Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Pal Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 1 March, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003
Date of Decision: 1.3.2011
Jitender Pal Singh and Others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Anoop Sharma, Assistant Advocate
General, Haryana, for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
The present appeal has been instituted by Jitender Pal Singh, his father Gurmukh Singh and mother Joginder Kaur. They were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, in case FIR No. 709 dated 6.11.2000, registered at Police Station City, Gurgaon, under Section 304-B/34 IPC. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 14.12.2002, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and vide a separate order dated 17.12.2002, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 10,000 each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 2 rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, they have filed the present appeal.
The marriage of Harpreet Kaur, youngest daughter of PW.11 Jagdish Singh was solemnized with appellant Jitender Pal Singh on 24.1.1998 according to Sikh rites and customs. Harpreet Kaur died on 5.11.2000. According to the prosecution, she had consumed aluminium phosphide and it was the case of aluminium phosphide poisoning. Harpreet Kaur was got admitted at Safdarjung Hospital at Delhi on 5.11.2000 at about 11.45 A.M. with the alleged history of having consumed some unknown poison. She expired in Safdarjung Hospital on 5.11.2000 at about 12.45 Noon. On 6.11.2000, PW.11 Jagdish Singh, father of deceased Harpreet Kaur, had made a statement Ex.PB at Safdarjung Hospital to PW.1 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vasant Vihar, Delhi. He had also made a complaint Ex.PO to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Gurgaon, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PR was registered. In his complaint, PW.11 Jagdish Singh stated that his daughter Harpreet Kaur alias Nikko was married with Jitender Pal Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, resident of Gurgaon, on 24.1.1998 according to Sikh rites. Before marriage, ring and shagun ceremonies were also performed. On both these ceremonies, the complainant had spent ` 4,00,000 and had also given furniture, jewellery, clothes and other domestic articles according to the demand of the accused. After 10-12 days of the marriage, Harpreet Kaur alias Nikko came to her parental house and disclosed that she was given beatings by her in-laws Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 3 and they had demanded Scooter. The complainant along with his son- in-law Paramjit Singh Arora and Harpreet Kaur came to Gurgaon and paid ` 25,000 in cash and told the accused to purchase Scooter of their choice. The accused used to beat Harpreet Kaur and demand dowry. They had also given a threat to liquidate her. On 13.2.1999, Harpreet Kaur gave birth to a male child. At that time, a condition was imposed by the accused that in case the complainant intended to see the face of his grandson, he should pay ` 40,000 in cash, clothes and fruits etc. This demand was also fulfilled by the complainant. Thereafter, Harpreet Kaur used to inform on telephone that she should be taken back to her parental house and said that the accused had put a number of restrictions upon her and they may finish her. The in-laws of Harpreet Kaur were searching for a bridegroom for their daughter Gurdeep Kaur. They told the daughter of complainant that she should bring ` 2,00,000 from her parents to facilitate marriage of her sister-in-law and for this purpose they had sent Harpreet Kaur to her parental home at Delhi. The complainant gave a sum of ` 30,000 to his daughter and had left her at Gurgaon and assured that he would make efforts to arrange more amount. On 3.11.2000 Harpreet Kaur had telephonically informed her father that demand of the accused should be fulfilled otherwise they would finish her. According to the complainant, the accused kept their words as Harpreet Kaur died.
