Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhmander Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 February, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.1485-SB of 2002
Date of decision:10.2.2011
Sukhmander Singh
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.P.K.Kataria, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Sukhmander Singh has directed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.3.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, in Sessions Case No. 92 dated 8.9.1999, arising out of FIR No.39 dated 10.5.1999 under Sections 304- B/498-A/34 IPC, PS, Lambi.
By the said judgment, he along with Gurnam Singh and Veerpal Kaur was convicted under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two years under Section 304-B IPC and to undergo RI for two years under Section 498-A IPC However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 2
Gurnam Singh and Veerpal Kaur did not file appeal against the impugned judgment.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Kulwinder Kaur (deceased), eldest daughter of Malkiat Singh, complainant, was married with Sukhmander Singh about 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence. From this wedlock, there is no issue. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by the complainant as per his status but after marriage, Sukhmander Singh, his brother Gurnam Singh and Veerpal Kaur wife of Gurnam Singh, started misbehaving and maltreating the deceased on account of demand of more dowry. Whenever, Kulwinder Kaur came to her parental house, then told the complainant to fulfill the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the accused, otherwise they will not allow her to reside peacefully. Complainant along with Parkash Singh, Sarpanch, had gone to the house of the accused at Village Killianwali and had shown his inability to pay Rs.50,000/- to the accused. Complainant then sought time for fulfilling the demand of the accused and came back after leaving Kulwinder Kaur at her in-laws house. 10 days earlier to the present occurrence, complainant received a message that Kulwinder Kaur was seriously ill. Then complainant along with Parkash Singh had gone to the house of the accused but message was found to be false. Kulwinder Kaur was found well. On enquiry, Kulwinder Kaur told that the accused had sent a false message for fulfillment of their demand. He was requested to relieve her by paying Rs.50,000/- to the accused. After that, complainant made his daughter to understand and came back.
On 10.5.1999 at about 2.00 PM, complainant was present in his house, then Bhola Singh, father-in-law of Kulwinder Kaur, came and stated Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 3 that Kulwinder Kaur was seriously ill and was admitted in Singla Hospital, Dabwali. In view of the message, complainant along with his father Harchand Singh and Parkash Singh, Sarpanch, had gone to Singla Hospital, Dabwali, but Kulwinder Kaur was not found there. After that, they came to the house of the accused and found the dead body of Kulwinder Kaur lying on the floor of the room. Either Kulwinder Kaur was administered some poisonous substance on account of non-fulfillment of their demand or she had been compelled to consume some poisonous substance by the accused. After leaving Harchand Singh and Gurmit Singh near the dead body, complainant and Parkash Singh had gone to lodge report with the police.
At Abohar Road Tikoni in the area of Village Killianwali, police party headed by SI Rajan Parminder Singh, SHO, PS, Lambi, was seen while holding a nakabandi. Statement of the complainant (Ex.PE) was recorded. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PE/2) was recorded.
IO had gone to the spot where dead body of Kulwinder Kaur was lying. Inquest report (Ex.PK) was prepared. Dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. Rough site plan (Ex.PL) with its correct marginal notes was prepared. After postmortem examination, HC Daljit Singh had produced blood stained clothes worn by the deceased and the same were made into a sealed parcel with seal bearing impression `RPS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Case property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana.
On 14.5.1999, IO was present at Police Post, Killianwali. Accused was produced before him and was arrested. After completion of Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 4 investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused was charged under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW1 Dr.G.S.Bhullar on 11.5.1999 had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Kulwinder Kaur and observed that no external marks of injuries were noted on the dead body of the deceased. Viscera was sent for chemical examination. Cause of death as per report of Chemical Examiner was due to aluminium phosphide.
PW2 Malkiat Singh is the complainant. He has reiterated his stand before the police.
PW3 Parkash Singh is the Sarpanch. He has supported the version of Malkiat Singh, complainant.
PW4 Harchand Singh is the grand father of the deceased. He has also supported the version of the complainant.
PW5 Gurmit Singh, Patwari, prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PF). PW6 HC Jagdish Chander tendered his affidavit (Ex.PG). PW7 HC Baljit Singh was deputed for getting the postmortem examination on the dead body of Kulwinder Kaur.
