Singh, were just to leave the house of the appellant then the deceased requested her father Gamdoor Singh-complainant to pay the remaining amount otherwise appellant may cause any harm to her life.
Despite best efforts by the complainant, he could not arrange for the remaining payment. On 7.6.2001, complainant along with his brother Chamkaur Singh, had gone to the house of the appellant to inform them about his inability to arrange the remaining payment and to see his daughter Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur (deceased). At about 6.00/7.00 p.m. when they reached at the house the appellant then he saw the dead body of his daughter Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, lying in the verandah. On enquiry about the cause of death, appellant failed to give any satisfactory reply. Gamdoor Singh- complainant had gone to the police station to lodge report but the police party headed by SHO Mukhtiar Singh, had met him near the turning of village Bhana. Statement of the complainant Ex. PD was recorded by SHO Mukhtiar Singh, at 10.30 p.m. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PD/1 was recorded at 11.15 p.m. on the same day. After sending ruqa to the police station, SHO Mukhtiar Singh, along with the CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -4- police party and complainant-Gamdoor Singh, had gone to the place of occurrence where dead body of Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, was lying. Inquest report Ex. PH was prepared. Dead body was handed over to the police officials for post-mortem examination. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan Ex. PL with its correct marginal notes was prepared. After post-mortem examination, dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. Clothes worn by the deceased were produced before the SHO Mukhtiar Singh and the same were made into sealed parcel sealed with seal bearing impression 'MS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PB attested by the witnesses. Case property was deposited with the incharge of the malkhana.
On 11.6.2001, Harjinder Singh-appellant was arrested by SI Major Singh. Sukhdev Singh, father-in-law and Kuldip Kaur, mother- in-law of the deceased were arrested by SHO Mukhtiar Singh. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court.
Offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. As per order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 ASI Balbir Singh, stated that on 8.6.2001, he had delivered special report to the Illaqa Magistrate at 4.20 a.m. On 8.6.2001.
CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -5-
PW-2 Constable Nanak Singh, tendered his affidavit Ex. PA.
PW-3 HC Tejinder Singh, stated that dead body was handed over to him and Constable Nanak Singh, for post-mortem examination. After post-mortem examination, clothes worn by the deceased along with gold ornaments were handed over to them and those were produced before SHO which were made into sealed parcel.
PW-4 HC Baljeet Singh, tendered his affidavit Ex. PC and stated that on receipt of ruqa Ex. PD, he had recorded formal FIR Ex. PD/1.
PW-5 Gamdoor Singh, is the father of the deceased and has reiterated his stand before the police.
PW-6 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, stated that on 8.6.2001 at 8.30 a.m. post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Gurjit Kaur and observed as under:
"It was a dead body of an average built and average nourished female wearing Jamuni colour suit i.e. Salwar (Ex. P-8), Kameez (Ex. P-10), Dupatta (Ex. P-9), Brassier (Ex. P-11), Golden chain around the neck (Ex. P-3), golden ear rings in both the ears, Murkian (small ear rings) in both ears (Ex. P-4) golden ring around the right hand finger (Ex. P-5), Silver Chhap around the ring finger of the left hand (Ex. P-6) and silver panjeb in both ankles (Ex. P-7). Post-mortem staining was present on the back. Rigor mortis was present in the entire body. Mouth and eyes were closed. Conjunctiva was congested. CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -6- Whitish froth was present around the mouth and nostrils. Cyanosis was present over the nails and lips. No internal or external injuries were present on the body.
Pleura, both lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. Stomach contained about 350 mls of semi-digested food smelling like kerosene. Bladder was empty. Uterus containing a dead foetus 8 cms long, weight 50 grams, eyes and nose were recognizable and the sex was not distinguishable."
Cause of death was due to consuming of chlorocompound poisoning.
