Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2019
Author: Harinder Singh Sidhu
Bench: Harinder Singh Sidhu
CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-357-DB of 2015
Reserved on : 29.08.2019
Date of decision : 03.09.2019
Avtar Singh
.... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, and
Mr. D.K. Sihag, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
***
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
1. This appeal is instituted against judgment and order dated 14.01.2015, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, in Sessions Case No. 7201/3760/2013, whereby appellant Avtar Singh alias Tari, who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 302 and 498-A IPC, was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced as under :-
Under Section 304-B IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -2- Under Section 498-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Chhinderpal Singh made statement before SI Sukhdev Singh on 19.03.2013 that he was resident of village Singhpur, police station Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar.
He was employee of Thermal Plant, Ghanauli. His daughter Babli was married with Avtar Singh on 06.02.2013. Avtar Singh was resident of village Abiana Khurd. He had given sufficient dowry to his daughter. After one week of marriage, Babli was maltreated and taunted for bringing less dowry. His daughter disclosed this fact to his wife Charan Kaur, when she visited her parents house in village Singhpur. The complainant disclosed this fact to his brother Ramesh Chand. Babli was sent back to her matrimonial home by making her understand that they would arrange more money. The husband of his daughter maltreated Babli in order to force her to bring more dowry. She was feeling danger to her life. On 19.03.2013 at about 8.15 AM, Avtar Singh called them on mobile phone. The call was attended by his daughter-in-law Sunita Rani. Avtar Singh disclosed that they had gone to the river to take holy dip. His daughter-in-law wanted to talk to Babli. However, Avtar Singh did not give telephone to Babli and disconnected the call. His daughter-in-law called Avtar Singh several times. However, he did not attend the phone call. After some time, his brother Ramesh Chand disclosed him that his daughter had expired by drowning in the river. Thereafter, he along with his brother Ramesh Chand went to the 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -3- river. The dead body of his daughter Babli was lying near the river. His son- in-law Avtar Singh had killed his daughter by pushing her in the river. Ramesh Chand was left near the dead body. He went to the police station. FIR was registered. Inquest report was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Motor cycle in possession of Avtar Singh was taken into police possession. On 20.03.2013, list of dowry articles was taken into police possession and dowry articles were recovered from the house of the accused. Viscera was sent to Chemical Examiner Laboratory, Kharar and the Pathology Department of Government Medical College, Patiala. Investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. According to him, he was innocent. He examined four witnesses in his defence.
4. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed here-in- above. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against their client. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment and order of the learned Court below.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully.
7. PW.7 Dr. Harbans Singh deposed that the Board of Doctors, consisting of himself and Dr. Sukhwinder Deol, conducted the post mortem 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -4- examination on the body of Babli. They gave their final opinion Ex.PJ. According to it, the cause of death in case of Babli wife of Avtar Singh was drowning. They had not noticed any injury on the dead body.
8. PW.1 Chhinderpal Singh deposed that his daughter Babli was married with Avtar Singh accused on 06.02.2013. He had given sufficient dowry articles to his daughter as per his capacity. Accused Avtar Singh and his family members started ill-treating his daughter. They were demanding more dowry and harassing her on account of demand of dowry. Avtar Singh was demanding car from his daughter. This fact was brought to the notice of his wife by his daughter. His wife told him that Babli was being harassed. His daughter came to them and told them about demand of dowry. They persuaded his daughter to go to her matrimonial home. He told this fact to his brother Ramesh Chand. On 19.03.2013, Avtar Singh gave telephonic call to his daughter-in-law Sunita. Avtar Singh told her that he along with Babli had gone to river for bath. Avtar Singh did not allow Babli to talk with Sunita. The phone was disconnected. One of their relatives gave a telephonic call to his brother Ramesh Chand that Babli was killed by Avtar Singh. He went to river. Dead body of his daughter Babli was lying near river. Clothes of Avtar Singh were dry. He reported the matter to the police. His statement Ex.PA was recorded. Police visited the spot. In his cross- examination, he deposed that Jaswant Singh told them that he took out his daughter from the river water. He denied the suggestion that Babli had gone to river to take holy bath in order to conceive a child. He also denied the suggestion that during bath, Babli went into deep water and could not control herself due to fast current of water.