The above said FIR was investigated and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The accused were charged for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 4
The prosecution examined Pitter Bara, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, as PW.1. He has stated that on 6.11.2000, he was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vasant Vihar, Delhi. On that day he had prepared the inquest report Ex.PA and had also recorded the statement of PW.11 Jagdish Singh. PW.2 Azad Singh, Constable, has stated that on 6.11.2000, Samsudin, Moharrir Head Constable, had handed over special report to him for delivering the same to the higher officers. He had delivered the special report at the residence of Illaqa Magistrate on 6.11.2000 at about 9.00 P.M. PW.3 Naresh Kumar, Constable, had visited the house of accused Gurmukh Singh and had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PC. PW.4 Samsudin and PW.5 Azad Singh, Constable, have tendered into evidence their respective affidavits Ex.PD and Ex.PE to prove the link evidence. PW.6 Rajinder Singh, Inspector, had prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW.7 Kaptan Singh, Constable, had prepared one sealed packet of blood stained clothes and viscera and handed over the same to Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector. PW.8 Ishwar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, has stated that he was posted as such at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Delhi. He had moved an application before the doctor for recording the statement of Harpreet Kaur. The doctor gave his opinion Ex.PG/1 and declared Harpreet Kaur unfit to make the statement. He has further stated that Harpreet Kaur had expired on 5.11.2000 and this fact was recorded in the report Ex.PH in Daily Diary Register. Thereafter, the request for inquest proceedings was made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. PW.9 Dr. Arvind, on 7.11.2000, had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 5 Harpreet Kaur, aged 25 years. After receipt of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, he had opined that the cause of death was aluminium phosphide poison. PW.10 Virender Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, was entrusted with the investigation of the case on 29.11.2000. He has recorded the statements of Ishwar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector and Kaptan Singh, Constable, under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Jagdish Singh, complainant, appeared as PW.11 and has stated that he retired as a Principal from the Private School and was residing at New Delhi. He had performed the marriage of his youngest daughter Harpreet Kaur with Jitender Pal Singh. He had spent a sum of ` 4,00,000 on the marriage of his daughter Harpreet Kaur. After about 10-12 days of the marriage, his daughter visited him and disclosed that her husband Jitender Pal Singh and in-laws were taunting and harassing her and also subjected her to beatings for not giving scooter in the marriage. She further told her father that the accused required ` 25,000. On 8.2.1998, he along with his son-in-law Paramjit Singh and daughter Harpreet Kaur visited the house of the accused at Gurgaon and gave a sum of ` 25,000 to Jitender Pal Singh, who had further handed over the same to his mother Joginder Kaur. The complainant told Jitender Pal Singh to purchase scooter of his own choice. The accused was not satisfied with the same and continued to beat Harpreet Kaur. On 13.2.1999, Harpreet Kaur gave birth to a male child. The accused had demanded a sum of ` 40,000, fruits and clothes for the entire family and also told that as and when this demand is fulfilled, the complainant would be permitted to see the newly born child. This fact was disclosed by the complainant to his two sons-in-law Paramjit Singh and Upinder Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 6 Singh. On 21.2.1999, the complainant along with his two sons-in-law visited the house of the accused and gave a sum of ` 40,000 along with sweets and clothes for his entire family. The accused were not happy and kept on harassing Harpreet Kaur for more dowry. These facts were revealed by the deceased to the complainant on telephone. The accused had again demanded a sum of ` 40,000 but the complainant could arrange only a sum of ` 30,000 and told the accused with folded hands that he would not be able to meet their further demands. On 3.11.2000, a telephonic call was received from his daughter Harpreet Kaur informing that her life was in danger. On 5.11.2000 a telephonic call was received by the complainant that Harpreet Kaur was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. The complainant along with his family including his sons-in-law had visited the hospital and found that his daughter had expired. On 6.11.2000, he had made his statement before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Thereafter,he went to the Police Station City, Gurgaon, to lodge a complaint Ex.PO. He had also given the list of dowry articles to the police. In his cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he has got two sons and three brothers and they had not visited along with him to the house of the accused. The complainant explained that his eldest son is settled in Mohali, whereas his another son is aged about 20 years. He further stated that at the time of marriage of his daughter Harpreet Kaur, he was getting a salary of ` 18,000 per month. He had taken a sum of ` 2,00,000 from his provident fund and also received a sum of ` 72,000 on the maturity of his ULIP Scheme. He further stated that he also got some arrears on his Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 7 promotion. He further stated that Gurmukh Singh was working as a Senior Teacher in Government High School, Kadarpur. PW.12 Paramjit Singh and PW.13 Upinder Singh, sons-in-law of the complainant, have corroborated his statement.
PW.14 Ramesh Kumar, Sub Inspector, has stated that on 6.11.2000 he was posted in Police Post Pataudi Road, Gurgaon, attached to Police Station City, Gurgaon. He stated that PW.11 Jagdish Singh came there and made a complaint Ex.PO on the basis whereof, formal FIR Ex.PR was recorded.
Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence and the statements of accused, under Section 313Cr.P.C., were recorded. All the incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded innocence. Accused Jitender Pal Singh gave the following version:-
"We never demanded or received any amount of money as stated by the PWs. FIR has been concocted and a false story is made out implicating us as accused in this case. After the registration of the case, the complainant and his son-in-law have been blackmailing us for demand of huge sums of money for a compromise. My wife Harprit Kaur deceased was hyper sensitive, quarrelsome and an obstinate lady and was throughout insisting that I along with her, should shift to Delhi where her parents lived and on my refusal to accede to her request, she committed suicide of her own by taking Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 8 Aluminium Phosphide. The story of demand of dowry is false. I am innocent. My mother Joginder Kaur accused is a heart patient for many years. She and my father also never demanded any dowry."
The other accused adopted the version given by accused Jitender Pal Singh.
In defence Rajinder Pal Singh was examined as DW.1. He stated that he knew the family of the accused. He further stated that as and when he visited the house of the accused, Harpreet Kaur, deceased, was found to be in cheerful mood.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that death of Harpreet Kaur, in the present case, had taken place on 5.11.2000 at about 12.45 Noon. On 5.11.2000, the family of the complainant, who was residing at Delhi, was informed on telephone and they had visited the hospital. No statement was made on 5.11.2000 to the police, rather the police was informed on the next day and the FIR was registered on 6.11.2000 at about 8.45 P.M. and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on 6.11.2000 at about 11.50 P.M. According to the learned senior counsel, delay in lodging of the FIR was used for consultations and deliberations to concoct the false version. It is stated that the deceased was insisting her husband to set up a separate residence at Delhi and this was not acceptable to him who being the only son intended to reside with his old parents.
Mr. Anoop Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 9 has submitted that all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC have been duly proved by the prosecution.
In the present case, it stands conclusively proved that Harpreet Kaur, deceased, died within seven years of her marriage in the circumstances other than normal. It is a case of aluminium phosphide poisoning. From the testimony of PW.11 Jagdish Singh, father of Harpreet Kaur, deceased, PW.12 Paramjit Singh and PW.13 Upinder Singh, it has been established that the demand of scooter was raised and a sum of ` 25,000 was handed over to appellant Jitender Pal Singh, husband of Harpreet Kaur. In his statement Ex.PB made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vasant Vihar, Delhi, PW.11 Jagdish Singh has stated that the accused were searching for a bridegroom for Gurdeep Kaur, sister of the husband and for that purpose they had demanded a sum of ` 2,00,000. However, in the Court, PW.11 Jagdish Singh has stated that the accused had demanded a sum of ` 40,000 and he had handed over a sum of ` 30,000. Thereafter, so far as second demand is concerned PW.11 Jagdish Singh has taken a divergent stand. Thus, the same cannot be taken into consideration. What emerges from the prosecution case is that the demand for a scooter was raised and a sum of ` 25,000 was handed over to appellant Jitender Pal Singh for purchase of the same. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against appellants Gurmukh Singh and Joginder Kaur.
In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:-
"For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 10 other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case".
In Salamat Ali and Another v. State of Bihar AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1863, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"Uniformly every witness has said that the family members of the husband, i.e. Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in the form of television and scooter. The nature of the demand is some indication. The demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 11 expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use".
The view propounded in Salamat Ali's case (supra) has also been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports 665 and another Single Bench of this Court in Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab 2007(3) All India Criminal Law Reports 181.
Taking into consideration the whole gamut of the case, this Court is of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to Gurmukh Singh, father-in-law and Joginder Kaur, mother-in-law of deceased Harpreet Kaur and accordingly, they are acquitted of the charges. Their conviction and sentence are set aside. Appeal qua them stands allowed.
At this stage, learned senior counsel submitted that the occurrence, in the present case, took place in the year 2000. A period of more than 10 years has elapsed. Appellant Jitender Pal Singh has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. Furthermore, learned counsel for appellant Jitender Pal Singh submitted that no aggravating circumstances have been brought on record by the prosecution to warrant sentence more than the minimum prescribed.
Considering the abovesaid submissions made by learned senior counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case, sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, awarded upon appellant Jitender Pal Singh for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, is reduced to that of seven years rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence for the offence under Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 2003 12 Section 498-A IPC and sentence of fine and default clause, shall remain intact.
With the modifications in the sentence, awarded upon appellant Jitender Pal Singh, the present appeal qua him is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 1, 2011 "DK"