PW-7 Naib Singh stated that he is the Panch. Gamdoor Singh-complainant is his brother from neighbourhood. Gamdoor Singh informed him about the demand of dowry and maltreatment by the in- laws of Gurjit Kaur. He along with Iqbal Singh, had gone with Gamdoor Singh to village Nangal. ` 10,000/- was paid to Harjinder Singh but Harjinder Singh was compelling Gamdoor Singh to pay the remaining amount.
PW-8 Parveen Kumar, Proprietor, Rajindera Press, Faridkot, proves the wedding card Ex. PK.
PW-9 SI Mukhtiar Singh, is the Investigating Officer. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -7-
Defence version of Harjinder Singh-appellant was that he is innocent. He was engaged with Kamalpreet Kaur on 10.3.2001 and marriage was performed on 31.3.2001. Kamalpreet Kaur, was taking medicines prior to marriage from Preet Nursing Home near Beej Bhandar, Mall Road, Faridkot. Kamalpreet Kaur was got checked from Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory, near Clock Tower Street on 19.4.2001 and was found pregnant. Prior to marriage she was under depression and frustrated. He was residing separately from his parents. There was no demand of dowry. Kamalpreet Kaur, was not harassed on account of dowry articles or cash.
Defence version of Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, was that they are innocent. Their son Harjinder Singh-appellant (deceased) was engaged with Kamalpreet Kaur on 10.3.2001. Marriage was performed on 31.3.2001. Harjinder Singh and his elder brother Jaskaran Singh are residing separately with their families. Both sons have separate land holding. They have separate mess and cultivation. They came to know that before marriage Kamalpreet Kaur, was pregnant. There was no demand of any dowry article or cash. Kamalpreet Kaur was not harassed for want of dowry.
In defence, DW-1 Malkeet Singh, Inspector Grade-II, Food and Supplies Department, Kotkapura, brought the summoned record and proved the Ration Card of Harjinder Singh-appellant and the Ration Card of Sukhdev Singh and his wife Kuldip Kaur. Ex. DC and DG are the photocopies of the entries of the register. Original Ration Card of Harjinder Singh-appellant is Ex. DH and Ex. DG is the original Ration Card of Sukhdev Singh and his wife Kuldip Kaur. The Ration Cards were issued in the year 1999.
CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -8-
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel, learned counsel for the revisionist and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant submitted that Harjinder Singh appellant has died on 18.8.2006 and this fact is clear from the death certificate produced by the learned State counsel on the last date of hearing. With the death of Harjinder Singh, the instant appeal is not to be abated because Harjinder Singh, was directed to deposit ` 20,000/- as compensation payable to Gamdoor Singh- complainant. Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur (deceased), was the legally wedded wife of Harjinder Singh-appellant (deceased). shagun ceremony was performed on 10.3.2001 whereas marriage was performed on 31.3.2001 at Milap Marriage Palace. According to Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu (PW-6), dead foetus, 8 cms long weight 50 grams, was found in the uterus. Nose and eyes of the foetus were identifiable that means foetus was 12 weeks old. Un-natural death at the in-laws house on 7.6.2001. As per post-mortem report, when uterus was found containing dead foetus 8 cm long weighing 50 grams then it means that deceased was pregnant before marriage on 31.3.2001. After marriage, when there was a check-up from Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory, near Clock Tower Street on 19.4.2001, deceased was found pregnant then she was under depression and frustration. Due to CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -9- depression and frustration deceased had committed suicide. There was no demand of dowry. Although death was within 7 years from the date of marriage and death was un-natural. When there was no demand of dowry or harassment on account of dowry then possibility of suicide on account of frustration and depression cannot be ruled out. When two views are possible then view favourable to the appellant is to be accepted. Parents of Harjinder Singh-appellant (deceased) were residing separately and this fact is clear from the ration cards Ex. DH and Ex. DJ. According to the prosecution story, payment of ` 10,000/- was made to Harjinder Singh-appellant. Sukhdev Singh, father-in-law and Kuldip Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased were rightly acquitted.
Learned State counsel submitted that Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur (deceased) was married to Harjinder Singh (deceased). Marriage was solemnized on 10.3.2001. Un-natural death of Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, in the house of her in-laws on 7.6.2001. Cause of death was due to poisoning. No documentary proof that the deceased had approached Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory, near Clock Tower and as per checking she was found pregnant before marriage. According to post-mortem report, dead foetus was noticed in the uterus. Foetus was 8 cm long, weighing 50 grams but as per Dr. Parekh, foetus was not three months old. Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, PW-6, who had conducted post-mortem examination, in examination-in-chief did not state a word that dead foetus was 12 weeks old. In cross-examination doctor stated that after about 12 weeks pregnancy, nose and eyes of foetus can be identified but doctor no where stated that foetus was 12 weeks old. According to the CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -10- defence version marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001 but this fact is not correct one because complainant when appeared as PW-5 then suggestion was given that marriage was not performed on 10.3.2001, in fact the marriage was performed much later. Clear cut case of the complainant that marriage was performed on 10.3.2001. After some cross-examination on 5.8.2002, further cross-examination was deferred. Then on the next date suggestion was given to Gamdoor Singh, that marriage was performed on 31.3.2001. In case, the appellant was sure that marriage was performed on 31.3.2001, then suggestion should have been given to Gamdoor Singh, when cross-examined on 5.8.2002, that marriage was performed on 31.3.2001. At the time of cross- examination on 5.8.2002, appellant was not clear on which date marriage was performed. On the next date i.e. on 23.8.2002, story was concocted that marriage was performed on 31.3.2001. In case, marriage was performed on 31.3.2001 then invitation card should have been produced in defence. Ex. PK, is the invitation card produced by the prosecution and as per Ex. PK shagun ceremony was performed on 9.3.2001. That means marriage was performed on the next day i.e. 10.3.2001 and in case, marriage was performed on 31.3.2001 then receipt regarding payment to owner of the marriage palace or the invitation card could be produced in defence. Granthi who had recited the lavans not produced in defence. Marriage certificate issued by the President of Gurudwara is not on the file. In the absence of documentary evidence regarding marriage on 31.3.2001, statement of Gamdoor Singh-complainant cannot be ignored. Evidence clearly shows that marriage was solemnized on 10.3.2001. When deceased was not pregnant before marriage then no question of frustration or CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -11- depression.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Sukhdev Singh, father-in-law and Kuldip Kaur, mother-in-law were residing jointly with Harjinder Singh-appellant (deceased). All were demanding dowry. They used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Few days earlier to the present occurrence, there was a payment of ` 10,000/- with a promise to arrange the remaining payment. Husband of the deceased and his parents are liable for punishment under Section 304-B IPC.
Admittedly, deceased namely Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, is the daughter of Gamdoor Singh-complainant. Gurjit Kaur was married with Harjinder Singh-appellant (deceased). According to the prosecution story, marriage was solemnized on 10.3.2001 whereas defence version of the appellant is that marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001. There was no demand of cash or dowry articles. In fact the deceased was pregnant before marriage. After medical check-up, when she came to know that she was pregnant before marriage then she was under depression and due to frustration, she had committed suicide.
To convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution requires to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that deceased was the legally wedded wife of the appellant. Un-natural death was within 7 years from the date of marriage at the in-laws house. Deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty or harassment was in connection with demand of dowry.
