Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2013
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
CRA-S-756-SB-2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-756-SB-2012
Date of Decision:19.03.2013
Gurdeep Singh
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL
Present:Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
*****
L.N. MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Convict-Gurdeep Singh has filed this criminal appeal challenging his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2002, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
FIR was lodged by Piara Singh father of the deceased. Admittedly, marriage of the deceased Kuljit Kaur was solemnized with appellant-Gurdeep Singh about 3½ years before her death. Complainant-Piara Singh alleged that appellant, his mother Swaran Kaur and sister Harjinder Kaur had been harassing his daughter for more dowry. Complainant had also met with the demand of the accused by CRA-S-756-SB-2012 [2] giving a buffalo and `25,000/-, but the accused were demanding Maruti car. Ultimately, fed up of the harassment and cruelty, Kuljit Kaur committed suicide by consuming poison on 23.06.1999.
After investigation, police presented report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C) for prosecution of appellant-Gurdeep Singh and his mother Swaran Kaur depicting accused Harjinder Kaur in column No.2 of the report/challan. However, Harjinder Kaur was also summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Charge under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the three accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of his case, the prosecution examined complainant-Piara Singh PW2, his brother Hazara Singh PW3 and nephew Jagir Singh PW4. All of them broadly stated according to prosecution version. Manmohan Singh PW5 stated that complainant had taken `25,000/- from him as loan stating that he had to give Maruti car to his son-in-law. Dr. Deepak Walia PW3 (renumbered as PW1) stated about postmortem examination conducted by him on the dead body of Kuljit Kaur. He and Dr. Harish Tuli PW opined that it was a suggestive case of death by poisoning. Prosecution also led other evidence including evidence of investigation of the case.
CRA-S-756-SB-2012 [3] Accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., while admitting the factum of marriage of deceased- Kuljit Kaur with the appellant-Gurdeep Singh, broadly denied all the other incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. Appellant-Gurdeep Singh alleged that the deceased had developed some complication in her uterus due to abortion prior to the occurrence and she died due to excessive bleeding. No evidence was led by the accused in their defence.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 14.03.2002 acquitted accused Swaran Kaur and Harjinder Kaur of the charge against them but convicted accused-Gurdeep Singh under Section 304-B IPC and vide order of even date, sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Feeling dissatisfied, convict- Gurdeep Singh has filed this appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file including file of the trial Court with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that according to report of Chemical Examiner, no poison was detected in the viscera of the deceased and, therefore, cause of death is not proved to be poisoning and rather the death was due to excessive bleeding because of miscarriage suffered by CRA-S-756-SB-2012 [4] the deceased few days prior to the occurrence.
On the contrary, learned State counsel contended that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and guilt of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Reference was also made to the statements of Dr. Deepak Walia and Dr. Harish Tuli, who have opined that cause of death was suggestive case of poisoning. They have also stated that there are certain poisons which are not detected on chemical analysis.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Statements of Piara Singh PW2, Hazara Singh PW3 and Jagir Singh PW4 prove that the deceased was being harassed by the appellant for more dowry. Some demand of dowry was even met by the complainant but still the harassment continued. Admittedly, the death of Kuljit Kaur occurred within 7 years of her marriage with the appellant. Merely because the deceased had suffered miscarriage/abortion some days before the death is by itself not sufficient to infer that the death was due to excessive bleeding. The appellant has not led any evidence in support of this version. On the contrary, there are statements of Dr. Deepak Walia and Dr. Harish Tuli that in this case, death was a suggestive case of poisoning. Not only that, the observations made during postmortem examination corroborate the aforesaid opinion regarding death by poisoning. Dr. Harish CRA-S-756-SB-2012 [5] Tuli stated that nails and lips were of bluish colour. Cynosis was present. He also stated that stomach was congested. Liver, spleen and kidneys were also congested. These observations also corroborate the prosecution version regarding death by poisoning. There is no material on record to depict that the deceased was receiving any medical treatment on account of alleged bleeding due to abortion or miscarriage.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is established beyond doubt that death of the deceased was on account of poisoning. There are tests for detecting some common poisons. However, there are large number of poisons, which are not detected on chemical analysis. Consequently, merely because poison could not be detected on chemical examination of viscera, death by poisoning cannot be ruled out automatically. On the other hand, in the instant case, there is sufficient material on record to conclude that the death was by poisoning. Thus all ingredients of the offence of dowry death are fully proved against the appellant. Conviction of the appellant is well founded and is accordingly upheld.
As regards quantum of sentence, the occurrence took place almost 14 years ago. During this long period, the appellant has undergone the agony of trial including this appeal. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which the appellant deserves some relief in quantum of sentence. Keeping in view CRA-S-756-SB-2012 [6] all the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant-convict is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The appellant, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
( L.N. MITTAL ) th 19 March, 2013 JUDGE Rajan