Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Daljit Singh And Others on 11 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999CRILJ2723
Author: A.S. Garg
Bench: A.S. Garg
JUDGMENT
1. Daljit Singh along with his wife Amarjit Kaur and two sons, Khushkismat Singh and Khuswant Singh, were tried for an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. After resultant trial, whereas they were acquitted under section 304-B, IPC, they were held guilty and convicted under section 498-A, IPC and ordered to undergo R1 for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R1 for one year. Aggrieved, whereas, they have filed Crl. Appeal No. 386-SB of 1991 challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the State of Punjab has filed Crl. Appeal No. 124-DBA of 1992 seeking their conviction for the charge that was framed against them, i.e. under section 304-B, IPC. Gurpreet Singh, for the same relief as also for enhancement of compensation has filed Crl Revision No. 71 of 1992. By this judgment, we thus, propose to decide two Criminal Appeals and revision, referred to above as they emanate from the same order of the learned Sessions Judge dated August 29, 1991.
2. The incident leading to unnatural death of Lakhwinder Kaur wife of Khushkismat Singh was reported to police by Gurpreet Singh, brother of the deceased on August 2, 1989 at 1.30 p.m. His statement was recorded by Surat Singh SI. As per the narration of events given by Gurpreet Singh, Lakhwinder Kaur died in the early morning of August 2, 1989. The special report with regard to incident reached the concerned Magistrate at 5.45 p.m. on August 2, 1989 itself.
3. Gurprit Singh stated that he was resident of village Bhamian Kalan and his sister Lakhbir Kaur was married with Khushkismat Singh Patwari son of Shri Daljit Singh of village Lal Kalan about four years back. They had given dowry at that time of marriage according to their financial status. Two daughters were born to her and they were aged two years and three years. Khushwant Singh, brother of Khushkismat Singh, intended to go abroad. Amarjit Kaur, mother-in-law of his sister, Daljit Singh, father-in-law of his sister and both the brothers started maltreating his sister asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents so that they could send Khushwant Singh abroad. About two months earlier, her in-laws maltreated her and sent her to parental house at village Bhamian Kalan. She narrated the entire matter to him and her brother Harpreet Singh and told that her-in-laws were demanding Rupees 50,000/- and in case the said demand was not met out, they would make her life miserable. They were not in a position to pay the said huge amount. He then narrated the said matter to Karam Singh Sarpanch. Karam Singh Sarpanch and he took his sister to village Lal Kalan and left her in her-in-laws house after consoling her that they would do something to arrange the money. He told this fact to his maternal uncle Harjit Singh son of Jiwan Singh, resident of Chak Mafi. He told him that some days ago, Lakhbir Kaur had met him at bus stand Samrala and she had asked him weepingly that they should do something as her in-laws were demanding money from her parents for sending Khushwant Singh abroad. He consoled her and sent her to her in-laws house at village Lal Kalan. A day before the occurrence, he further stated, he had gone to his sister's house at village Lal Kalan where a quarrel was going on in the family. Her mother-in-law Amarjit Kaur, father-in-law Daljit Singh, her husband Khushwant Singh and her husband's younger brother were taunting his sister. On seeing him, they asked her that her brother had come and that she should talk to him. His sister again told him about their demand of money and further told that they had made her life miserable on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of money. He tried to advise husband and in-laws of his sister but they remained adamant. He turned to his village and again talked to his brother Harpreet Singh about it and told him that they should do something for arranging the money. Their maternal uncle Harjit Singh had also come to their house last night with some money for being paid to Lakhbir Kaur. On the day of occurrence at about 9 a.m., Nirbhai Singh son of Bhajan Singh, resident of Lal Kalan came to their village and told that Lakhbir Kaur had expired that day in the morning. On hearing it, his maternal uncle, Harjit Singh, brother Harpreet Singh, Karam Singh Sarpanch and other persons and he immediately reached village Lal Kalan and found Lakhbir Kaur dead on cot in the Verandah. He further stated that his sister had died after taking some poisonous matter due to the maltreatment meted out to her by her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and her husband. Leaving his maternal uncle Harjit Singh and other responsible persons near the dead body, he along with Karam Singh Sarpanch had come to the police station to lodge a report.
4. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants, prosecution has examined Dr. Raj Kumar Garg, Civil Hospital, Mour Mandi and PW 1. He stated that on 3-8-1989 at 9 a.m. he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Lakhbir Kaur aged 25 years. The length of dead body was 5'-1". It was moderately built and nourished. Eyes and mouth were partially opened. White froth was coming from both the nostrils. Face and conjunctiva and tongue were pale. Post-mortem staining was present at the back, dark purple in colour. Rigor mortis was present partially in the upper limbs and fully in the lower limbs. He sent viscera to the Chemical Examiner in a sealed box. The probable time that elapsed between death and post-mortem was opined to be within 36 hours. On receipt of report from the Chemical Examiner, the cause of death was opined by the doctor to be due to ingestion of aluminium phosphide which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between the ingestion of poison and death was within few hours.
5. Nachhattar Singh, Draftsman, PW 2 stated that on September 3, 1989, on the pointing out of Gurpreet Singh, he prepared a scaled site plan, EX. PE. PW 3 Gurpreet Singh, who was examined as PW 3 Karam Singh stated that about two months prior to the death of Lakhbir Kaur, Gurpreet Singh had come to him and told that Lakhbir Kaur had come to their house and she had been sent by her in-laws after harassing her to bring Rs. 50,000/-. He then accompanied Gurpreet Singh to their house and enquired from Lakhbir Kaur, who told him that her in-laws wanted to send Khushwant Singh out of India and that all the four accused had been harassing her and forcing her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. He along with Gurpreet Singh then took Lakhbir Kaur to the house of her in-laws in village Lal Kalan and left her there assuring that they would try to make some arrangement regarding the amount. On August 2, 1989 he came to know from Nirbhai Singh of village Lal Kalan that Lakhbir Kaur had died. Harjit Singh, maternal uncle of Gurpreet Singh had come to their village a day earlier thereto. On hearing the news, he along with Gurpreet Singh, Harpreet Singh, Harjit Singh, Surinder Singh and few other persons had gone to the house of accused in village Lal Kalan and found dead body of Lakhbir Kaur lying on a cot in the verandah of the house. Some froth was coming out from the mouth of the deceased. Leaving Harjit Singh and others near the dead body, he along with Gurpreet Singh went to police station Samrala where Gurpreet Singh lodged a report with the police. He was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of his village. PW 5 Harjit Singh, while supporting the prosecution version, stated that parents of Lakhbir Kaur gave dowry according to their social status. About ten days before the death of Lakhbir Kaur, he was present at Samrala Bus stand. Lakhbir Kaur met him there. She wept and told that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her parents in order to send her husband's younger brother to a foreign country. She also told him that her in-laws were saying that they had been given inadequate dowry. After giving her advice, he sent her to village Lal Kalan. He told at that time that they would be trying to arrange the money. Four-five days thereafter, Gurpreet Singh came to his village and told that in-laws of Lakhbir Kaur were demanding Rs. 50,000/-. He told him that he too had happened to meet Lakhbir Kaur at Samrala bus stand and that she had also told him about the matter. He arranged for some money and then went to village Bhamian Kalan. On the next morning, while they were preparing to leave for the village of the accused. Nirbhai Singh of that village came to them and told that Lakhbir Kaur had died. He along with Harpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh, Karam Singh Sarpanch and few others went to the house of accused in village Lal Kalan and found Lakhbir Kaur lying dead in the verandah of the house. SI Surat Singh, who was examined as PW 6, detailed the steps that he had taken while investigating this case.
6. Appellants, in their statements recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. pleaded that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Khushkismat Singh further stated that on August 1, 1989 he left for Dera Beas at 6 a.m. Avtar Singh, Sarpanch of village Lal Kalan met him near Gurdwara. He told him that he was going to Dera Beas. While he was at Beas on August 2, 1989 at about 12 noon, he received a message from his home that Lakhbir Kaur had died. He returned to his village at about 5 p.m. Police was already there. They were arrested. His brother Khushwant Singh was engaged to a girl settled in England. Harjit Singh PW wanted to break that engagement as he intended to marry his daughter Hardip Kaur to Khushwant singh. His brother was to receive air ticket for going to England from his would-be in-laws. He had good relations with Lakhbir Kaur. He had invested Rs. 7500/- in the name of deceased through FDR. Similarly, he had deposited Rs. 10,000/- in the FDR in the name of his elder daughter Virinder Pal. He was insured for Rs. one lac and Lakhbir Kaur deceased was made his nominee. He and his brother Khushwant Singh jointly owned 12 acres of land. His father owned three acres of land and they were also having a tractor. Appellant Khushwant Singh stated that he was engaged to Jaspal Kaur daughter of Partap Singh in England. He was to settle there on the ground of his marriage with Jaspal Kaur and the fare was to be borne by his would-be in-laws. Even otherwise, he had sufficient amount in his bank account and he had no need of dowry. Harjit Singh wanted to engage his daughter Hardip Kaur with him. He declined the proposal. Twenty days before the death of Lakhbir Kaur he came to their village and tried to prevail upon him that he should not go to England and rather settle in India after marriage with his daughter. He did not agree to it and there was an altercation between them. On August 1, 1989 Lakhbir Kaur felt unwell. She was taken to Dr. Gurmel Singh at Neelon Bridge and at his advice they took her to Doraha to Dr. Harbans Singh who further advised them to take Lakhbir Kaur to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. She died on her way to Ludhiana and they brought the dead body back to village. Before taking Lakhbir Kaur to the doctor, they had sent information to her parents through Nirbhai Singh. They also sent Bharpur Singh to fetch Khushkismat Singh from Dera Beas where he had gone.
7. In their defence, appellants examined Devinder Pal Prasher as DW 1 who stated that he had brought with him the statement of Bank account No. 5466 pertaining to Khushwant Singh. DW 2 Dr. Gurmel Singh stated that Lakhbir Kaur was known to him. She was brought to his clinic by Khushwant Singh appellant on August 2, 1989 at about 7.30 a.m. in an unconscious condition. His mother and Avtar Singh Sarpanch of village Lal Kalan were also with the patient. After examining her condition, he advised that she should immediately be taken to Doraha in the clinic of Dr. Sidhu. He accompanied Lakhbir Kaur to the aforesaid clinic. Dr. Harbans Singh did not even allow them to bring down the patient from the van and advised them that she be taken to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Lakhbir Kaur died on the way to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, near village Sahni. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not request the police to record his statement and that he had not entered the visit of Lakhbir Kaur in the record of his clinic as he did not give her any medicine. He denied the suggestion that he made a false statement. DW 3 Shiv Kumar Sharma stated that a sum of Rs. 7500/- was deposited in their bank on March 27, 1989 by Lakhbir Kaur wife of Khushkismat Singh in Double Benefit Deposit Certificate Scheme. DW 4 Avtar Singh stated that he was Sarpanch of village Lal Kalan for the last 12 years. House of accused was adjacent to his house. In his presence, accused never quarreled with or maltreated Lakhbir Kaur and no complaint in this regard was ever made to him by Lakhbir Kaur. Khushkismat Singh and Khushwant Singh accused jointly owned 12 acres of land in village. Their father also owned some land in village. On August 1, 1989 Khushkismat Singh and Nirbhai Singh met him near village Gurdwara at about 6 a.m. He enquired from them as to where they were going, upon which they replied that they were going to Beas to attend the Bhandara and they were Radha Swami. Khushkismat Singh did not return to village on that day. On the next day, at about 7 a.m., he came to know that Lakhbir Kaur was not feeling well. Amarjit Kaur, Khushwant Singh and he took Lakhbir Kaur to the shop of private Doctor Gurmail Singh at Neelon Bridge. They also informed the parents of Lakhbir Kaur about her illness by sending Nirbhai Singh. Dr. Gurmail Singh accompanied them to the Clinic of Dr. Payalwala at Doraha. That doctor advised them that Lakhbir Kaur should be taken to CMC. She breathed her last near Sanehwal while on the way to CMC Ludhiana. In his cross-examination, he stated that they reached Neelon Bridge at about 7.30 a.m. He denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement or that Khushkismat Singh never met him on August 1, 1989 nor was anyone sent to call him from Beas. DW 5 Shamsher Singh stated that he had brought the photo copy of account opening form of Virinder Pal Kaur