Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 April, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999
Date of decision: 18.4.2011
Surjit Singh
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate and
Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, Amicus Curiae,
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
JORA SINGH, J.
Surjit Singh, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.12.1999, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1998, arising out of a private complainant filed by Ram Kishan, under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC, against the appellant and two other accused namely Deb Ram and Surjit Kaur, who were acquitted by the trial Court.
Against acquittal of Deb Ram and Surjit Kaur, no appeal by the State.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -2- for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Ram Kishan-complainant is the father of Rachhpal Kaur (deceased), who was married with Surjit Singh on 11.9.1994. At the time of marriage, complainant had given sufficient dowry (worth ` 40,000/-) as per his status but at the time of marriage accused had also demanded T.V., Fridge, Tape recorder and a sum of ` 20,000/-. Complainant gave tape recorder worth ` 4000/- and ` 1000/- and promised to meet some of the demands later on. Three months after the marriage, accused started harassing Rachhpal Kaur, for want of dowry. After death of father of Surjit Singh, Rachhpal Kaur, was insulted, humiliated and thrown out of the house by the accused after removing her ornaments, in the presence of the complainant and some other persons who had gone to the house of the accused to condole the death of Charan Dass, father of Surjit Singh. Rachhpal Kaur, was also directed not to return unless she brought the balance dowry articles and ` 20,000/- for stocking his dispensary or starting his new work. Rachhpal Kaur, came to the house of the complainant and stayed there for about a month then the accused came to the house of the complainant and assured not to harass Rachhpal Kaur. On the intervention of the respectables, Rachhpal Kaur, was sent with the accused. Again the accused started misbehaving and maltreating Rachhpal Kaur, for want of dowry. On 16.2.1995, Surjit Singh and Rachhpal Kaur, came to the house of the complainant then Surjit Singh, again demanded payment. ` 1000/- was paid to Surjit CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -3- Singh. Complainant had shown his inability to give more dowry and payment. After that Surjit Singh and Rachhpal Kaur, went back to village Mananhana. On 18.2.1995, Chain Ram S/o Rabhal Ram, informed the complainant about the death of Rachhpal Kaur, then complainant along with his wife and other respectables had gone to the house of the accused. Dead body of Rachhpal Kaur, was found lying in the house. Attitude of the accused was very hostile. Matter was reported to the police. FIR No. 9 dated 18.2.1995, under Sections 304- B/34 IPC was recorded. Post-mortem examination was conducted on 19.2.1995 but challan was not presented in Court, then private complaint under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC was filed. Vide order dated 21.8.1998, case was committed to the Session Court, for trial.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 304-B/498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Ram Kishan-complainant appeared as PW-1 and supported the prosecution story by saying that his daughter Rachhpal Kaur, was married with Surjit Singh. Sufficient dowry was given as per his status but after marriage appellant started demanding fridge, colour T.V. Etc. He gave watch and tape recorder to the appellant. Appellant was also demanding ` 20,000/- to enlarge his business but he had paid ` 1000/-. At the time of death of father of the appellant, he along with his family members had gone to the house of the appellant. Then appellant gave beatings to Rachhpal Kaur and demanded ` 20,000/-. For about 1½ months Rachhpal Kaur, stayed at her parental house. After that appellant came and with the intervention of respectables of CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -4- the village, Rachhpal Kaur, was sent with the appellant but again he started harassing Rachhpal Kaur, for want of dowry. On receipt of message regarding death of his daughter, he had gone to the house of the appellant. Report was lodged with the police but no action was taken then he filed private complaint.
PW-2 Dr. Aruna Kumari, stated that on 19.2.1995, she had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rachhpal Kaur and observed as under:
"The length of body was 5' -2". The dead body was moderately built and moderately nourished. Rigor mortis was present over all the four limbs, postmortem staining was present on dependent parts. Blood stained froth present coming out of nostrils, mouth. Nails of upper limb cyanosed. Pleura, right and left lung, pericardium, larynx and trachea congested. Larynx and trachea on dissection contained froth. Peritoneum of abdomen congested. Stomach and its contents was sent as such, piece of small intestine, large intestine along with its contents sent for chemical examination.
Liver, spleen, kidneys congested. Uterus was
enlarged to the size of 24 weeks pregnancy. On
dissection, uterus contained dead foetus of about 6 months."
Cause of death was organo phosphorous poisoning.
PW-3 Nirmal Singh, stated that Rachhpal Kaur, was CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -5- married with Surjit Singh but three months after the marriage appellant started misbehaving and maltreating Rachhpal Kaur, for want of dowry and this fact was brought to his notice by Ram Kishan, father of Rachhpal Kaur. On 18.02.1995, he came to know about the death of Rachhpal Kaur then he along with Ram Kishan and some other persons had gone to the house of the appellant. Matter was brought to the notice of police.
