Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagsir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 July, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB
CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Decided on:- 05.07.2024
(1) CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M)
Jagsir Singh ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
(2) CRR-2816-2008 (O&M)
Mahender Singh ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-D-216-DB-2019.
Mr. R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-2816-2008.
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. Both the cases i.e. CRA-D No. 216-DB of 2009 and CRR No.2816 of 2008 arising out of common judgment of conviction, order of sentence qua appellant Jagsir Singh and acquittal of Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad are taken up together with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and revisionist.
1 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -2-
2. Appellant/convict, Jagsir Singh has filed appeal against judgment of conviction dated 09.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 10.09.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in Sessions Case bearing No.119 of 2005 dated 26.09.2005, titled as "State Vs. Jagsir Singh and Others" vide which appellant Jagsir Singh is sentenced as under :-
Offence U/s Sentence Fine In default of fine
(Rigorous Imprisonment) (Rigorous Imprisonment)
304-B Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 3 -1/2 years
498-A Three years Rs.5,000/- Nine months
Mahender Singh filed criminal revision against acquittal in favour of Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur respondents No. 2 and 3 vide abovesaid judgment dated 09.09.2008.
3. Brief facts as per prosecution case are that on 06.07.2005 SI Kanwar Singh along with the police party was present on Kundel Barrier in connection with routine checking. Mahender Singh complainant came and got his statement recorded. He stated that he is resident of village Jaglan and an agriculturist by profession. He was blessed with three children i.e. two sons and a daughter. His daughter Sajandeep Kaur aged about 19 years was married to Jagsir Singh s/o Baldev Singh resident of Udaipur according to Hindu rites and he had given dowry articles beyond his means. Sajandeep Kaur was sent to her matrimonial home for leading a happy married life. However, when his daughter returned to parental house she disclosed to him, his wife and his son that Balwinder Kaur-mother-in-law, Baldev Singh-father- in-law and Jagsir Singh-husband were pressurizing her to bring a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car and they openly proclaimed that she would be 2 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -3- rehabilitated only when their demand was satisfied. He persuaded his daughter and told her that he would make her in-laws understand. He along with Sukhpal Singh and Nachhatar Singh visited house of accused in village Udaipur and requested them not to harass his daughter. They openly raised demand of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car. The complainant expressed his inability to satisfy this demand as he was a poor person. They threatened not to rehabilitate his daughter. Thereafter, they returned to their village Jaglan. He again persuaded Jagsir Singh and others and ultimately, they took his daughter back to matrimonial home. On 06.07.2005, complainant received telephonic call from Baldev Singh-father-in-law that his daughter Sajandeep Kaur had expired. On receiving this information, he along with many other persons of his village came to Udaipur and saw dead body of his daughter. The complainant alleged that Jagsir Singh had murdered his daughter by strangulating her. She was maltreated in the matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry. With these allegations present FIR was registered under Section 498-A, 304-B/34 IPC. Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of formal FIR.
4. Investigation of this case was initiated. Niab Tehsildar Malor Singh was requested to join the investigation. Photographer Naresh Kumar of Kapoor Photo Studio, Jakhal was called who took photographs of deceased victim from different angles in the presence of Niab Tehsildar and the Investigating Officer. Inquest proceedings were prepared, statements of the witnesses Kewal Singh and Puran Singh were recorded. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Rough site-plan of the place of occurrence was 3 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -4- prepared. Accused namely Jagsir Singh, Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur were arrested. Dowry articles were recovered. On completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
5. All the accused were supplied complete set of copies of challan report as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since offence under Section 304-B of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana committed case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad for trial vide commitment order dated 12.09.2005.
6. Learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, after hearing arguments, framed charge-sheet against all the accused under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and in alternate under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, which was read over and explained to them in simple language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the facts of case, prosecution examined ASI Hargian Singh as PW-1, HC Dev Vart as PW-2, Balwant Singh, Draftsman as PW-3, Lady Constable Sunita Devi as PW-4, HC Ramesh Chander as PW-5, Naresh Kumar Photographer as PW-6, Dr. M.L.Gupta, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tohana as PW-7, Malor Singh, Niab Tehsildar as PW- 8, Mahender Singh complainant as PW-9, Gurtej Singh Brother as PW-10, Sukhpal Singh as PW-11, SI/SHO Kanwar Singh as PW-12 and thereafter learned Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence on 14.06.2006.
8. Statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 4 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -5- Cr.P.C. to which they pleaded innocence and false implication.
9. In defence, the accused Jagsir Singh tendered certified copy of sale deed No.1055 dated 02.12.2004 as Exhibit-DC and photostat copy of original registration certificate and insurance cover of motorcycle No.HR- 23B-9478 as Exhibit-DD and Exhibit-DD/1. Thereafter all the accused closed their defence evidence by making separate statement on 02.09.2008.
10. After hearing arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel representing the accused, Jagsir Singh was held guilty and was convicted under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC as referred above and accused Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur were acquitted of the charges framed against them vide judgment dated 09.09.2008 and order of sentence qua Jagsir Singh dated 10.09.2008. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, criminal appeal CRA-D No. 216-DB-2009 has been filed by the appellant Jagsir Singh and CRR No.2816 of 2008 has been filed by revisionist Mahender Singh qua acquittal of accused Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur.
11. Learned counsel for revisionist/complainant argued that as per the contents of FIR, there was specific demand of Rs. 2 lakhs for purchasing a car by all the accused and the deceased victim was threatened that in case their demand was not satisfied she will not be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home. The revisionist/complainant being a poor farmer was unable to satisfy this demand and he requested all the accused to rehabilitate his daughter. Finally the victim was taken back in the matrimonial home by Jagsir Singh and she was done to death by throttling her on the intervening night of 5 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -6- 05/06.07.2005, within five months of her marriage. There was no delay in lodging the report to the police. The prosecution case was duly proved on record from the testimony of Mahender Singh father/complainant in this case as PW-9 and his version was supported by his son Gurtej Singh PW-10 and Sukhpal Singh PW-11. The post-mortem report of the victim is proved on record by Dr. M.L.Gupta, PW-7 who has clearly explained cause of death due to throttling. Even otherwise it is highly impossible that a single person can throttle a young adult lady. Occurrence took place in matrimonial home where all the accused were residing jointly. Convict Jagsir Singh and other accused Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur had failed to give any explanation regarding the occurrence in which daughter of the revisionist/complainant lost her life. The respondents failed to lead any evidence to rebut the presumption as to dowry death as provided under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Judgment of acquittal qua Baldev Singh-father-in-law and Balwinder Kaur-mother-in-law is not on sound footing. Therefore, impugned judgment of acquittal may kindly be reversed and Baldev Singh father-in-law and Balwinder Kaur mother-in-law be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC by accepting the present revision.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA-D-216-DB-2009 argued that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC is not on sound footing. There was no proper appreciation of the facts and the evidence on record. In the case in hand, there was no demand of dowry and the 6 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -7- allegations levelled against Jagsir Singh and his parents are without any basis. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to cross-examination of Mahender Singh PW-9 who admitted that there was no demand of dowry after the settlement of marriage till the marriage was performed. Mahender Singh had admitted that one day prior to the marriage of his daughter, there was marriage of daughter of Baldev Singh. On that day, they had performed shagun ceremony of appellant and also attended the marriage of daughter of Baldev Singh. It is wrongly alleged by the complainant that he convened panchayat for the rehabilitation of his daughter. He failed to give any specific date when family panchayat was convened. He did not inform mediators of marriage i.e. Pritam Singh from the side of Mahender Singh and Labh Singh, Sarpanch from the side of appellant-accused. Nobody was informed in the village regarding the maltreatment given to the deceased victim in the matrimonial home. No report was lodged with the police. Mahender Singh PW-9 during cross-examination further admitted that he did not promise to give any amount to Jagsir Singh. Therefore, case of prosecution regarding demand of dowry and alleged maltreatment given to the deceased victim soon before her death is without any basis.
Learned counsel for the appellant/convict pointed out that proper investigation was not carried out by the police. Mahender Singh PW-9 claimed that he had noticed some marks on the neck of deceased victim. He noticed dried blood in the mouth which was smeared on her face. He categorically stated that he did not notice broken bangles lying on the spot. On the other hand Gurtej Singh brother of the deceased victim as PW-10 7 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -8- claimed that he did not notice any mark or injury on the person of deceased victim. However, he claimed that broken bangles were lying on the spot which were lifted by the police. Thus version of Mahender Singh PW-9 and Gurtej Singh PW-10 is contradictory to each other and the same cannot be relied upon. SI Kanwar Singh, the Investigating Officer PW-12 categorically stated that no broken bangles were lifted from the spot nor he noticed mark of injury on the person of deceased victim.
Learned counsel for appellant/convict further pointed out that financial status of appellant/accused was better than the family of complainant Mahender Singh. Mahender Singh as PW-9 admitted that Baldev Singh owned about 6 acres of land. He visited house of appellant/convict after the settlement of marriage and no demand was raised. Gurtej Singh PW-10 brother of the deceased victim also admitted that Jagsir Singh had purchased a new Hero Honda motorcycle few days prior to the death of his sister. In defence registration certificate of motorcycle and insurance policy are placed on record as Exhibit-DD and Exhibit-DD/1. There was no occasion for the appellant/convict or his parents to raise demand of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car. All allegations levelled against the appellant or his parents are false. Learned trial Court has failed to consider these facts. Considering the allegations as vague Baldev Singh-father-in-law and Balwinder Kaur-mother-in-law were rightly acquitted of the charge framed against them, whereas on same set of evidence appellant/convict Jagsir Singh was wrongly held guilty under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC. It is submitted that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed 8 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -9- against Jagsir Singh may kindly be set aside by accepting the present appeal whereas the revision preferred by revisionist Mahender Singh be dismissed.
13. Learned counsel representing the State argued that there was proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence on record. He argued on the line of arguments advanced by learned counsel for revisionist/complainant. It is pointed out that the facts of the case were duly proved on record from the testimony of Mahender Singh complainant as PW- 9 and his version was supported by Gurtej Singh brother of the deceased victim as PW-10. Their statements remained consistent on all the material points. Sukhpal Singh PW-11 who had accompanied the complainant for the purpose of rehabilitation of the deceased victim, also fully supported the prosecution story. It was a case of unnatural death. Dr. M.L.Gupta, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tohana PW-7 has proved post-mortem report of Sajandeep Kaur Exhibit-P18. It was homicidal death by way of throttling. The appellant Jagsir Singh and his parents failed to give any explanation regarding the death of deceased victim which took place in the matrimonial home. Investigation carried out by SI Kanwar Singh is duly proved on record as PW-12 and has further examined all relevant witnesses to prove the link evidence and the investigation carried out from time to time. Naib Tehsildar Malor Singh as PW8 fully supported the version of Investigating Officer. Naresh Kumar PW6 proved the photographs of dead body as Exhibit-P12 to Exhibit-P16 and the negatives are Exhibit-P7 to Exhibit-P11. Dowry articles were recovered from the matrimonial home on the identification of articles by Balwinder Kaur. Recovery memo in this regard is Exhibit-P6 and the detail 9 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -10- of dowry articles is Exhibit-P6/A. Victim was maltreated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry which resulted into her unnatural death. Therefore, prosecution led convincing evidence on record to prove the chargesheet framed against Jagsir Singh appellant who was husband of the deceased victim. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court qua Jagsir Singh does not require any interference. Therefore, appeal preferred by appellant Jagsir Singh may kindly be dismissed.
14. We heard arguments and have gone through the evidence on record with the able assistance of learned counsel representing the revisionist, learned counsel for appellant Jagsir Singh and learned counsel representing the State.
15. In the case in hand FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Mahender Singh who is father of deceased victim Sajandeep Kaur. Complainant stated that he had performed marriage of his daughter Sajandeep Kaur aged abut 19 years with Jagsir Singh by giving dowry beyond his means. On return from matrimonial home his daughter disclosed that her husband Jagsir Singh, father-in-law Baldev Singh and mother-in-law Balwinder Kaur were raising demand for cash of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car, failing which she will not be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home. Mahender Singh complainant convened a panchayat and accompanied by Sukhpal Singh and Nachattar Singh went to the matrimonial home of his daughter in village Udaipur and requested them to rehabilitate his daughter. All the accused openly proclaimed that his daughter will not be allowed to 10 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -11- live in the matrimonial home unless their demand was satisfied. The complainant being poor person was unable to satisfy their demand. However, he again requested Jagsir Singh and his family to rehabilitate his daughter and finally Jagsir Singh took his daughter in the matrimonial home in village Udaipur. On 06.07.2005, he received telephone call from Baldev Singh father-in-law that his daughter had expired. He along with others reached the matrimonial home and saw dead body of his daughter lying on a cot in open in the chobara. Complainant categorically stated that possibly his daughter was murdered by strangulating her by the accused persons on account of their demand for dowry. The said statement of Mahender Singh is Exhibit-P1 on the basis of which FIR No.101 dated 06.07.2005 under Section 304-B, 498- A/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Jakhal which is Exhibit-P2. All the accused were chargesheeted under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and in alternate under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
16. Gainful reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title "Satbir Singh & Another Versus State of Haryana" 2021(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 167, where the law relating to offence under Section 304-B of IPC read with Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act was summarized in para No. 36 as under :-
"36. At the cost of repetition, the law under Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act can be summarized below:
i. Section 304-B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
11 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -12- ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B, IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113B, Evidence Act operates against the accused.
iii. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B, IPC cannot be construed to mean `immediately before'. The prosecution must establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
iv. Section 304-B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
v. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304-B, IPC read with 113-B, Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial.
vi. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement under section 313, CrPC, 1973 in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under section 313, CrPC, 1973 cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This aforesaid provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice "audi alteram partem" as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution.
12 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -13- vii. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense since the inception of the Trial with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act.
viii. section 232, CrPC, 1973 provides that, "If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal". Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best efforts.
ix. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of section 232, CrPC, 1973 it must move on and fix hearings specifically for `defence evidence', calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under section 233, CrPC, 1973 which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused.
x. In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics. xi. Apart from the above, the presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by this Court while sentencing and imposing appropriate punishment.
xii. Undoubtedly, as discussed above, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However, it is also observed that sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. In these cases, the 13 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -14- Court need to be cautious in its approach."
In the case in hand, prosecution has examined Mahender Singh complainant i.e. father of the deceased victim as PW-9 who fully supported the facts of the case. His version was also supported by his son Gurtej Singh PW-10. Statements of both the witnesses mostly remained consistent on all material points. Sukhpal Singh PW-11 who accompanied Mahender Singh father of the deceased victim PW-9 at the time of first panchayat, also fully supported the version of complainant. Aforesaid witnesses consistently stated that deceased victim was ill-treated in the matrimonial home in order to compel her to bring cash of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car, failing which she would not be allowed to live in the matrimonial home. On repeated requests of Mahender Singh father of deceased victim, she was taken back in the matrimonial home. However, information regarding her death was received on 06.07.2005.
Admittedly, Sajandeep Kaur got married with Jagsir Singh appellant/convict, whereas Baldev Singh was father-in-law and Balwinder Kaur was mother-in-law of the deceased victim. Wedding card along with Bahi were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Exhibit-P20 and the wedding card is Exhibit-P22, according to which the marriage was performed on 06.02.2005. The occurrence took place on 06.07.2005 within five months of marriage. The appellant Jagsir Singh and his parents Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur denied the allegations of demand of dowry or the maltreatment given to the deceased victim by pointing out the cross- examination of Mahender Singh PW-9 where he admitted that after the 14 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -15- settlement of marriage till the marriage was performed there was no demand of dowry. It is further pointed out that financial status of family of appellant/convict was better than the financial status of complainant Mahender Singh. We have carefully gone through the cross-examination of Mahender Singh PW-9 which indicates that for the settlement of this marriage Pritam Singh was mediator from the side of complainant and Labh Singh, Sarpanch was mediator from the side of accused persons. Mahender Singh PW-9 truthfully stated that there was no demand of dowry prior to the marriage. In the case in hand dowry articles were recovered from the matrimonial home in the presence of Balwinder Kaur mother-in-law. Recovery memo is Exhibit-P6 and list of dowry articles is Exhibit-P6/A. Perusal of list of dowry articles so recovered indicate that Mahender Singh complainant had given furniture items, beddings, cloths, utensils etc. At the time of marriage, Mahender Singh categorically stated that he had given these articles beyond his means and he being poor man was unable to satisfy demand of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car. Mere fact that financial status of the family of appellant/accused Jagsir Singh was better than the financial status of complainant would not lead to the conclusion that there was no greed for more dowry. In fact conduct of appellant/convict Jagsir Singh indicate that dowry articles were not given as per his expectations which resulted in maltreatment of deceased victim and it ultimately led to her death.
17. Learned counsel for appellant/convict further raised the issue that Mahender Singh PW-9 could not give any specific date when he along with 15 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -16- others convened a panchayat to the house of accused nor he informed the mediators in the marriage or the village panchayat. It is further alleged that regarding demand of dowry or maltreatment given to the deceased victim no report was lodged to the police. We have considered this aspect of the present case. The version of Mahender Singh complainant as PW-9 is confirmed by Sukhpal Singh PW-11 who had accompanied him for the purpose of persuading Jagsir Singh and his parents not to raise demand of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car and to rehabilitate his daughter. Version of Mahender Singh PW-9 and Sukhpal Singh PW-11 is consistent regarding their visit to the matrimonial home of deceased victim. On that day, Jagsir Singh and his parents insisted on their demand and refused to rehabilitate the deceased victim. Thereafter, Mahender Singh PW-9 again visited the matrimonial home with the request to rehabilitate his daughter and thereafter Jagsir Singh took the deceased victim in the matrimonial home. Regarding matrimonial dispute it is usually seen that the parents want to settle their child in the matrimonial home without disclosing their personal problem to the outsiders. Even matter is not reported to the police at the first instance to close all the doors for the settlement between the two families. Marriage in the instant case had taken place only few months prior to death of complainant's daughter. Therefore, conduct of Mahender Singh complainant clearly indicate that he wanted to settle down his daughter in the matrimonial home. Argument by learned counsel for appellant-Jagsir Singh that material doubt creeps in the prosecution version when it has come on record that deceased did not raise any complaint when she went to her matrimonial home immediately after her 16 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -17- marriage (at the time of phera, i.e. traditional visit by bride and bridegroom to bride's parental home, a day or two after marriage), is devoid of merit because it has come on record that the demand was raised twenty days after the marriage. Thus evidence led by the prosecution clearly indicates that during short span of five months the deceased victim was maltreated in the matrimonial home by her husband on account of his demand for huge cash amount for purchasing a car. Therefore, stand taken by learned counsel for appellant does not hold any ground.