Gamdoor Singh-complainant is the father of deceased Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur and stated that marriage was CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -12- solemnized three months before the present occurrence. Occurrence is dated 7.6.2001. On 5.8.2002, Gamdoor Singh, was cross-examined. Suggestion was given that marriage was not performed on 10.3.2001. In fact marriage was performed much later. At the time of cross- examination on 5.8.2002, no clear cut suggestion to the witness that marriage was performed on 31.3.2001. Reply by Gamdoor Singh was that marriage was performed on 10.3.2001 and not after that. Further cross-examination was deferred then on the next date Gamdoor Singh stated that marriage of his daughter was performed on 10.3.2001 then suggestion was given to Gamdoor Singh that marriage was performed on 31.3.2001 but suggestion was denied by him. Invitation Card Ex. PK is on the file. Ex. D-1 is the photocopy of the invitation card Ex. PK. As per Ex. PK and Ex. D-1 bhog ceremony was to be performed on 9.3.2001 at 10.00 a.m., and shagun ceremony at 10.30 a.m. Ex. PK and Ex. D-1 shows that engagement was on 9.3.2001 at about 10.30 a.m. Normally after engagement marriage ceremony is performed on the next day. According to the prosecution story marriage was solemnized on 10.3.2001. According to the defence version, marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001 but no invitation card from the side of the appellant. Invitation card Ex. PK and Ex. D-1 are not from the side of Gamdoor Singh-complainant. Invitation card was from Sukhdev Singh, father of Harjinder Singh-appellant (deceased). Ex. D-1 was produced by the appellant, so, the appellant cannot wriggle out of Ex. D-1 and cannot argue that shagun ceremony was not performed on 9.3.2001. If marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001, then invitation card could easily be produced by the appellant. Marriage was solemnized at Milap Marriage Palace but no receipt regarding payment to the owner of CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -13- marriage palace. No receipt regarding payment to the caterer etc. Granthi who recited the lavans not produced in defence to state that marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001. When marriage was solemnized in the marriage palace then before marriage, marriage palace was booked. Receipt regarding booking of marriage palace is not forthcoming. Owner of the marriage palace could easily be produced in defence to state that marriage of Harjinder Singh was performed in the marriage palace on 31.3.2001. No relation of the appellant came forward to state that after shagun on 9.3.2001, marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001. In case, marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001, then suggestion could easily be given to Gamdoor Singh, when cross examined on 5.8.2002 that marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001 but suggestion was given to Gamdoor Singh on 5.8.2002 that marriage was not solemnized on 10.3.2001 and in fact the marriage was solemnized much later. On 5.8.2002, appellant was not clear that on which date marriage was solemnized. Further cross-examination was deferred then on the next date when Gamdoor Singh, was cross- examined then suggestion was that marriage was performed on 31.3.2001. No oral or documentary evidence on the file except suggestion to Gamdoor Singh that marriage was solemnized on 31.3.2001. Receipt regarding booking of marriage palace was with the appellant. At the time of cross-examination of Gamdoor Singh, appellant could easily bring receipt and put a specific question to him that shagun ceremony was performed on 9.3.2001 but marriage palace was booked for 31.3.2001 and regarding payment receipt was issued by the owner of the marriage palace. In the absence of documentary proof trial Court rightly opined that marriage of deceased was solemnized with CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -14- Harjinder Singh on 10.3.2001 and not on 31.3.2001.
Un-natural death of Gurjit Kaur at the house of the appellant on 7.6.2001. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, was conducted by Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu (PW-6). Cause of death was due to poisoning. Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, stated that at the time of post-mortem dead foetus 8 cm long, weighing 50 grams was found in the uterus. Eyes and nose were recognizable but sex was not distinguishable. In examination-in-chief, doctor did not state a word that foetus was 12 weeks old. In cross- examination doctor stated that after about 12 weeks pregnancy, the nose and eyes of a foetus can be identified. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per Dr. Modi, when foetus is 8 cm long and weight is 50 grams then foetus was 3 months old but in the present case, foetus was 8 cm long. Weight was 50 grams. According to Dr. Modi, when a foetus was 3 months old then length is 9 cms and weight is 90 grams but Dr. C.K. Parikh in his Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology on the point of development of foetus observed at page No. 479 of the book as follows:
"At the end of first month, the entire ovum is about the size of pigeon's egg. The length is about 1 cm. It weighs about 2.5 gms. The eyes are seen as two dark spots and the mouth as a cleft. The limbs appear as bud like processes.