PW8 Constable Kuldip Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PJ). PW9 SI Rajan Parminder Singh is the Investigating Officer. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the appellant was as under:-
Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 5
"The case is false one. I am innocent. I kept my wife Kulwinder Kaur with love and affection during my whole married life. She died of a natural death due to sudden illness due to food poisoning and I and my family members have never demanded any money as dowry from her or her parents and no question of maltreatment and harassment and cruelty towards her does arise at all and I live separately from my brother Gurnam Singh and his family consisting of his wife and 2 small children, aged about 6-7 years and 4-5 years, respectively. My brother and my sister-in-law, i.e., wife of Gurnam Singh have been falsely implicated as the cousin brother of Veerpal Kaur was the mediator of the marriage of mine with Kulwinder Kaur. The case has been made against us as the father of Kulwinder Kaur wanted to extort money from us on her death and also wanted to get the articles of our house to his house and on our refusal, he in connivance with the police and political pressure as he is an Akali party worker of the ruling party of the State, this case has been registered against us. I along with my brother and sister-in-law Veerpal Kaur was taken to the Police Post, Killianwali, on the evening of 10.5.99 and was kept there and our formal arrest was wrongly shown on 14.5.99. When Kulwinder Kaur fell ill, my father and mother called the doctor in the house instantly and tried to save her and while going to the Singla Hospital, Dabwali. She died in the way and her dead body was taken back to the house. I am separate in mess and in business and in residence from my brother Gurnam Singh since Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 6 June, 1998."
In defence, DW1 Sukhdev Singh Member Panchayat of Village Killianwali, stated that accused party was known to him. There was no demand of dowry by the accused. Kulwinder Kaur had died natural death.
DW2 Jagir Singh stated that accused party was known to him. Gurnam Singh was having separate residence from Sukhmander Singh. There was no demand of dowry by the accused. There was no dispute amongst the deceased and her husband. On 10.5.1999, he was present in his house and was called by the mother of Sukhmander Singh. She told him that Kulwinder Kaur developed pain in her abdomen after taking meals and requested to bring doctor. He brought Dr. Raja Singh, who advised to shift Kulwinder Kaur to some better hospital. After that, they had shifted Kulwinder Kaur to Singla Hospital, Mandi Dabwali. Kulwinder Kaur had died when they had reached the hospital. Dead body was brought back to their village.
After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on the file, accused was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that no eye witness. Case is based on circumstantial evidence. As per postmortem report, no external injury was noticed. In case appellant had administered some poisonous substance, then some injury was expected. As per story, 10 days earlier to the occurrence, complainant party received a message that Kulwinder Kaur was seriously ill but no evidence as to who had given the Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 7 message. Before the present occurrence, there was no complaint to any authority. In case, appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/- and used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry, then complaints should have been sent to different authorities. If due to some reason, complainant was unable to send complaints to different authorities, then panchayat could easily be convened. But no panchayat. In fact, deceased after taking meals, developed some problem in the abdomen. Death was due to food poisoning. Dr. Raja Singh was summoned but after checking, he advised to shift the patient to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. When Kulwinder Kaur was being shifted to Singla Hospital, Dabwali, then on the way, she had died.
Learned State counsel argued that Kulwinder Kaur (deceased) was married with the appellant about 1-1/2 years earlier to the occurrence and from this wedlock, there is no issue. After marriage, appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Rs.50,000/- was demanded but complainant failed to fulfill the demand of the appellant. 10 days earlier to the occurrence, a message was sent that Kulwinder Kaur was seriously ill. In view of the message, when complainant along with Parkash Singh, Sarpanch, had gone to the house of the appellant, then Kulwinder Kaur was found well. Complainant was requested by Kulwinder Kaur to fulfill the demand of Rs.50,000/-, otherwise she is to be eliminated. On the day of occurrence, father of the appellant came and reported to the complainant that Kulwinder Kaur was not feeling well. She was admitted in Singla Hospital, Dabwali. As per message, complainant party had gone to Singla Hospital, Dabwali, but Kulwinder Kaur was not found admitted in the hospital. After that, complainant party had gone to the house of the Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 8 appellant, then Kulwinder Kaur was found dead lying on the floor of the room. As per report of Chemical Examiner, unnatural death was due to aluminium phosphide. Defence version of the appellant was that death was due to food poisoning but no question was put to the doctor that death was due to food poisoning. If death was due to food poisoning, then question is how aluminium phosphide was noticed by the laboratory. Unnatural death at the house of the appellant and appellant was to explain how unnatural death. According to defence version, Dr. Raja Singh was summoned but he was not produced to state as to whether he had gone to the house of the appellant and whether the appellant was advised to shift the patient to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. No record from Singla Hospital, Dabwali, as to whether Kulwinder Kaur was brought to the hospital or not. Complainant party was not present at the time of occurrence. So, no question of presence of any eye witness. Appellant was present in the house but no explanation why unnatural death.
