Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab on 11 August, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal S-679-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : August 11, 2010
Gurdev Kaur and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The appellants, alongwith their co-accused Malkiat Kaur and Paramjit Kaur alias Pammi, were tried for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.7.1998, the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. They were also convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention spent by each of the Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -2- appellants in custody during the investigation as well as trial of the case was ordered to be set off from the period of substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them according to law. Co-accused of the appellants, namely, Malkiat Kaur and Paramjit Kaur alias Pammi were, however, acquitted of the charges against them.
According to the prosecution, on 9.10.1996, complainant Sukhdev Kaur widow of Mithu Singh made statement before SI Barjinder Kumar of Police Station Cantt., Bathinda to the effect that the marriage of her daughter Baljit Kaur was performed about seven months ago with appellant Baltej Singh alias Kala Singh of village Bhucho Kalan. Sufficient dowry was given but the appellants alongwith their co-accused were not happy with the same. After about one month of the marriage of her daughter, they started teasing and mal-treating her on account of bringing less dowry. She was also beaten by all of them. On being informed by Baljit Kaur, the complainant went with her to her in- laws' house and stated that she was a poor lady and was unable to give more dowry but the appellants were not satisfied with her explanation and they continued ill-treating her daughter by beating her. The appellants had demanded a cash of Rs.7,000/- so that they may run a shop and also demanded a television. Her daughter had come to the house of the complainant 5 days prior to her death and informed about the aforesaid demands. She was threatened that in case their demands were not met, she would be done to death or turned out of the Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -3- matrimonial home. She assured her daughter and sent her back to village Bhucho Kalan. On 8.10.1996 the complainant, alongwith her brother-in-law Leelu Singh had gone to the house of the appellants on the day of the occurrence and saw that the appellants were taunting her daughter for bringing inadequate dowry. The complainant and her brother-in-law were told to hand over Rs.7,000/- and television and only then she would be allowed to live, otherwise they would kill her. The complainant and her brother-in-law Leelu Singh stated that they will try to satisfy their demand soon and came back to their village. At about 6/7 p.m., the complainant received a message regarding the serious condition of her daughter. Thereafter, the complainant accompanied by Leelu Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, Panch reached the house of the appellants at 11.30 p.m. and saw the dead body of her daughter lying in the courtyard on a cot. The appellants did not state anything on the enquiry made by the complainant regarding the death of her daughter. The complainant stated that her daughter had been killed by the appellants and their two accused for demand of dowry or that she might have killed herself by committing suicide due to ill-treatment by the appellants. After leaving her brother-in-law to guard the dead body, the complainant alongwith Mukhtiar Singh, Panch went to the Police Station and got recorded her statement, on the basis of which, FIR No. 36 dated 9.10.1996 was registered at Police Station Cantt. Bathinda for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 148 and 149 IPC against the appellants and others.
Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -4- During the course of investigation, SI Barjinder Kumar visited the spot and prepared inquest report Ex.PD and obtained the photographs. The post mortem on the dead body of Baljit Kaur was got conducted. The appellants were arrested.
Upon completion of investigation and presentation of the challan, followed by commitment of the case, charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC were framed against the appellants and others, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr.Niranjan Lal, E.M.O., PW2 complainant Sukhdev Kaur, PW3 Leelu Singh, PW4 SI Barjinder Kumar, PW5 ASI Roop Singh and PW6 Constable Jagga Singh.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants and their co-accused denied the allegations/incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.
The plea of accused Gurdev Kaur was that she and her husband work in Dera, known as Romi Wala, where they distribute meals to the public and also to those persons, who live in the Dera. Her son Kala Singh alias Baltej Singh came to her in the Dera and told her that his wife was lying dead on the ground and he had lifted her to see and to save her from ants and insects, put her on a cot. Her daughter/co- accused Paramjit Kaur was married at village Kalayan and she got Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -5- information and came to the village on 10.10.1996. Malkiat Kaur was living away from their house. None of them was present at the time of incident and Bhola Singh was sent to call the parents of deceased Baljit Kaur.
Accused Paramjit Kaur, who is sister of appellant Baltej Singh also stated on the similar lines and alleged that she was married at village Kalayan Sukha and on receiving information came to village on 10.10.1996 and Malkiat Kaur was living away from their house.
Accused Gurcharan Singh, father of Baltej Singh and accused Malkiat Kaur, who is aunt of Baltej Singh also adopted the same plea.
The plea of accused Baltej Singh was on similar lines about calling his mother from the Dera. His sister/co-accused Paramjit Kaur was married at village Kalayan Sukha and she got information and came to village on 10.10.1996 and Malkiat Kaur accused was his aunt who was living away from his house and none of them was present at the time of incident and Bhola Singh was sent to call the parents of deceased Baljit Kaur. In defence, the accused examined DW1 Bhola Singh.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -6- mentioned above. Their co-accused Malkiat Kaur and Paramjit Kaur alias Pammi were, however, acquitted of the charges against them.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence.
While lodging FIR, complainant Sukhdev Kaur had stated that she had solemnized the marriage of her daughter Baljit Kaur, since deceased, with Baltej Singh appellant about seven months before her death. While appearing as PW2 Sukhdev Kaur deposed that about two years ago, she had solemnized the aforementioned marriage. She was examined by the trial Court as PW2 after one year and four months of the incident. Similarly, PW3 Leelu Singh, uncle of the deceased had stated that the marriage of Baljit Kaur was solemnized with Baltej Singh appellant about seven months prior to her death. DW1 Bhola Singh, who was neighbour of the appellants, admitted in his cross-examination that the marriage had taken place about eleven months prior to the occurrence. Therefore, it stands established that the death of Baljit Kaur had taken place within seven years of her marriage.
PW1 Dr. Niranjan Lal while conducting post mortem on the dead body of Baljit Kaur found two injuries on her neck. Hyoid bone was found fractured. The trachea was congested and it contained bloody froth. Bloody froth was coming out from the nostrils. Face was cyanosed. Cyanoses was also present on the nails. The cause of death Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -7- was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation, which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to the doctor, the death could be the result of strangulation with the help of a danda after placed on the neck of the deceased while back portion of her neck resting at the bahi of the cot. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the death of Baljit Kaur had taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances.
PW2 Sukhdev Kaur had deposed that she had spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the marriage of her daughter Baljit Kaur with Baltej Singh appellant. However, the accused were not happy with the dowry and after about one month of the marriage, they started teasing and ill treating her on the ground of bringing less dowry. She was beaten by the accused. She informed the witness about the occurrence and her ill-treatment. When the witness went with her daughter to the house of the accused and stated that she was a poor lady and not able to give more dowry, the accused did not feel satisfy with her explanation and continued ill-treating her daughter by beating her. They demanded Rs.7,000/- so as to run a shop. They also demanded a television. The witness sent her daughter to her matrimonial home but the accused did not mend their ways. Her daughter came back to her house about five days before her death and informed her that her in-laws were demanding Rs.7,000/- and a television or else they would either kill her or turn out of the matrimonial home. The witness alongwith her brother-in-law Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -8- Leelu Singh went to the house of the accused and saw that the accused were quarrelling with her daughter on the issue of payment of Rs.7,000/- and a television. The accused were stating that she should bring those articles from her parents or else they would kill her. Similar demand was raised by the accused from the witness. The witness and her brother-in-law Leelu Singh assured the accused that they would satisfy their demand and came back to their village. In the evening at 6/7.00 p.m. they received a message that the condition of her daughter Baljit Kaur was serious. The witness alongwith her brother-in-law Leelu Singh as well as Mukhtiar Singh, Panch reached the village of the accused at about 11.30 p.m. and saw the dead body of her daughter lying on a cot. The accused were enquired about the cause of death but they did not state anything. According to her, the deceased had been done to death by the accused for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry or she might have committed suicide due to ill-treatment at the hands of the accused. Almost on similar lines was the testimony of PW3 Leelu Singh. Therefore, it has been proved on record that the death of Baljit Kaur had taken place on account of her maltreatment and harassment at the hands of the accused on account of non fulfilment of their demand for more dowry.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that neither PW2 Sukhdev Kaur nor PW3 Leelu Singh, who were mother and uncle, respectively of the deceased, were sure about the manner in Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -9- which Baljit Kaur died. Infact, the uncertainity upon their part about the cause of death indicated that they had not visited the house of the accused on the date of the occurrence.
From the testimony of PW1 Dr. Niranjan Lal, it is apparent that he had noticed two injuries on the dead body, one being a depression of 10 cm. x 2 cm. on the front of the neck in its upper part with two abrasions reddish in colour 2 cm. x 1 cm. each on both sides below the angle of mandible whereas the second one being a reddish bruise of 10 cm. x 2 cm. on back of neck below the posterior hairline. On dissection the ecchymoses were present in the underlying soft tissue and hyoid bone was found fractured with its fractured end outwardly. The trachea was congested and contained bloody froth. In his opinion, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. He went on to state that the death could have been the result of strangulation with the help of a danda after the same had been placed on the neck of the deceased while back portion of her neck was resting on the bahi of the cot. In cross-examination, the doctor deposed that the injuries could not be caused with a rope. Apparently, it was the act of an external hand in causing the death of Baljit Kaur. Going by the force applied in pressing her neck with a danda which resulted in the hyoid bone getting fractured, it can safely be concluded that the head portion was moving freely as it had been practically severed from the rest of the body. In such a situation, the mother and uncle of the deceased would not have Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -10- been sure as to whether the death of Baljit Kaur had taken place on account of strangulation or she had herself committed suicide by hanging. Only an expert like PW1 Dr. Niranjan Lal would have found out as to what was the real cause of death. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with PW2 Sukhdev Kaur and PW3 Leelu Singh when they stated that Baljit Kaur had been either killed by the accused or she killed herself by committing suicide.
On the date of the incident PW2 Sukhdev Kaur and PW3 Leelu Singh had visited the house of the accused twice. When they went in the first instance, the accused were quarrelling with Baljit Kaur and raised a demand of Rs.7,000/- and a television so as to be brought by her from her parents or they would kill her. Both PW2 Sukhdev Kaur and PW3 Leelu Singh were also directed to fulfill the demand and threats were also extended to her. On this, both Sukhdev Kaur and Leelu Singh assured the accused that they would satisfy the demand soon and then returned to their village. The second visit was in pursuance of a message received by Sukhdev Kaur and Leelu Singh at 6/7.00 p.m. when they learnt that the condition of Baljit Kaur was serious. They reached the house of the accused at about 11.30 p.m. and noticed that Baljit Kaur was lying dead on a cot. The accused were also present and when asked about the cause of death, they had nothing to state. Therefore, it stands established that the deceased used to be maltreated and harassed on account of non fulfillment of their demand Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -11- for dowry and the said treatment continued till the day when Baljit Kaur died on account of strangulation.
Both Gurdev Kaur and Gurcharan Singh-appellants had taken the plea that they have been working in dera known as Romi Wala and it was at that place that Baltej Singh-appellant had come and informed them that his wife was lying dead. However, for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, actual presence of the accused in the said house is not required if it is shown that such accused had been maltreating or harassing the deceased in connection with dowry and the same had continued upto the time soon before the death of the victim.
Baltej Singh-appellant in reply to the question put to him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to where he was present at the time of the incident stated that he found his wife lying dead on the ground and in order to save her from ants and insects, he put her on cot. He then left for dera Romi Wala to inform his mother. He was under a duty to explain as to under what circumstances his wife had died. He did not explain the facts which were in his exclusive knowledge as to how his wife had died. His failure to do so would permit the Court to raise an adverse inference against him.
The case of Gurdev Kaur and Gurcharan Singh-appellants is on the same and similar footing as that of Malkiat Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, who have since been acquitted of the charges by the trial Court.
Crl. Appeal S-679-SB of 1998 -12- Moreover, only vague and general allegations have been levelled against Gurdev Kaur and Gurcharan Singh-appellants of their harassing and maltreating the deceased in connection with dowry. No specific instance had been mentioned which could show that they had also been maltreating and harassing the deceased. Under these circumstances, both Gurdev Kaur and Gurcharan Singh are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of Gurdev Kaur and Gurcharan Singh-appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges against them. At the same time, the conviction and sentences of imprisonment and fine alongwith their default clauses, as imposed upon Baltej Singh-appellant by the trial Court are, affirmed.
The appeal of Gurdev Kaur and Gurcharan Singh is, thus, accepted while that of Baltej Singh is dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
August 11, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1