Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 February, 2012
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.1052-SB of 2000 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.1052-SB of 2000
Date of Decision: 8 - 2 - 2012
Pargat Singh .....Appellant
v.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Surender Dhull, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.K.S.Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Pargat Singh, present appellant was married with Rajwant Kaur, three years before the date of occurrence. At the time of occurrence, Rajwant Kaur was the mother of a son aged 1½ years. Rajwant Kaur on 2.2.1998 at about 1.30 P.M. suffered burn injuries. She died on the way to hospital. Balbir Singh, father of Rajwant Kaur had lodged the FIR No.10 dated 3.2.1998 registered at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 IPC (Ex.PW7/C), in which he nominated present appellant Pargat Singh along with his father Dalbir Singh, mother Mohinder Kaur and sister Rani as accused.
The above-said FIR was investigated. A report under Section Crl. Appeal No.1052-SB of 2000 [2] 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the appellant, his parents and sister Rani. However, sister Rani was found innocent and placed in column No.2, but she was subsequently summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
Sessions Judge, Amritsar charged the appellant along with his co-accused for offence under Sections 120-B and 304-B IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
The trial Judge vide impugned judgment dated 3.10.2000 held the present appellant guilty of offence under Section 304-B IPC and vide a separate order of even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Co-accused of the appellant were acquitted of offence under Section 304-B IPC. The appellant was also acquitted of offence under Section 120-B IPC. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.10.2000, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
Balbir Singh in his statement Ex.PW7/A stated that he was a resident of Village Sultanwind. He retired from the Army and was a pensioner. He was doing agriculture work. About three years ago, his daughter Rajwant Kaur was married with Pargat Singh according to Sikh rites. A son aged 1½ years was born to Rajwant Kaur. He had given dowry in the marriage according to his status but family members of the appellant were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. They were harassing Rajwant Kaur, daughter of the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry and were giving her beatings and demanding more dowry. They also turned Rajwant Kaur out of the matrimonial home but she was sent back to her matrimonial home. At that time, complainant had given Crl. Appeal No.1052-SB of 2000 [3] one buffalo to the family of the accused. On 12.1.1998, Rajwant Kaur came to her parents' house and informed that accused had given her electric shocks and were demanding a scooter. Furthermore, the accused had threatened Rajwant Kaur that in case the scooter was not given by her parents, she would be burnt alive by pouring kerosene oil. It is stated that on 13.1.1998 family members of the complainant came to the village of the accused and requested them to settle the daughter, as the demand of scooter will be fulfilled after sale of the wheat crop. It is stated that at that time Rajwant Kaur had raised an apprehension that she would be killed. On 2.2.1998, Bikramjit Singh went to Village Shingarpur to see his sister and found that she was burnt by pouring kerosene oil in her matrimonial home by her husband Pargat Singh, father-in-law Dalbir Singh, mother-in-law Mohinder Kaur and sister-in-law Rani. On the next day, he along with his family members went to the hospital and found that Rajwant Kaur had died and the matter was reported to the police.
The prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
Sukhjinder Kaur PW2 stated that she is mother of Rajwant Kaur. Her husband Balbir Singh complainant had expired during the pendency of the trial. She reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR by her husband Balbir Singh. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that accused are living separately. She further denied the suggestion that her daughter used to tease the accused that he was not posted as a Constable but as an S.P.O. Bikramjit Singh, brother of deceased Rajwant Kaur appeared as PW3 and corroborated the testimony of her mother Sukhjinder Kaur PW2.
Dr.Parmod Kumar, Medical Officer PW6 had conducted the Crl. Appeal No.1052-SB of 2000 [4] autopsy. He stated that deceased Rajwant Kaur had superficial burns on all parts of the body sparing medial side of right leg below knee joint and sole of both feet. He stated that skin was charred, blisters were present on abdomen and thigh. According to this witness, cause of death as per opinion of the Medical Board was shock due to burns which was approximately 95 per cent and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW1 Rishi Ram, Draftsman proved scaled site plan Ex.PA. Constable Charan Singh PW4 tendered his affidavit Ex.PX to prove the link evidence.
Constable Kuldip Singh PW5 stated that he had taken the dead body of Rajwant Kaur to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran and got the autopsy conducted.
PW7 Piara Singh, Sub Inspector proved various facets of the investigation.
Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The present appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to the last question stated as under:-
"I am innocent. I am separate in kitchen from my parents. On the day of occurrence I came to my duty at Tarn Taran as usual. There was minor altercation between me as the deceased said me in a taunting way "constable sahib". The deceased used to tease me at times that I am matriculate and only SPO at Tarn Taran. I came to know that deceased sustained accidental burn injuries. I informed my in-laws. It is only on the next day that a false case was got registered against us."
The accused in defence examined Ajit Singh DW1, who stated Crl. Appeal No.1052-SB of 2000 [5] that he heard the noise that Rajwant Kaur had caught fire. He rushed to their house and saw Rajwant Kaur in a burnt condition. It is stated that Rajwant Kaur had disclosed to the witness that she had suffered an accidental fire, when she was about to ignite the fire and for this she put the kerosene on cow dung cake.
The trial Court had discarded the testimony of DW1 Ajit Singh. Admittedly, Ajit Singh who is a witness to the alleged dying declaration had not disclosed about this event to any body before his deposition in Court.
Mr.Surender Dhull, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of the sentence on the following grounds:-
(a) That at the time of occurrence, the appellant was not present in his house i.e. scene of occurrence, as he had gone to perform his duty as S.P.O. (B) That since the deceased had suffered injuries on the lower part of her body, it is a case of accidental fire.
(c) That the prosecution witnesses have failed to prove demand of dowry on the part of the appellant soon before the death of Rajwant Kaur.
(d) The prosecution story has not been believed qua the acquitted accused.
(e) It is stated that conduct of Bikramjit Singh PW3 is unnatural, improbable and unconvincing as he has not reported the matter to the police immediately but had gone to his house and the matter was reported to the police on the next day.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. There is no denial of fact that death of Crl. Appeal No.1052-SB of 2000 [6] deceased had taken place within seven years of the marriage in her matrimonial home. Family of the complainant at the first instance has stated that deceased was harassed and maltreated on account of demand of dowry. It is also not disputed that the deceased had died an unnatural death. Thus, all ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have been duly proved by the prosecution.
So far as the argument raised by counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is not of much consequence that when the deceased committed suicide, the appellant at that time was performing his duty. It has come in evidence that right from the day of marriage, the accused were not satisfied with the dowry. The deceased was turned out of the matrimonial home and it was thereafter that she was rehabilitated in her matrimonial home. Lateron, the demand of a scooter was raised. The complainant had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased and assured the accused that after the wheat crop will be harvested, he will provide a scooter. The deceased had suffered 95 per cent burns. Except a bald suggestion that it is a case of accidental fire, no contrary evidence has been led by the accused-appellant. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act operates against the appellant. Furthermore, co-accused have been acquitted only on the ground that demand of scooter was predominantly for the benefit of the accused-appellant. Therefore, grant of benefit of doubt to the co-accused will not entitle the appellant to the similar relief.
Bikramjit Singh was a young lad. It was necessary for him to consult his parents regarding the future course. At that time when he had seen the occurrence, the deceased had not died. There was every possibility that the deceased may survive and, therefore, her marriage should not be put Crl. Appeal No.1052-SB of 2000 [7] in doldrums.
Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, I find no merit in the present appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 8, 2012. JUDGE RC