Case of the prosecution was that about 1-1/2 years earlier to the occurrence, Kulwinder Kaur was married with the appellant. Sufficient dowry was given by the complainant as per his status. But after marriage, appellant started misbehaving and maltreating the appellant for want of dowry. Appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/-. Unnatural death at the in- laws house, whereas defence version of the appellant was that death was due to food poisoning. An effort was made to provide medical aid but natural death when Kulwinder Kaur was being shifted to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. Now the question is whether prosecution story inspires confidence or defence version seems to be more probable.
To convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 9 was required to prove that unnatural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage. Deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with demand of dowry.
Complainant appeared in Court and stated that about 1-1/2 years earlier to the occurrence, Kulwinder Kaur was married with the appellant. Similar is the statements of his father Harchand Singh and Parkash Singh, Sarpanch. No suggestion to the complainant, his father or Parkash Singh, Sarpanch, that marriage was not 1-1/2 years earlier to the occurrence. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then stated that he was married with the deceased 1-1/2 years earlier to the occurrence. So, first ingredient to convict the appellant under Section 304- B IPC is clear.
As per story, unnatural death at the in-laws house but defence version of the appellant was that death was due to food poisoning. Dr. G.S.Bhullar had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Kulwinder Kaur and stated that no external injury was noticed, but as per report of Chemical Examiner, death was due to poisoning. No question was put to the doctor that death was due to food poisoning. If death was due to food poisoning, then there was no question of aluminium phosphide, as per report of the laboratory. PW2 Malkiat Singh, complainant, is the father of the deceased. Suggestion was given to the complainant that Kulwinder Kaur was having weak digestion system and normally remained sick but reply of the complainant was that she was not having weak digestion system and was not sick, and there was no food poisoning. Parkash Singh, Sarpanch, while appearing as PW3, then stated that he had gone to the house of the appellant along with the complainant 10 days earlier to the occurrence and on the day Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 10 of occurrence. In examination-in-chief, he has supported the prosecution story but no suggestion was given to the witness that death was due to food poisoning. PW4 Harchand Singh is the grand father of the deceased. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that after the marriage, appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Suggestion was given to the doctor that deceased had died natural death but no suggestion to the doctor that death was natural. Defence version of the appellant was that death was due to food poisoning. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then stated that Kulwinder Kaur died natural death due to sudden illness due to food poisoning. When Kulwinder Kaur fell ill, then she was being shifted to the hospital but she died on the way. Not a word was stated by the appellant that Dr. Raja Singh was brought by DW2 Jagir Singh. After checking, Dr. Raja Singh had advised to shift Kulwinder Kaur to Singla Hospital, Dabwali.
Jagir Singh while appearing as DW2, then stated that mother of the appellant came to his house and on her request, he had gone to the house of the appellant. He had brought Dr. Raja Singh. After checking, doctor advised to shift Kulwinder Kaur to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. After that, they had shifted Kulwinder Kaur to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. Death of Kulwinder Kaur was when they had reached Singla Hospital, Dabwali. After that, dead body was brought back. Mother of the appellant failed to appear in Court to state that when Kulwinder Kaur complained food poisoning, then she had gone to the house of Jagir Singh. Jagir Singh was requested to bring doctor. Dr. Raja Singh came and after checking, advised to shift Kulwinder Kaur to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then stated that Kulwinder Kaur was Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 11 not feeling well. Then his mother and father brought the doctor. When Kulwinder Kaur was being shifted to the hospital, then on the way, she had died. Dr. Raja Singh was not examined to state that as per request of Jagir Singh or parents of the appellant, he had gone to the house of the appellant and after checking Kulwinder Kaur had advised the appellant to shift her to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. No official from Singla Hospital, Dabwali, appeared to state that Kulwinder Kaur was brought to the hospital but when the appellant party came to the hospital, then Kulwinder Kaur had died. According to the story, some poisonous substance was administered to the deceased, whereas defence version was that death was due to food poisoning, but no evidence on record to show that death was due to food poisoning. If death was due to food poisoning, then some other members of the family were expected to complain food poisoning. No case of the appellant that only deceased had taken the food and no other member. When food is prepared in the family, then all members are expected to take the same. No case of the appellant that after Kulwinder Kaur had taken food, then complained food poisoning and after that, no other member had taken food. So, story regarding food poisoning is an after thought. Unnatural death at the in-laws house. Second ingredient to convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC is also clear.