minor-beneficiary, in respect of Fixed Deposit Receipt dated March 5, 1987. The FDR was in the sum of Rs. 5000/- and the amount was deposited by Lakhbir Kaur of village Lal Kalan. DW 6 I. S. Maingi, Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Khanna, stated that he had brought the summoned record in respect of policy on the life of Khushkismat Singh. His life was insured for Rs. one lac and Lakhbir Kaur was his nominee. DW 7 Nirbhai Singh stated that on August 1, 1989 he along with Khushkismat Singh had gone to Radha Swami Dera at Beas and that they were followers of Radha Swami sect. There was a Bhandara which normally lasts for three to four days. They had gone to attend the same. They left their village at about 6 a.m. Avtar Singh Sarpanch of their village happened to meet them near the village Gurdwara and enquired from them as to where they were going on that day. They told him that they were going to Beas. On August 2, 1989 Bharpur Singh of their village came to them at Beas and told that Lakhbir Kaur had died. They then left Beas at about 11 a.m. and reached their village at about 3 p.m. In his cross-examination, he stated that Bharpur Singh was not related to Khushkismat Singh. He did not tell them the cause of death of Lakhbir Kaur. Dera was about 100 kms. from their village Lal Kalan. He did not know the name of the present head of Radha Swami Sect. He denied the suggestion that he was making a false statement. DW 8 Bharpur Singh stated that on August 2, 1989 Pavittar Singh of his village came to him and requested that Lakhbir Kaur wife of Khushkismat Singh was unwell and that she was to be taken to some doctor in his van. He accordingly went to the house of accused. Lakhbir Kaur was then taken to a doctor in Neelon Bridge. She was accompanied by Avtar Singh Sarpanch and Khushwant Singh, brother of Khushkismat Singh. She was taken to Dr. Gurmel Singh, who advised that Lakhbir Kaur be taken to Doraha as it was a complicated case. They then took her to Dr. Harbans Singh at Doraha. On his advice, she was further removed to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. He further stated that while they were taking her to Ludhiana, Lakhbir Kaur died near village Sahni.
8. We have heard Mr. P. S. Mann, Senior Advocate, in support of Crl. Appeal No. 386-SB of 1991 and Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab in support of Crl. Appeal No. 124-DBA of 1992 as also Mr. P. S. Kang, Advocate, who appears in support of Crl. Revision No. 71 of 1992 and with their assistance, gone through the records of the case. It is conceded position that while lodging the FIR, brother of deceased had made no mention of any demand of dowry either before the marriage or thereafter and that whatever evidence on that count was brought at the time of trial, the same, in our view, is an afterthought with a view to prop up the charge framed against the appellants under section 304-B, IPC. That being so, all that requires to be examined is as to whether, even if the prosecution version, as given in the FIR, is accepted, would it constitute necessary ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC or not. An analysis of Section 304-B, IPC would reveal the following essentials :-
"(i) the death of the woman should be caused by burns or bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) such death should have occurred within 7 years of the marriage;
(iii) the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand or dowry.
9. The explanation appended to the Section mentions that for the purposes of this section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of 1961 Act defines 'dowry' to mean "any property or valuable security which is either consented to be given on demand being made or the demand of such property or the valuable security itself as consideration of the marriage". As mentioned above, there is no allegation in the FIR that any demand of dowry was made by the appellants before or after the marriage as consideration for marriage. It may be recalled that marriage between appellant Khushkismat Singh and Lakhbir Kaur was solemnised four years before she died and that the couple was blessed with two children. The demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made only for sending Khushwant Singh abroad. In our considered view, such a demand cannot be connected with dowry as defined under Section 2 of 1961 Act. We are further of the view that to connect such a demand with dowry as defined under section 2 would be stretching the definition of 'dowry' beyond all proportions. To illustrate, after four or five years of marriage, the husband, being in some difficulty in his business, requests or demands some money from his father-in-law directly or through his wife, only with a view that he is able to advance in life. Can such a demand be termed as 'dowry' ? In our view, the answer has to be in negative. Looked from any angle, we are of the firm view that demand of Rs. 50,000/- made by the appellants so as to send Khushwant Singh abroad cannot be connected with dowry by any stretch of imagination. That being the position, in our view, learned Sessions Judge was absolutely justified in returning a finding of acquittal against the appellants insofar as their involvement under section 304-B, IPC is concerned. That being so, the State appeal bearing No. 124-DBA of 1992 deserves to be dismissed. So ordered.