18. The victim lost her life while staying in the matrimonial home. Prosecution has examined Dr. M.L.Gupta, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tohana as PW-7. He deposed that a Board of Doctors was constituted consisting of Dr. Harender, Dr. Shalini Garg along with him. The post-mortem report regarding the description and the injuries is as under:-
"The length of the body was 5'1". It was moderately built and nourished and was wearing printed salwar and kameej green coloured bra, black underwear, nose pin in left nostrill, six glass bangels in right wrist reddish coloured, nine bangels in left wrist gray in colour. Rigor mortus were present on the lower limb and was absent in upper limbs. Post-mortem staining was present. We found the following injuries on dead body:-
1. Bluish discolouration and difuse swelling on interior and lateral aspect of the neck, deep cyanosis was present on the face upto the ears and diffuse swelling at the lips and nostrils with bluish discolouration, tongue was slightly protruded between teeth and hands were clenched. On dissection mueosa was found congested and extra-vessation on blood which was clotted and blackish in colour. Throid cartilage was fractured on right side.
17 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -18- Cervical vertebra were normal.
2. Bruise 5 cm X 3 cm size bluish colour and lateral aspect of upper 1/3rd arm.
3. Abrasion at lateral aspect of mid of fore-arm.
4. Abrasion 3 cm X 1/2 cm in size at interior aspect of mid of left leg.
Internal organs were congested. The uterus was of small size and empty.
In our opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to throttling.
Handed over to police:-
1. A well stitched dead body.
2. All belongings of deceased in sealed parcel.
3. Copy of post-mortem.
4. Police papers duly signed by me.
The probable time between injuries and death was instantaneous and between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. The carbon copy of the PMR is Exhibit-P18 which bears the signatures of all the doctors of the Board. We also put our initial on inquest report Exhibit-P19."
The aforesaid post-mortem report clearly indicates that it was a case of homicidal death by throttling. During cross-examination, it was duly explained by the doctor that injuries No.2 to 4 as referred above were simple and superficial. It was not possible that injuries were received by shifting the dead body as the same were ante-mortem. The deposing doctor confirmed that as per the inquest report there was no external mark of injury described. He clarified that he did not separately mention about fracture of the thyroid cartilage but it was described when the injury was dissected. Hands of the deceased were clenched and deep cyanosis present on her face upto ears with 18 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -19- diffuse swelling at lips and nostrils with bluish discolouration. The statement of doctor proves that it was a case of unnatural death.
Considering the facts of the case, it is evident that deceased victim was ill-treated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry as a result of which she died unnatural death in the matrimonial home within five months of her marriage. From the side of appellant/convict Jagsir Singh, there is no explanation as to how Sajandeep Kaur expired. There is no evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
19. In the light of this, judgment of conviction under Section 304-B, 498-A of IPC qua Jagsir Singh does not require any interference and the same is accordingly upheld. Sentence imposed under Section 498-A of IPC is also fully justified. So far as quantum of sentence under Section 304-B of IPC is concerned learned trial Court has sentenced Jagsir Singh to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-. So far as fine imposed by learned trial Court is concerned that is beyond the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC. Therefore, quantum of sentence under Section 304-B of IPC is modified to the extent of imprisonment for life alone. With this observation the sentence imposed by learned trial Court is modified and the appeal preferred by appellant/convict Jagsir Singh is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid modification.
20. Mahender Singh also filed revision against acquittal of Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur both in-laws of deceased victim under Section 304-B, 498-A/34 IPC. Jagsir Singh husband was convicted and sentenced as 19 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:085710-DB CRA-D-216-DB-2009 (O&M) and another connected case -20- referred above. Both in-laws were named along with Jagsir Singh, however, no specific role was attributed to them. Jagsir Singh appellant was main beneficiary regarding demand raised by him. Due to greed for dowry, he failed to secure his married life which resulted into unfortunate death of deceased victim. Learned counsel for complainant was unable to point out any evidence on record which would prove culpability of parents in-law of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered opinion learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the said accused. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of respondents No.2 and 3 beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. In the light of aforesaid facts and evidence on record, we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal in favour of Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur respondents No.2 and 3 and the same is accordingly upheld and revision preferred by the revisionist is accordingly declined.
21. Both the appeal and criminal revision are accordingly dismissed.
22. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
(AMARJOT BHATTI) (LISA GILL)
JUDGE JUDGE
05.07.2024
Sunil Devi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
20 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 01:49:13 :::