Third ingredient to convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC was that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with demand of dowry. Complainant, Sarpanch and grand father of the deceased in Court stated that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given. After marriage, appellant started misbehaving Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 12 and maltreating the deceased for want of dowry. Appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/-. 10 days earlier to the occurrence, a message was sent that Kulwinder Kaur was not feeling well. On receipt of message, complainant party had gone to the house of the appellant but story regarding illness of Kulwinder Kaur was found false. Kulwinder Kaur was all right. But she had requested the complainant to relieve her by paying Rs.50,000/- to the appellant. Kulwinder Kaur was made to understand and complainant party came back. On 10.5.1999 at about 2.00 PM, father of the appellant came and informed the complainant party that Kulwinder Kaur was seriously ill and she was shifted to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. On receipt of message, complainant party had gone to Singla Hospital, Dabwali, but Kulwinder Kaur was not found admitted in the hospital. After that, complainant party came to the house of the appellant. Dead body of Kulwinder Kaur was found lying in the house. Father of the appellant failed to appear in Court to state that he had not gone to the house of the complainant to inform about the illness of Kulwinder Kaur. Kulwinder Kaur was married with the appellant about 1-1/2 years earlier to the occurrence and there is no issue from this wedlock. As per defence version, Kulwinder Kaur was being kept nicely but if this allegation is correct one, then question is why Kulwinder Kaur had consumed some poisonous substance. No lady living happily at her in-laws house is to consume poisonous substance. As per defence version, if deceased had taken meal and developed some problem in the abdomen, then an effort should have been made to shift her to the nearest hospital. According to the defence version, Dr. Raja Singh was summoned to the house of the appellant by Jagir Singh but this fact is not clear as per version of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Dr. Raja Singh was not Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 13 examined to state as to whether Kulwinder Kaur was suffering from food poisoning. As per DW2 Jagir Singh, Kulwinder Kaur was shifted to Singla hospital, Dabwali. Death of Kulwinder Kaur was in Singla Hospital when they had reached Singla Hospital, but no employee of Singla Hospital, Dabwali, came with record to report as to whether Kulwinder Kaur was brought to Singla Hospital, Dabwali. According to the appellant, his mother and father had summoned the doctor. Doctor came and advised them to shift Kulwinder Kaur to the nearest hospital but death was on the way. Father or mother of the appellant failed to appear in defence. If allegation of cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before death is not correct one, then father, mother and other family members of the appellant should have been named by the complainant but all members are not named. Only three members, namely, appellant, his brother and wife of his brother were named. That means, there was no intention to implicate the entire family. Admittedly, there was no complaint to any authority regarding demand of dowry. There was no Panchayat but sometimes, to settle the girl, no complaint is sent to the police or Panchayat. Parents thinks twice to file complaint against the in-laws. Complaints are sent to the police or Panchayat when no hope of stay of the girl at the in-laws house. In the present case also, no complaint is sent to any authority with a hope that with the passage of time, girl is to settle in her in-laws house. If no complaint to any authority, then on this short ground, story is not to be ignored. When the appellant was present at the time of occurrence, then under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, presumption was that death is dowry death when theory of natural death due to food poisoning inspires no confidence.
Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 14
As discussed earlier, unnatural death at the in-laws house. So, no question of presence of any eye witness. No external injury was noticed but if no injury, then story is not to be ignored because common experience shows that sometimes, poisonous substance is administered by mixing in the milk, tea or some other eatable article. Possibility of some external injury is there if forcibly poisonous substance is administered. No case of the appellant that deceased was not keeping good health and she was under
depression, so she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. If deceased consumed poisonous substance due to mistake or being under depression, then deceased should have been shifted to the nearest hospital immediately. Minor discrepancies in the statements of PWs. Discrepancies have occurred with the passage of time. When all family members of the appellants are not named, then I am of the opinion that prosecution story inspires confidence. Defence version is an after thought.
No other submission was put forward.
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld. Under Section 304-B IPC, appellant is directed to undergo RI for ten years and under Section 498-A IPC, to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merit is dismissed with modification qua fine.
Appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the Crl.Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2002 15 concerned authority to undergo imprisonment as ordered by this Court, failing which, concerned authority/CJM, Muktsar, to issue re-arrest warrants to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
10.2.2011 (JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE