Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 29 March, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 401-DB of
2002
Date of Decision: 29.3.2011
Surjit Singh and another .....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri J.S. Verka, Advocate, for the appellants.
Shri Pavit S. Mattewal, Additional AG, Punjab.
Hemant Gupta, J.
The present appeal has been filed by Surjit Singh son of Chanan Singh and his mother Dalbir Kaur wife of Chanan Singh, against the judgment and order dated 17.5.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, convicting the appellants for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year.
Criminal Appeal No. 401-DB of 2002 [
2]
Rajinder Kaur deceased was wife of appellant No.1-Surjit Singh, whereas appellant No.2 is mother of Surjit Singh. The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of the statement made by the deceased Rajinder Kaur on 23.10.1999 at about 11.45 p.m. to ASI Harbhajan Singh. As per the said statement, Rajinder Kaur has stated that she married Surjit Singh about two years back. She has a son aged about one year. Her parents had given dowry at the time of her marriage, but after marriage, her husband Surjit Singh and mother- in-law Dalbir Kaur, used to tease her for not bringing scooter and more dowry articles from her parents. She came to her parents many times and told them about the said demand, but they did not accept it. She went to her in-laws' house from her parents' house at about 6 p.m. on 23.10.1999 at about 6.00 p.m. At that her husband was taking liquor. She asked him not to take liquor, then her mother-in- law told her that she was feeling jealous on seeing her son. Hot words were exchanged between them. Her husband caught hold of her from her arm and mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. When she raised alarm, many people gathered there. They extinguished fire and brought her to Civil Hospital, Kalanaur, where the Doctor referred her to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. She stated that her husband Surjit Singh and mother-in-law Dalbir Kaur, set her on fire on account of not giving more dowry. On the basis of said statement, ASI Harbhajan Singh, sent a ruqa to the Police Station Kalanaur at 1.00 a.m. from Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. On the basis of said ruqa, FIR Exhibit PH/2 was lodged. The special report was sent to the learned Magistrate, which was received at 5.30 a.m. Deceased-Rajinder Kaur was firstly removed to Civil Hospital, Kalanaur as stated by her in her statement Exhibit PH. PW6-Dr. Lakhwinder Singh, on a police request Exhibit PE/1 declared Criminal Appeal No. 401-DB of 2002 [ 3] the injured unfit to make statement at 8.30 p.m, Ex PF. Later ASI Harbhajan Singh recorded the statement of the deceased Rajinder Kaur after the Doctor at Civil Hospital Gurdaspur declared her fit to make statement on 23.10.1999 at 11.45 p.m. After making the said statement, the deceased Rajinder Kaur breathed her last at 2.05 a.m. i.e. midnight of 23/24.10.1999. After the death of the deceased Rajinder Kaur, PW3-Dr. Sudhir Kumar conducted post mortem examination at 2.45 p.m. on 24.10.1999 on the dead body of deceased-Rajinder Kaur. The cause of death was found to be shock due to burns. The burn injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
To prove the charges against the appellants, the prosecution examined PW6-Dr. Lakhwinder Singh, who attended the injured Rajinder Kaur on 23.10.1999 at Civil Hospital, Kalanaur. PW3 is Dr. Sudhir Kumar, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Rajinder Kumar on 24.10.2000 at 2.45 p.m. PW1-Hazara Singh and PW4-Piar Kaur i.e. father and mother of the deceased, did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. The Public Prosecutor has cross-examined them. The prosecution also examined PW2-Bakhshish Singh in respect of proof of demand of dowry and exchange of hot words between the deceased and the appellant-Surjit Singh on the date of occurrence. The said witness was also declared hostile.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any demand of dowry. The testimony of PW1-Hazara Singh, father of the deceased and PW4-Pair Kaur, mother of the deceased, does not lead to prove the demand of any dowry by the appellants. Bakshish Singh, the independent witness also did not support the prosecution case in respect of manner of occurrence and/or in respect of demand of Criminal Appeal No. 401-DB of 2002 [ 4] dowry. Thus, there is no evidence of demand of dowry from parents of the deceased.
