Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008
Date of decision:January 25, 2012
Karamjit Singh and another ......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.P.C.Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab.
****
JUDGMENT
SABINA, J.
Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial Court under Section 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) vide judgment/ order dated 28.8.2008.
This is case of a young bride, who has been burnt in her in-laws house, within two months of her marriage.
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement (PW 10/c) of deceased Sukhwinder Kaur recorded by Sub Inspector Savinder Singh on 21.9.2004 at about 7 pm. Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 2 Deceased Sukhwinder Kaur was admitted in the Lajyawanti Jain Memorial hospital, Raikot on 21.9.2004 due to multiple burn injuries. After giving her preliminary treatment by Dr. Ramesh Jain, PW-7, in the said hospital, she was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (DMC for short) at 5.30 pm. In the said hospital, she was examined by Dr. Gautam Biswas, PW-2, who observed that the patient was suffering from flame burns superficial in nature covering whole of body surface area except scalp and part of forehead. The patient had suffered 97% burns of total body surface area. There were blister formations at number of places. Singeing of scalp hair and eyebrows was found present. Blackening was found present. At places skin had peeled off . Smell of kerosene oil was found in scalp hair.
Inspector Savinder Singh, on receipt of information qua admission of Sukhwinder Kaur in Lajyawanti Jain Memorial hospital, Raikot on 21.9.2004 in a burnt condition, reached the hospital, from where he came to know that the injured had been referred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Then he reached DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and moved an application Ex.PW-10/A to the doctor seeking opinion qua fitness of the patient. Vide Ex.PW-10/B, the doctor declared the patient fit to make the statement at 6.25 pm. Thereafter, Inspector Savinder Singh recorded the statement of patient Sukhwinder Kaur and on the basis of the same formal FIR No.156 dated 21.9.2004 was registered at police Station Raikot under Section 307/ 34 IPC.
Inspector Savinder Singh moved an application before Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana for recording of the statement of Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 3 Sukhwinder Kaur. Thereafter, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana reached the hospital. Dr. Sandeep Singla declared the patient fit to make the statement on 21.9.2004 at 10.30 pm, on an application moved by Inspector Savinder Singh in this regard. Thereafter, the statement of injured Sukhwinder Kaur was recorded by the Magistrate. Sukhwinder Kaur died on 28.9.2004 at 5.30 am. Her post mortem examination was conducted by PW-1 Dr.G.P.Mangla on 28.9.2004 at 1.50 pm along with Dr.R.S.Grewal and Dr.R.K.Sharma. The board of doctors observed superficial to deep burns all over the dead body. Singeing on the scalp hair was found present. Foul smell of pus on burn injuries was present at places. As per the board of doctors, the cause of death was due to septicemia shock as a result of extensive burns, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the burn injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants.
Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 11 witnesses during trial.
Appellant Karamjit Singh, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded as under:-
"I am innocent. I was happily married to Sukhwinder Kaur deceased. I never demanded any dowry, scooter or refrigerator from my in-laws and I never tortured my wife for dowry. My marriage was simple. On 20.9.2004, I Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 4 never maltreated or tortured my wife on the demand of dowry. On 21.9.2004, I went out of my house for routine work and I never confined in the ear of my mother before leaving the house. I came to know later on from my mother that at about 12 noon when Sukhwinder Kaur deceased was preparing tea on kerosene stove in the kitchen, all of a sudden the stove burst and the clothes of my wife caught fire. She ran to the house of Darshan Singh where Surjit Kaur w/o Gurmet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Kartar Kaur were preparing sewian (noodles). They put off the fire and in the meantime my mother also reached there. My father Piara Singh was called and my wife was taken to Jain Hospital, Raikot by them from where she was referred to DMC Ludhiana as her condition was serious. Jarnail Singh cousin of my wife and Manjit Kaur my mother-in-law reached there on being informed by my parents. On their instigation, I and my mother have been falsely implicated in this case. At the time of occurrence only our servant Bhaiya was present. Jarnail Singh is not real brother of my wife. He is her cousin living in separate house far away from the house of my in-laws. He had tutored my wife to make false dying declaration in order to extract money from us."
Appellant Manjit Kaur, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. , after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded as under:-
" I am innocent. My son Karamjit Singh was married to Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 5 Sukhwinder Kaur deceased in simple marriage. I and my son never maltreated the deceased for dowry and we never demanded scooter or fridge in the dowry. She was not tortured on 20.9.2004 by my son for dowry. On the day of occurrence on 21.9.2004, my son had gone out of house for work. He never spoke to me in my ear and I had gone to the house of our neighbour and our servant (bhaiya) was present along with the deceased. When Sukhwinder Kaur entered the house of Darshan Singh in burning condition raising cries, I came to the house of Darshan Singh where Surjit Kaur, Kulwant Kaur and Kartar Kaur were preparing noodles and all of us put off the fire. The deceased told us that the clothes caught fire when she was preparing tea on the kerosene stove which accidentally burst. I called my husband Piara Singh and also informed the parents of the deceased and we took her to Jain Hospital, Raikot, where Jarnail Singh, cousin and Manjit Kaur, mother of deceased also reahced. As the condition of Sukhwinder Kaur was serious, she was referred to DMC, Ludhiana and we were falsely implicated at the instigation of Jarnail Singh and Manjit Kaur. I had never sprinkled kerosene oil on the clothes of the deceased and never set her on fire. I am quite old and feeble suffering from disease and cannot commit such an offence. Jarnail Singh PW is not real brother of my daughter-in-law and he tutored her to make false dying Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 6 declaration."
The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the marriage of the deceased with appellant Karamjit Singh was performed in a simple manner. No dowry had been given or taken at the time of marriage. In fact, it was a case of accidental death. The statements recorded by the Investigating Officer and Magistrate of the deceased were tutored by PW-3 Jarnail Singh.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that although PW-4 Surjit Kaur and the mother of the deceased, PW- 6 Manjit Kaur had not supported the prosecution case yet the same was duly established from the dying declaration suffered by the deceased as well as the statement of PW-3 Jarnail Singh.
In the present case, deceased Sukhwinder Kaur was married to appellant Karamjit Singh on 28.7.2004. She was admitted in the hospital with severe burn injuries on 21.9.2004. Before the Investigating Officer, the deceased had stated that her marriage was solemnised with karamjit Singh as per Sikh rites. The appellants were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and raised a demand of fridge and scooter from her family. She had disclosed the factum of demand of the said articles to her mother and Jarnail Singh, son of her mother's sister. On 20.9.2004, she had been given beatings by her husband. She had raised alarm but her husband had told her to go to her parents' house in the morning and return back with a scooter and fridge. On 21.9.2004, at about 12 O' Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 7 clock, she was present in the house and had entered the kitchen to bring water. At that time her husband said something to her mother- in-law and went out side. When she turned back after drinking water, then her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil on her shoulders and put her on fire and said that she belonged to a poor family and was unable to bring a fridge and scooter. Now she would marry her son in a better house. She raised alarm and out of fear she was brought to the hospital by her in-laws. Her mother and Jarnail Singh reached the hospital and thereafter, she was referred to DMC Ludhiana. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law then slipped away. Her mother-in-law Amarjit Kaur, after conspiring with her husband Karamjit Singh, had given beatings to her for not meeting the demand of dowry. She had been set on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her with an intention to kill her.
Deceased Sukhwinder Kaur, in her statement Ex.PH, stated before the Magistrate as under:-
"My marriage was performed with Ram Singh @ Karamjit Singh on 28.7.2004. Two months would be completed on this 28th. After 10 days, I was being harassed by mother-in-law Amarjit Kaur and husband Karamjit Singh on account of dowry. None other used to harass. Only these two used to speak. Motorcycle, iron box (petti) and bed etc. were demanded. Mother-in-law had locked the phone so that no information was given at home. Mother-in-law and husband used to quarrel. I could not tell due to fear. Today at 12 noon I had gone to Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 8 drink water and my mother-in-law set me on fire after putting oil on me. I ran in the opposite house where they extinguished the fire. After quite some time my in-laws informed and called my parents on phone. We all came to the hospital and met the police. At the time of fire incident, my mother-in-law and one young bhaiya were present. None other was present. He hid himself due to fear.
Mother-in-law and husband used to quarrel qua dowry. Only mother-in-law had set the fire. I do not want to say anything else."
PW-3 Jarnail Singh deposed that Jagga Singh, his paternal uncle, had died. He had three daughters. Manjit Kaur, his maternal aunt, had married her daughter Sukhwinder Kaur with accused Karamjit Singh on 28.7.2004 at the instance of his (witness) father Iqbal Singh. No dowry articles were given at the time of marriage. Sukhwinder Kaur, on her visit to their village, had told him and Manjit Kaur that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding fridge and scooter. He had visited the house of accused along with Manjit Kaur and had tried to make the accused understand that they were unable to meet the said demand being poor persons. On 21.9.2004, he received a phone call that Sukhwinder Kaur had suffered burn injuries and was admitted in the hospital. Then they reached Jain Hospital, Raikot and from there Sukhwinder Kaur was rushed to DMC hospital Ludhiana. Sukhwinder Kaur had told them that on 20.9.2004 Karamjit Singh had given beatings to her. On the Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 9 next day in the morning both the accused had poured kerosene oil on her and had set her on fire.
Mother of the deceased, while appearing in the witness box as PW-6, has not supported the prosecution case. Similarly, PW-4 Surjit Kaur, who was living in the house opposite to the house of the accused, has also not supported the prosecution case. Thus, the present case, mainly rests on dying declaration suffered by the deceased.