At the end of second month, the foetus is about 4 cms in length and 15 grams in weight. Eyes and nose are recognizable. The hands and feet are webbed. The anus is seen as a dark spot. The CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -15- umbilical cord begins to develop. Clavicle, mandible, ribs and vertebrae show the center of ossification. The sex is not distinguishable.
At the end of the third month, the length is about 9 cms, and weight about 80 grams. Fingers are well separate. Nails begin to appear in the form of thin membranes on the fingers and toes. The sex is not yet distinguishable. Placenta is formed and differentiated."
According to Dr. C.K. Parikh, eyes and nose of the foetus are recognizable at the end of the second month of the pregnancy. In the present case, marriage was solemnized on 10.3.2001 and death was on 7.6.2001 that means eyes and noes of the foetus would be recognizable but the appellant failed to produce cogent and convincing evidence that marriage took place on 31.3.2001 and not on 10.3.2001. When appellant had taken specific stand that the marriage was performed on 31.3.2001 then appellant was to produce oral or documentary evidence regarding date of marriage but no evidence either oral or documentary. Defence version of the appellant was that deceased was got checked up from Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory near Clock Tower Street on 19.4.2001 and was found pregnant. So, when the deceased came to know that she was pregnant before marriage then she was under depression and frustration. Due to depression and frustration deceased committed suicide but report of the Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory, is not on the file. Concerned doctor or any other employee of Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory, was not summoned with record to state that deceased was got checked from the CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -16- laboratory on 19.4.2001 and at that time she was found pregnant. Admittedly, deceased was pregnant on 19.4.2001, as per post-mortem report but the question is whether deceased was pregnant before marriage on 10.3.2001. As per Dr. Parikh at the end of the third month length of the foetus is about 9 cm and weight is 80 grams. Fingers are well separate. Nails begin to appear in the form of thin membranes on the fingers and toes. The sex is not yet distinguishable. Placenta is formed and differentiated.
PW-6 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, stated that foetus was 8 cm long and weighing 50 grams but he did not stated that fingers are well separated and nails appeared in the form of membranes on the fingers and toes.
As discussed earlier, marriage was solemnized on 10.3.2001 and not on 31.3.2001, so, as per post-mortem report, deceased was not pregnant before marriage. When deceased was not pregnant before marriage then appellant was to explain why deceased committed suicide. When the wife is enjoying married life and there is no problem at the in-laws house then no question of suicide. Young married girl is to fight till death. She is not to commit suicide, when no problem from the side of in-laws. She is to commit suicide when she is subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Three months before the occurrence, deceased was married. Immediately, after marriage there was a demand of dowry. ` 50,000/- was demanded and ` 10,000/- was paid to the appellant with a promise to arrange remaining payment but appellant did not wait. Payment of ` 10,000/- was paid to the appellant in the presence of Iqbal Singh and CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -17- Naib Singh. In case, the deceased was happy at her in-laws house and appellant was not inimical towards the complainant and death was due to frustration or depression then there was no idea to name the appellant. After marriage when the appellant started misbehaving and maltreating the deceased for want of dowry then deceased used to inform the complainant that her in-laws are not satisfied with the dowry articles. They are maltreating and misbehaving her on account of insufficient dowry. Payment of ` 10,000/- before un-natural death at the in-laws house shows that Harjinder Singh-appellant (deceased) was rightly convicted by the trial Court.
Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, who were acquitted by the trial Court are the parents of Harjinder Singh-appellant (deceased). According to the story, they (Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur) Harjinder Singh-appellant started maltreating and taunting Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, on account of bringing insufficient dowry but allegation of the complainant is not correct one. In the complaint, not a word that Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Vague allegation that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but in-laws of Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, were not satisfied with the dowry articles and they started maltreating and taunting Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur, used to inform the complainant regarding demand and harassment. She was given beatings and there was a demand of ` 50,000/- but regarding beatings no MLR on the file. According to the prosecution story, ` 50,000/- in cash was demanded by Harjinder Singh. ` 10,000/- CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -18- was also paid to Harjinder Singh with a promise to arrange the remaining payment at the earliest. Defence version of Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, was that they are residing separately from Harjinder Singh.
In defence, DW-1 Malkeet Singh, Inspector Grade-II, Food and Supplies Department, Kotkapura, brought the summoned report. Ex. DB is the photocopy of the ration card bearing registration No. 27/16027 pertaining to Harjinder Singh and Ex. DC is the photocopy of the relevant register maintained in this regard. Ex. DD is the copy of the form D-1 on the basis of which this card was prepared and issued. Ex. DE is the photocopy of the ration card pertaining to Sukhdev Singh. Ex. DF and Ex. DG are the photocopies of Form D-1 and register respectively. Ex. DH and Ex. DJ are the original ration cards of Harjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh, respectively. The original ration card of Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, was issued in the year 1999, i.e. Before the present occurrence. When un-natural death at the in- laws house then an effort is made by the parents of the deceased to implicate all the close relations and the in-laws of the deceased on the allegation that husband, his father and mother used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Ex. PD is the statement of Gamdoor Singh-complainant and when he was cross-examined then admitted that in Ex. PD no reference that Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, had protested as to why he has not brought the remaining payment Gamdoor Singh, in cross-examination admitted that he cannot say if Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, have different ration cards. Learned trial Court while dealing with the role of Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the role CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -19- of Sukhdev Singh and his wife Kuldip Kaur and the nature of demand of dowry is for the benefit of Harjinder Singh-appellant. ` 10,000/- as per story was handed over to Harjinder Singh. Gamdoor Singh and the second witness Naib Singh, in their statements Ex. PD and DA, respectively did not report to the police that Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, had protested and demanded remaining amount and in case, ` 50,000/- was to be paid then only Harjinder Singh, was to be benefitted. When the complainant had gone to the house of Harjinder Singh then Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, were found by the side of the dead body of Gurjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur and if they had any guilty intention or participated in the crime then they would have run away from the house. If Sukhdev Singh and Gurdip Kaur had demanded payment then they should have been present in the house at the time of payment of ` 10,000/-. Ultimately, trial Court opined that there is sufficient evidence on record that Sukhdev Singh and Kulidp Kaur, were residing separately from their two sons namely Harjinder Singh and Jaskaran Singh, so, benefit of doubt was given to both and they were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Against acquittal of Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, appeal was not preferred by the State. CRR No. 1474 of 2003, was filed by the complainant but when revision is against acquittal then judgment of acquittal is not to be set aside lightly with this idea that there is a possibility of different view. When two views are possible and possible view was taken by the trial Court then judgment of acquittal is not to be reversed on the ground that there is a possibility of different view by the Appellate Court.
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 -20- evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order and the same is upheld.
During the pendency of the appeal death certificate of Harjinder Singh-appellant was produced by the learned State counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Harjinder Singh- appellant has died but after the death of Harjinder Singh, ` 20,000/- is to be deposited payable to Gamdoor Singh-complinant as compensation but after the death of Harjinder Singh, no one to deposit the compensation. I agree that Sukhdev Singh and Kuldip Kaur, who were acquitted by the trial Court are residing separately. Harjinder Singh, deceased had no issue but as per impugned judgment he was directed to pay ` 20,000/- payable to the complainant as compensation. After the death of Harjinder Singh-appellant ` 20,000/- can be recovered from the estate of Harjinder Singh as per law.
For the reasons recorded above, CRA-S-463-SB of 2003 and CRR No. 1474 of 2003, without merits are dismissed.
August 16, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE