Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: II(2005)DMC597
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. This is an appeal against judgment dated 12.1.1999 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he convicted appellants Surjit Singh, Satwant Kaur and Gurpartap Singh under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. The period of detention already undergone by them during the trial, was ordered to be set off from the substantive period of sentence.
2. Case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Gurdip Singh, father of deceased Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple (PW 2) given to Gurmail Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW 8) at Saggo Chowk, Ludhiana. His statement is Exhibit PF. He stated before Gurmail Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW 8) that he had three sons and one daughter. He is doing the business of tailor-master in Ghumar Mandi. His two elder sons Balwinder Singh and Narinder Singh are married. His daughter Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple (deceased; was married on 2.12.1995 with appellant Gurpartap Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of G.T.V. Senior Secondary School, Street No. 2, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana. He had given dowry according to his capacity. After about 20 days of the marriage of his daughter, she (Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple) came to the house of Gurdip Singh (PW 2) and told him that her father-in-law Surjit Singh and her mother-in-law Sukhwant Kaur are harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Appellant Gurpartap Singh was also toeing the line of his parents as he was under their influence. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) explained to his daughter Jatinderjit Kaur that he had given them (her in-laws) enough dowry and then sent her back to her in-laws' house. After about two months of the marriage, Gurdip Singh along with son Narinder Singh went to the house of appellant Surjit Singh. At that time, appellants Surjit Singh, Satwant Kaur and son Gurpartap Singh were present in the house. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) said that he could not give them more dowry as he did not have the capacity to do so and not to harass his daughter. Appellants Surjit Singh and Sukhwant Kaur told Gurdip Singh (PW 2) to give Rs. 50,000/- to their son Gurpartap Singh, so that he could enhance his business. They would only rehabilitate his daughter if Rs. 50,000/- was given to them. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) showed his inability and he along with his son Narinder Singh came back. After about one month, his daughter Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple again came to the house of her father and complained that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband were still harassing her. Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple stayed for about one week with her father and went back to her in-laws' house. On 25.5.1996 in the morning, Jatinderjit Kaur along with her husband Gurpartap Singh came to the house of Gurdip Singh. Gurpartap Singh went away, after some time, leaving Jatinderjit Kaur in the house of her father. He came 4-5 times during the day stating that money should be arranged. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) gave no reply. Appellant Gurpartap Singh then came to the house of Gurdip Singh at 8.00 p.m. After taking dinner, Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple and Gurpartap Singh went to the roof of the house. Gurdip Singh's wife was also present on the roof of the house. At about 12 O'clock in the night, appellant Gurpartap Singh told Jatinderjit Kaur to prepare tea for him. Jatinderjit Kaur came down to the kitchen. She brought three cups of tea to the roof of the house. One cup was handed over to Gurpartap Singh, another cup was handed over to her mother Sukhwinder Kaur and the third cup was retained by Jatinderjit Kaur herself. After taking tea, Jatinderjit Kaur and Gurpartap Singh came down to sleep. After some time, appellant Gurpartap Singh told Narinder Singh, who was sleeping in the adjoining room, that something had happened to Dimple. Narinder Singh then came to Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) and told him, that something has happened to Dimple. They went to see Dimple and saw that she was throbbing on the bed and froth was coming out from her mouth. She was immediately taken by him and Narinder Singh to Daya Nand Medical College Hospital, Ludhiana, in a car. On examining her, the doctor declared her dead. It has been further stated in the First Information Report, Exhibit PF/2 that appellant Gurpartap Singh bad given some poisonous substance to Dimple in the cup of tea. She had died due to this. Appellants Surjit Singh, Sukhwant Kaur and Gurpartap Singh were harassing Jatinderjit Kaur that she had brought less dowry.
3. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Dr. Vinod Kumar Gagneja (P.W. 1), Gurdip Singh, complainant (P.W. 2), Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, wife of Gurdip Singh (P.W. 3), Balbir Chand, Inspector (P.W. 4), Harminder Singh, Draftsman (P.W. 5), Dr. Sunil Kumar Sofat. Government Medical College, Chandigarh (P.W. 6), Pargat Singh, Constable (P.W. 7). Gurmail Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), Tarlochan Singh, Head Constable (P.W. 9) and Maninder Bedi, Inspector/ Station House Officer (P.W. 10).
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has stated that appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur were residing separately in B-11-1145, Kashmir Gali, Deepak Cinema Chowk, Ludhiana, while appellant Gurpartap Singh had purchased a house in Shimla Puri, Gali No. 2, Ludhiana, which he purchased from Ved Ram. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) has stated in his cross-examination that Dev Raj had executed an agreement to sell his house to accused Gurpartap Singh before the occurrence had taken place.
5. No incident of cruelty or maltreatment of the deceased has been reported either to the police or to Rajput Sabha, to which both the appellants and the complainant party belonged. No Panchayat was convened. Gurdip Singh's son was married to Banta Singh's daughter, who was the President of the Rajput Sabha. This has been conceded by Gurdip Singh (PW 2) in his testimony, where he has stated that they have a Rajput Sabha and Banta Singh Asht is the President of the Sabha. Banta Singh is related to him as he is married to the daughter of Banta Singh. No common relative was called to effect a compromise between the parties. It has come in evidence that appellant Gurpartap Singh had bought a house in Shimla Puri Colony, Ludhiana, meaning thereby that he had enough money of his own.
6. Learned Counsel has further stated for argument's sake that even if we go by the evidence of the prosecution, it is of abetment to suicide, and appellant Gurpartap Singh alone is liable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He further stated that in fact, Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple committed suicide because of the behaviour of her parents and brother, who were not helping her in enhancing the business of her husband Gurpartap Singh. She would also have benefited from this. They were not co-operating with her and it was out of this frustration that she committed suicide.
7. Learned Counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Sukhbir Singh Mattewal, Advocate, has stated that unnatural death had taken place within six months of the marriage. Harassment of Jatinderjit Kaur deceased started 20 days after her marriage. Within a span of three months, she came thrice to her parents' home to plead that Rs. 50,000/- be given, as the appellants were harassing and maltreating her, so that she could live in peace in her in-laws' house. Appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur living separately from Gurpartap Singh, has no meaning, as appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur were also a party in the demand of Rs. 50,000/- for their son Gurpartap Singh. Gurpartap Singh would not have harassed and ill-treated Jatinderjit Kaur without the active encouragement and connivance of appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur. It has come in evidence of Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) that when he along with his son Narinder Singh went to the house of the appellants, Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur (appellants) directed them to pay Rs. 50,000/-, failing which they would not rehabilitate Jatinderjit Kaur in their house. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) along with his son Narinder Singh came back showing helplessness. The parents of Jatinderjit Kaur were consistently and constantly being pressurised and harassed for the demand of dowry. Learned Counsel has further stated that no complaint was made to the Rajput Sabha or to the police, as the marriage had taken place recently. The parents of Jatinderjit Kaur were trying to pacify the appellants and were also trying their best that the marriage does not break. They did not want that the Rajput Sabha or any Panchayat should come into picture to arrange a compromise so soon because they did not think things would (go) so far.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the State assisted by Shri Sukhbir Singh Mattewal and perused the record with their assistance.
9. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 26.6.1996 in the early hours, i.e., on the intervening night of 25/26.6.1996. Statement, Exhibited PF, of Gurdip Singh (PW 2) was recorded at Saggo Chowk at 9.00 a.m. by Gurmail Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW 8). A formal FIR, Exhibit PF/2, was recorded on 26.6.1996 at 10.15 a.m. Special Report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on 26.6.1996 at 2.00 p.m. Marriage had taken place on 2.12.1995. Within a period of 20 days, as per the statement of Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2), harassment of Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple deceased had started. She was a young girl of 20 years. Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) was a tailor by profession and had given sufficient dowry according to his means. After 20 days of the marriage, deceased Jatinderjit Kaur came to the house of her parents and stated before them that she is being maltreated by the appellants for bringing insufficient dowry. As the marriage had taken place a few days back, they convinced their daughter that they were not in a position to give more dowry and sent her back to her in-laws' house. After about two months, Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) along with his son Narinder Singh went to the house of the appellants, where the father-in-law Surjit Singh, mother-in-law Sukhwant Kaur and Gurpartap Singh, the husband of their daughter, were present. Appellant Gurpartap Singh was living with his parents in the same house at that time. Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) told them that he has given dowry according to his means and he is not in a position to give any more dowry. Appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur told him to pay Rs. 50,000/- so that they could enhance the business of their son. They further directed that if Rs. 50,000/- was not paid to them, they would not rehabilitate his daughter Jatinderjit Kaur. After about one month, Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple came back to her own house, as her in-laws were harassing her. She stayed for about a week in her father's house and, thereafter, she went back to her in-laws' place. On 25.6.1996 in the morning, Jatinderjit Kaur along with her husband Gurpartap Singh came to the house of her father. Jatinderjit Kaur stayed back, Gurpartap Singh left the house, but he came 4-5 times in the day. Every time he came, he was compelling the parents of Jatinderjit Kaur to arrange for the money, i.e., Rs. 50,000/-. He then came at 8.00 p.m. After having dinner, appellant Gurpartap Singh along with Jatinderjit Kaur and Gurdip Singh's wife went on the roof of the house and the three talked with each other. At about 12 O'clock in the night, Gurpartap Singh asked Jatinderjit Kaur to prepare tea. She went down and brought three cups of tea. She kept one cup of tea for herself, gave another cup to her mother and the third, she gave to Gurpartap Singh. Thereafter appellant Gurpartap Singh along with Jatinderjit Kaur went down to go to sleep. Narinder Singh, the son of Gurdip Singh who was sleeping in the adjacent room, got up after some time and went to his father and told him that something had happened to Dimple. They went into the room and saw that Dimple was lying in the bed and froth was coming from her mouth. Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) in his testimony has stated that Gurpartap Singh ran away and Dimple was taken by Gurdip Singh and his son Narinder Singh to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where, she was declared dead.
10. Dr. Vinod Kumar Gagneja, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana (PW 1) performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jatinderjit Kaur on 26.6.1996 at 4.00 p.m. He has stated in his testimony that on receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report, Exhibit PD, he declared that the cause of death of Jatinderjit Kaur was due to consumption of aluminium phosphide, a pesticide. Consumption of the poison aluminium phosphide was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has further stated that aluminium phosphide can be taken by a person inadvertently or by mistake. The smell of aluminium phosphide is garlic in nature and it has a metallic taste.
11. Dr. Sunil Kumar Sofat (P.W. 6), Medical Officer, Government Medical College, Sector-32, Chandigarh, has stated in his testimony that Jatinderjit Kaur wife of Gurpartap Singh was brought by Gurdeep Singh on 26.6.1996 at 1.30 p.m. She was brought dead at that time. He has further stated that Gurpartap Singh (appellant), the husband of Jatinderjit Kaur, was also accompanying her. He (appellant) had narrated the history.
12. By the testimony of Dr. Vinod Kumar Gagneja (P.W. 1), it comes out that the smell of aluminium phosphide is garlic in nature. If aluminium phosphide was put in the tea of the deceased, as mentioned in the First information Report, Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple and her mother, who was sitting next to her, would have immediately come to know by the smell that appellant Gurpartap Singh was playing a mischief and had put something in the tea of the deceased. Aluminium phosphide could not have been given forcibly to deceased Jatinderjit Kaur by appellant Gurpartap Singh, as she was in the house of her own parents, who were sleeping in the next room. If she was forcibly given aluminium phosphide, she would have definitely raised a hue and cry and her brother and parents would have waken up. Going by the sequence of events, I am of the considered view that on the day of occurrence, aluminium phosphide was consumed by Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple by herself out of frustration and she wanted to finish her life due to the harassment being caused to her by appellants Gurpartap Singh, her husband, Surjit Singh, her father-in-law and Satwant Kaur, her mother-in-law. In the First Information Report, Exhibit PF/2, it has been stated by the complainant that something was put in the tea of deceased Jatinderjit Kaur. As pointed out earlier, it would not have been possible for appellant Gurpartap Singh to put anything into the tea of Jatinderjit Kaur, as it was not Gurpartap Singh, who prepared the tea, but it was prepared by Jatinderjit Kaur and she is the one, who distributed the cups of tea to her mother, her husband and kept the third cup for herself Apart from the sugar, anything else put into the tea, would have caused suspicion in the minds of both, Jatinderjit Kaur deceased and Sukhwinder Kaur, her mother.
13. From the statement of Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2), it is clear that from the time of her marriage, Jatinderjit Kaur was maltreated, harassed and a demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made by the appellants. This, they needed for the enhancement of the business of appellant Gurpartap Singh.
14. Learned Counsel for the appellants has laid much stress on the point that no complaint was made to the Rajput Sabha, though the complainant and the appellants belonged to this Sabha. Banta Singh, the President of the Rajput Sabha was closely related to Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2). No respectables or relatives were informed or asked to intervene. This argument of the Counsel for the appellants does not cut much ice. Within 20 days of the marriage, harassment and maltreatment of the deceased started. The family of the deceased did not want any respectables or Rajput Sabha to know about the miltreatment of their daughter, as the marriage had taken place recently. They wanted to settle the matter amicably with the appellants themselves.
15. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur (P.W. 3) has corroborated the version put forward by Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2). She has stated in her testimony that it was her daughter, who went to the kitchen and prepared tea. Her daughter brought sugar in a separate pot and spoon. Her son-in-law Gurpartap Singh gave one cup of tea to her daughter, thereafter, another cup to her and the third he kept for himself. Sugar was mixed in the cups of tea by appellant Gurpartap Singh. After some time, they came down and her son-in-law and daughter went to their room to sleep. Statement of Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) in the First Information Report, Exhibit PF/2, that appellant Gurpartap Singh put something into her (deceased) tea, does not find corroboration in the statements of Gurdip Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur given before the Court. Nothing could have been put in the tea as Jatinderjit Kaur herself prepared the tea.
16. The appellants have brought into the witness box five witnesses. Prem Kamal Benal, Branch Water Rates, Junior Assistant, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (D.W. 1), who has brought the sewerage record and water connection of House No. B-II-1145, which was in the name of Surjit Singh (appellant). Nirmal Singh, House Tax Clerk, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (DW 2) has brought the record of the same house, which is in the name of Surjit Singh. Sat Pal Arora (DW 3) has stated that Gurpartap Singh (appellant) left the house of his parents about 3 1/2 years back, but he did not know, where he is putting up. Gurcharan Singh (DW 4) is the Secretary of Rajput Sabha. He has stated that Banta Singh is the President of the Rajput Sabha. Pawan Kumar, Registration Clerk, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana (D.W. 5) has stated that the General Power of Attorney was given by Dev Raj in favour of Gurdip Singh, which is Exhibit D.W. 5/A. These witnesses do not help the appellants in any way. Even if for the argument's sake, we take it that appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur were living separately from appellant Gurpartap Singh, it does not mitigate the offence qua them and that they did not demand Rs. 50,000/-. Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) and Sukhwant Kaur (P.W. 3) have categorically and clearly stated that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- came from the side of the appellants. Appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur wanted this money to enhance the business of their son Gurpartap Singh. It has further come in evidence that Gurpartap Singh was under the influence of his parents Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur. Witnesses of the defence do not put any light on the occurrence, which had taken place on the intervening night of 25/26.6.1996.
17. From the observations made above, it is clear that the offence committed by the appellants does not fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-B, but under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As discussed above, nothing could have been put in the tea of Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple deceased. It has also been discussed above that deceased Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple was being maltreated and harassed by the appellants individually and collectively, so that her parents would give Rs. 50,000/- to enhance the business of Gurpartap Singh, the deceased's husband. He had married his daughter Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple a few days back. Gurdip Singh must have incurred a lot of expenditure and definitely more than his means to keep the appellant happy. He could not have, at this stage, given Rs. 50,000/- which was much beyond his means.
18. Learned Counsel for the State has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1994 (2) RCR 459, wherein it has been held that bride came to her brother's house and committed suicide. Husband was found guilty of offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment (supra) does not apply to the case in hand as the case cited (supra) was on the basis of a dying declaration.
19. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, , wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that presumption of dowry death cannot be raised, where there was no evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassed/with demand of dowry during the period when she was sent back by the Panchayat and then her tragic end occurred. Accused cannot be convicted under Section 304-B, but only under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case cited (supra) does not apply to the case in hand, as in the instant case, cruelty, harassment and maltreatment has been proved by the testimony on oath by the prosecution witnesses. Demand of Rs. 50,000/-made by the appellants. Deceased committed suicide due to this constant ill-treatment and harassment.
20. Appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 304 Part-B but are convicted under Section 306 and Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of abetment of suicide.
21. Appellant Gurpartap Singh is convicted for the substantive charge of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur are convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, which shall be compensated to the father of the deceased, Gurdip Singh (PW. 2). In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Appellant Gurpartap Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be compensated to the father of the deceased, Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2). In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
22. With the above modifications in conviction and sentence, appeal is dismissed. Appellants, if on bail, shall surrender before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana forthwith.
23. There is no substance in the Criminal Revision No. 284 of 1888 filed by Gurdip Singh complainant for enhancement of the sentence and it is dismissed.