4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -5-
9. PW.2 Ramesh Chand corroborated the statement of PW.1 Chhinderpal Singh regarding the manner in which Babli was harassed by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. This fact was brought to his notice by his brother. Babli had also told him about the harassment caused to her for bringing insufficient dowry. He, his brother Chhinderpal Singh and Charan Kaur persuaded Avtar Singh and Babli. Babli was told that money would be arranged. On 19.03.2013 at about 8.15 AM, Avtar Singh gave a telephonic call to Sunita Rani daughter-in-law of Chhinderpal Singh, his brother. Avtar Singh told Sunita Rani that he had come to take bath along with Babli at Sutlej river. Sunita requested Avtar Singh to give phone to Babli. Avtar Singh disconnected the phone. One of his relatives Harmesh Chand told him on telephone that Babli had died due to drowning in the river. He informed his brother. They went to the river bed. Dead body of Babli was lying on the bank of the river. Avtar Singh was also sitting there, but his clothes were dry. Babli was killed by the accused by drowning her in the river. Babli was killed for brining insufficient dowry. In his cross- examination, he denied that any Panchayat was convened to save the family relations. He did not know that Chhinderpal Singh, father of Babli, used to visit Arjan Singh, priest of village Nagloi. He did not know that Babli had also gone along with Chhinderpal Singh to said Arjan Singh priest or he had suggested to take dip in the river in order to conceive a child and stay happily in the family. He denied the suggestion that one Kuldeep Singh was also passing by the side of river and he had witnessed the incident.
10. PW.4 Raj Pal Singh had performed Anand Karaj ceremony of Babli with Avtar Singh on 06.02.2013.
5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -6-
11. PW.5 Harish Kumar prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PE.
12. PW.8 SI Sukhdev Singh testified that FIR Ex.PN was recorded. He went to the spot. Spot was inspected. Inquest report Ex.PP was prepared. Motor cycle was recovered. The accused was arrested. On 22.03.2013, dowry articles were produced by accused Avtar Singh. These were identified by Raj Kumar son of Chhinderpal Singh. In his cross- examination, he categorically admitted that he did not investigate that the deceased had gone to the river to take holy bath. However, she went in deep water. She was taken out of water by Jaswant Singh.
13. PW.9 Charan Kaur has also deposed the manner in which Babli was harassed by Avtar Singh and his family members for bringing insufficient dowry. Her daughter had brought this fact to her notice. Her daughter was killed by drowning in the river. Her dead body was taken out. Her daughter-in-law wanted to talk to Babli, but the telephone was disconnected by the accused.
14. PW.13 Inspector Jarnail Singh deposed that the accused had got the motor cycle recovered. The dowry articles were produced by Avtar Singh. These were identified by Raj Kumar.
15. DW.1 Jaswant Singh deposed that on 19.03.2013, he had gone for his personal work from village towards the side of river. He received telephonic call from Avtar Singh that his wife Babli had drowned in the river. He reached at the spot. He heard the alarm raised by Avtar Singh. He parked his motor cycle and jumped into the river. The current of water was very fast. Thereafter, he again jumped in river at a distance of 700-800 meter. Then he could find Babli. She was floating in the river with her face 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -7- downwards. When the body of Babli was taken out, she was dead. The entire village had gathered at the spot. The police also reached the spot.