The most material document relied upon by the prosecution is the dying declaration, Exhibit PH, recorded by ASI Harbhajan Singh on 24.10.1999, on the basis of which FIR Exhibit PH/2 was recorded. PW5-ASI Harbhajan Singh, while appearing as prosecution witness has admitted in cross-examination that when he reached Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur on 23.10.1999 at 11.30 p.m., Satwant Singh, Bakshish Singh and Hazara Singh, father and Piar Kaur, mother of the deceased, and other people were present in the hospital.
Though the prosecution has relied upon the fitness certificate Exhibit P4 and the endorsement Exhibit P4/1 to prove that the deceased was fit to make statement, but the prosecution has not examined the Doctor, who is reported to have declared the deceased as fit to make the said statement. In fact, the prosecution has not even disclosed the name of the Doctor, who has given such opinion, nor examined any Doctor in respect of the physical condition of the deceased to make the statement. In fact, PW6-Dr. Lakhwinder Singh, of Civil Hospital Kalnaur vide endorsement Exhibit PF/1, has found the patient not fit to make statement at 8.30 p.m. and that the patient is being referred to the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. It is not explained by the prosecution as to how the injured will become fit to make statement at 11.45 p.m. more so when Rajinder Kaur died at 2.00 a.m. midnight 23/24.10.1999. In the absence of proof of fitness of the injured to make statement and recorded by a police official, we find that prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances leading to proof of commission of crime by the appellants. In the absence of name of the Doctor or examination of the Doctor or the attending circumstances proved, it creates doubt on the correctness Criminal Appeal No. 401-DB of 2002 [ 5] of the prosecution story. The prosecution has failed to prove that Rajinder Kaur was fit to make statement on 23.10.1999 at 11.45 p.m. On the other hand Shri Pavit Singh Mattewal, the learned Additional AG, Punjab, has relied upon the site plan produced by ASI- Harbhajan Singh (PW5), to argue that the place of occurrence is a room and not a kitchen. It is, thus, contended that the deceased having received injuries from the burn in her residential house belies the defence version that the deceased got injuries while preparing meal. It is, thus, sought to be contended that the prosecution has completed the chain of circumstances so as to return a finding that it is the accused and accused alone, who has committed the crime and none else.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants.
PW1-Hazara Singh and PW4-Piar Kaur, parents of the deceased, turned hostile. They did not support the allegation that the appellants raised any demand of dowry. PW2-Bakshish Singh has also not supported the prosecution case. PW6-Dr. Lakhwinder Singh has treated the deceased Rajinder Kaur at Civil Hospital, Kalanaur. The time of the visit was around 8.00 p.m. On his request, the Doctor has given an opinion that the patient was unfit to make the statement at 8.30 p.m. It has not come on record as to how Rajinder Kaur would become fit to make statement in about three hours' time. Still further, the dying declaration is recorded by the Investigating Officer. Though the deceased was in hospital, but no evidence, whatsoever, has been led regarding fitness of the deceased to make statement at 11.45 p.m. Neither the Doctor, who has issued such certificate has been Criminal Appeal No. 401-DB of 2002 [ 6] examined nor there is any other evidence of any incriminating evidence against the appellant.
From the testimony of PW1-Hazara Singh and PW4-Piar Kaur, parents of the deceased, it further transpires that there was no demand of dowry, therefore, neither the prosecution has been able to prove the motive nor the physical condition of the deceased to make a voluntary dying declaration on 23.10.1999. The only evidence is that of PW5-ASI Harbhajan Singh. In the absence of any substantive evidence and the corroboration from the other circumstances, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts.
Consequently, while granting benefit of doubt to the appellants, both the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 17.4.2002 is set aside.
Appeal allowed in the above terms.
(Hemant Gupta) Judge (Arvind Kumar) Judge 29.3.2011 ds