10. Mr. Mann, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants come from an affluent family. The two brothers owned about 12 acres of land, besides there being a small land holding of their father as well in the village. They had a bank account and that Khushkismat Singh was even insured for an amount of Rs. one lac. Some amount was also deposited by Khushwant Singh who was to go abroad with a view to settle there. In these circumstances, there was no occasion that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- might have been demanded from Lakhbir Kaur, further contends the learned counsel. We find no merit whatsoever in the contentions of the learned counsel, noted above. The demand and allegations for non-fulfilment of the same, are not necessarily dependent upon the financial status of the parties. This all depends upon the nature of the persons involved in the matter. Quite often, the poorest of poor have made no demand whereas in some cases, even the richest of rich have made such a demand. There is unimpeachable evidence on record, mention whereof has been made above, which unmistakably points towards the demand made by the appellants. We may hurry to add that it is an admitted position that fare of Khushwant Singh to go abroad was to be borne by the girl, who was engaged with him or by her parents. If the appellants were so rich, they could have well catered for fare of Khushwant Singh to go abroad. No dent at all could be made in the sworn testimony of PWs 3 to 5. In addition to what has been said above, and what has been held by the learned trial Judge, we would like to mention here that no plausible reason has been given by the appellants as to why Lakhbir Kaur, who was mother of two small children, at young age, thought of ending her life. All that has been suggested is that Harjit Singh PW 5, to whom Lakhbir Kaur was related, being his sister's daughter, wanted to marry his daughter to Khushwant Singh. This offer was declined by Khushwant Singh. This annoyance and anger guided Lakhbir Kaur to end her life. We find the explanation given by the appellants to be absolutely hollow. There was no question for Lakhbir Kaur to secure marriage of her mother's brother's daughter with appellant Khushwant Singh. Lakhbir Kaur had died at the house of appellants. If the allegations made against them are not true, they were supposed to give some plausible explanation as to why Lakhbir Kaur took such a drastic step so as to end her life and the explanation furnished by them, as mentioned above, does not appear to be true at all. It is, thus, proved that on account of demand of Rupees 50,000/- made by the appellants, which was not fulfilled, Lakhbir Kaur, was harassed, thus, compelling her to end her life. The appellants, in our view, have been rightly held guilty under section 498-A, IPC. It is not necessary that if offence under section 304-B, IPC is not made out, the offence under Section 298-A, IPC would also fizzle out. In-laws of the deceased did not want the deceased to die and also did not allow her to live in peace. Therefore, offence under section 304-B, IPC is not made out but offence under section 498-A, IPC is clearly made out. Learned defence counsel has rightly not argued anything on the basis of evidence led by the appellants as the same appears to have been rejected by the trial Judge on plausible grounds.
11. Nothing at all could be urged to distinguish the case of any of the appellants as concededly they were all residing in the same house and had a cause of sending Khushwant Singh abroad, which can be said to be common to all. There is, however, some scope to slash the period of sentence. The maximum punishment that can be awarded under Section 498-A, IPC is three years and, in our view, it was not such a case where maximum punishment should be given. In our view, ends of justice shall be served if the appellants are sentenced to undergo RI for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 12,500/- as compensation each. Fine so realised, shall be paid as compensation to the parents of deceased Lakhbir Kaur. In case the appellants do not pay the fine, they shall have to undergo sentence as imposed by the trial Judge.
For what has been said above, whereas Crl. Appeal No. 386-SB of 1991 is partly allowed, so is the Criminal Revision No. 71 of 1992.
12. Order accordingly.