16. The appellant also appeared as DW.4. According to him, he was married with Babli. They had gone to Arjan Baba for blessing. He told Babli to take holy bath in the river to lead happy life and to conceive a child. On 19.03.2013 at about 8.00 AM, he and Babli had gone to the river. Babli started taking bath in the river. Suddenly, she slipped into deep water of river. He raised alarm. He did not know how to swim. After hearing his hue and cry, Jaswant Singh came there and he jumped into the river. He made efforts to save her. However, she was swept by the fast current of water. She was taken out of water, but she was dead. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he was married on 06.02.2013. He deposed that they lived happily from the day of marriage till 19.03.2013.. His in-laws suggested him to go to baba for welfare of the marriage and their prosperity. There was no specific place to take bath on the river side.
17. According to the opinion of the Board of Doctors, consisting of PW.7 Dr. Harbans Singh and Dr. Sukhwinder Deol, Babli died due to drowning.
18. The marriage of Babli was solemnised with the appellant on 06.02.2013. PW.1 Chhinderpal Singh deposed that his daughter Babli was married with the appellant. She was being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. His daughter had brought this fact to the notice of his wife. He had told this fact to his brother Ramesh Chand. On 19.03.2013, the appellant had called his daughter-in-law Sunita on telephone and told her that he along with Babli had gone to river to take bath. Sunita wanted to talk with 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -8- Babli. The appellant did not allow Babli to talk with Sunita and disconnected the phone. PW.2 Ramesh Chand was informed by one of the relatives that Babli had drowned in the river. PW.1 Chhinderpal Singh and PW.2 Ramesh Chand reached the river bed. The dead body was lying on the river side. PW.1 Chhinderpal Singh, PW.2 Ramesh Chand and PW.9 Charan Kaur have categorically deposed that the deceased was being harassed and maltreated by the appellant for bringing insufficient dowry. They told Babita that they would arrange money.
19. The appellant took a specific plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Babli had drowned in deep water of river. She was taking holy bath in the river. No demand was ever raised from Babli. He did not know how to swim. He raised alarm. Jaswant Singh came on the spot. He jumped in the river and brought her from the river. DW.1 Jaswant Singh, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that he had received telephonic call from the appellant that his wife Babli had drowned in the river. Thereafter, he reached the spot. The appellant himself appeared as DW.4 and deposed that he and his wife Babli had gone to take bath in the river on 19.03.2013 at about 8.00 AM. Babli started taking bath in the river. Suddenly she slipped into deep water of river. He raised alarm. On hearing his alarm, Jaswant Singh came there and he jumped into the river.
20. There is contradiction in the statements of DW.1 Jaswant Singh and DW.4 Avtar Singh appellant. DW.1 Jaswant Singh, as noticed above, has deposed that the appellant had made telephone call to him that his wife Babli had drowned in the river. Thereafter, he came to the spot and jumped into the river. According to DW.4 Avtar Singh appellant, his wife slipped 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -9- into deep water of river. On hearing his hue and cry, Jaswant Singh came on the spot and jumped into the river.
21. DW.4 Avtar Singh appellant in his cross-examination deposed that there was no specific place to take bath on the river side. PW.1 Chhinderpal Singh, PW.2 Ramesh Chand and PW.9 Charan Kaur have denied the suggestion that Babli had gone to river to take holy bath in order to conceive a child.
22. It is established from all the facts and circumstances of the case that it was the appellant who had pushed his wife into the fast current of water in the river, resulting into her death.
23. The learned trial court has correctly drawn the presumption against the appellant under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry. The marriage of the appellant and Babli was solemnised on 06.02.2013. Babli died on 19.03.2013, i.e. after one month twelve days of her marriage. She died of drowning. The deceased was seen in the company of the appellant. He had to explain how she died as the burden of proof lies on him under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is a case of `dowry death.' Babli was subjected to cruelty, harassment and ill-treatment by the appellant by raising unlawful demand of dowry. It has come on record that the appellant was also demanding car from the deceased.
9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 ::: CRA-D-357-DB of 2015 -10-
24. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order are upheld.
( RAJIV SHARMA )
JUDGE
September 03, 2019 ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU )
ndj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 03-10-2019 00:08:31 :::