The principles governing dying declaration have been summed up by the Apex Court in Jai Karan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 265, as under:-
"(ii) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration Munnu Raja V. State of M.P. 1976 (3) SCC 104;
(ii) If the-Court is satisfied that the dying declaration "is true and voluntary "it can base conviction on it; without corroboration. State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985 (1) SCC 552 and Ramawati Devi V. State of Bihar (1983) 1 SCC 211;.
(ill) This Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the. declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state of make the declaration. K. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Public Prosecutors 1976 (3} SCC 618; .-Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 10
(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted acted without corroborative evidence. Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P.(1974(4) SCC 264;
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. Kake Singh V. State of M.P. 1981 (Supp) SCC 25;
(v1) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. Ram Manorath Vs. State of U.P.(1981 (2) SCC 654;
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Krisnnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, 1980 (Supp).SCC 455.;
(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. Surajdeo Oza vs. State of Bihar (1980 Supp. SCC 769;
(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. Nanahau Ram Vs. State of M.P . 1988 Supp. SCC 152;
Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 11
(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the-said declaration cannot be acted upon. State of U.P. V. Madan Mohan (1989) 3 SCC 390."
So far as PW-3 Jarnail Singh is concerned, he has deposed that the deceased had told him that both the appellants had poured kerosene oil on her and had set her on fire. However, when the statement of the deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer, she had stated that her husband had given beatings to her on 20.9.2004. In the morning, while she had gone in the kitchen to drink water, her husband left after saying something to his mother. Thereafter, her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. When the statement of Sukhwinder Kaur was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, she stated that her mother-in-law and husband used to quarrel with her qua demand of dowry. On 21.9.2004, she had gone to drink water at about 12 O' clock and her mother-in-law had set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her. She had categorically stated that only her mother-in-law had set her on fire.
After carefully evaluating and considering the above three versions, we are of the opinion that it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of PW-3 Jarnail Singh, before whom Sukhwinder Kaur had allegedly stated that she had been set on fire by both the appellants. The dying declaration suffered by Sukhwinder Kaur before the Magistrate appears to be genuine and is liable to be believed. At the time of recording the statement of the deceased, an Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 12 opinion had been taken from the doctor qua fitness of the patient and the doctor had declared Sukhwinder Kaur fit to make the statement at 10.30 pm and thereafter, the statement of Sukhwinder Kaur was recorded by the Magistrate. The Magistrate, while appearing in the witness box as PW-5, has deposed that after the doctor declared Sukhwinder Kaur fit to make the statement, he had put questions to her to check as to whether she was fit to make the statement voluntarily and whether she was under any pressure or not. Thereafter, he had recorded her statement Ex.PH. Although the statement of the deceased, recorded by the Magistrate, is not in a question and answer form but it appears to have been recorded in a natural manner. The Magistrate had also verified before recording the statement as to whether it was voluntary and without any pressure. The statement recorded by the Magistrate is duly thumb marked by the deceased and there is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was unable to affix her thumb impressions. Moreover, the Investigating Officer had also recorded the statement of Sukhwinder Kaur after she was declared fit to make the statement and the said statement formed the basis of the FIR. In the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, Sukhwinder kaur has stated that she had been given beatings by her husband on 20.9.2004 and her husband had left after saying something to his mother and thereafter, she was set on fire by her mother-in-law. The fact that Sukhwinder Kaur had been given beatings on 20.9.2004 by her husband or his presence before the occurrence is missing in her statement recorded by the Magistrate at 10.30 pm on the same day. Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 13 It appears that before the Investigating Officer, the deceased might have involved her husband also as one of the culprits at the instance of Jarnail Singh PW-3. However, better sense must have prevailed over Sukhwinder Kaur when her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. In her statement before the Magistrate, it appears that the deceased gave the correct version and has stated that she was set on fire by her mother-in-law. Although, in her statement before the Magistrate also she has stated that her husband and her mother- in-law used to quarrel with her qua demand of dowry but a perusal of Ex.PH does not lead to the inference that appellant Karamjit Singh was also a party to commission of murder of his wife by his mother by pouring kerosene oil on her and thereafter, setting her on fire.
After carefully considering the dying declaration, Ex.PH, we are of the considered opinion that appellant Amarjit Kaur had committed the murder of her daughter-in-law Sukhwinder Kaur after setting her on fire with the help of kerosene oil. There was no instigation or involvement of appellant Karamjit Singh in the said crime.
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. So far as appellant Amarjit Kaur is concerned, this appeal is dismissed qua her.
So far as appellant Karamjit Singh is concerned, this appeal is allowed qua him and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appellant Karamjit Singh, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Criminal Appeal No.674-DB of 2008 14
(JASBIR SINGH) (SABINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
January 25, 2012
anita