PW-4 Chain Ram, stated that daughter of Ram Kishan was married in village Manan Hana. His daughter was also married in the same village. House of his daughter was at a distance of 3-4 houses from the house of Rachhpal Kaur. He used to visit the house of his daughter and Rachhpal Kaur. Rachhpal Kaur, brought to his notice that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat her for want of dowry. He is demanding ` 20,000/-. Rachhpal Kaur, was given beatings and was turned out of the matrimonial home. They brought her to village Pandori. He came to know about the death of Rachhpal Kaur, then informed the complainant.
PW-5 Jagir Kaur, is the mother of the deceased. She has supported the version of her husband Ram Kishan.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that he was working with Dr. Rajinder Sharma, of village Bhungarni. Family of Rachhpal Kaur, used to work at the house of Dr. Sharma. She also used to work as a teacher for the children of Dr. Sharma. Rachhpal Kaur, developed CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -6- illicit relations with him. Ultimately, marriage was arranged with the help of Babu Ram. No dowry was demanded or received. He along with Rachhpal Kaur, was living happily in their house. One day, she complained of headache and told him that she had taken some wrong medicine. He tried to save her. Intimation was given to the parents of Rachhpal Kaur but they got false case registered against him. During investigation, case was found to be false. FIR was cancelled. False complaint was filed. Deb Ram and Surjit Kaur, were residing separately from him.
In defence, DW-1 Darshan Singh, stated that parties are known to him. He had attended the marriage of Surjit Singh. There was no demand of dowry. Dowry was not given at the time of marriage. After marriage nobody complained that the appellant or his family members ever demanded dowry from the complainant party. Six months after the marriage, Rachhpal Kaur, had taken some wrong medicine and ultimately she had died. Case was registered but after investigation police came to the conclusion that Rachhpal Kaur, had taken some medicine.
DW-2 Babu Ram, stated that he was the mediator to arrange the marriage of Rachpal Kaur, with Surjit Singh. Surjit Singh, used to work at the clinic of Dr. Sharma. Complainant party also working in the house of Dr. Sharma. Rachhpal Kaur, developed relations with Surjit Singh. Marriage was simple. There was no demand of dowry. After the death of Rachhpal Kaur, he had joined the investigation.
DW-3 Kashmiri Lal, stated that he had attended the CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -7- marriage of Sujit Singh with Rachhpal Kaur. Marriage was simple. There was no demand of dowry. There was no complaint regarding demand of dowry by the appellant. There was no Panchayat from village Pandori Khurd. Criminal case was registered after the death of Rachhpal Kaur and after investigation, prosecution story was found to be false. Case was cancelled.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that Rachhpal Kaur, was married with Surjit Singh-appellant in the month of September, 1994. Un-natural death at the house of the appellant on 18.2.1995 but at the time of engagement there was no demand of dowry. Marriage was simple and this fact was admitted to be correct one by the complainant. In fact, appellant was serving at the shop of Dr. Sharma. Complainant party also used to work at the house of Dr. Sharma. Appellant had developed relations with the deceased. Marriage was simple with the intervention of Babu Ram Sharma, DW-1. If appellant was greedy and was demanding dowry then at the time of engagement he could easily demand dowry but no demand of dowry at the time of engagement. At the time of marriage also appellant could easily raise demand of dowry but there was no demand of dowry. Ram Kishan, father of the deceased in cross-examination, admitted that at CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -8- the time of marriage appellant refused to take dowry. Appellant stated that he does not want dowry. Surjit Kaur and Deb Ram, were residing separately but they were also implicated that means story regarding demand of dowry is not correct one. After the registration of criminal case there was investigation and ultimately case was found to be false. Cancellation report was submitted. Same evidence against the appellant and two other persons who were acquitted by the trial Court. Acquittal of Surjit Kaur and Deb Ram, falsify the prosecution story. In fact, deceased was not feeling well and by mistake she had taken wrong medicine. Effort was made by the appellant to save Rachhpal Kaur but he failed to save her. Statements of PWs 3 and 4 are without any evidentiary value because in their presence there was no demand of dowry. PW-1 and PW-5 are the parents of the deceased and they are very much interested in the success of the case. Before the present occurrence, no complaint to the police or Panchayat. When there was no demand of dowry then appellant cannot be convicted under Section 304-B IPC.
Learned State counsel argued that marriage of Rachhpal Kaur, with the appellant was in the month of September, 1994. Un- natural death at the house of the appellant. Defence version of the appellant was that deceased was not feeling well and due to mistake had taken some wrong medicine but report of the laboratory is to the effect that poison was detected. No explanation who had brought poison and why poison was kept in the house. If due to mistake deceased had taken some wrong medicine then effort should be made by the appellant to shift Rachhpal Kaur, to the nearest hospital for CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -9- medical aid but she was not shifted to the nearest hospital for medical aid. No intimation was sent to the complainant or the police. When un- natural death at the in-laws house within 6 months from the date of marriage then prosecution story is not to be ignored on the allegation that there was no complaint to the police or Panchayat earlier to the occurrence. Immediately complaint is not sent to the police or Panchayat to save marriage. When the situation goes beyond the control of the complainant party then complaint is sent to the police or Panchayat. In case after investigation of FIR, cancellation report was submitted by the police then it does not mean that story is not natural one. Sometimes police with the connivance of real accused files cancellation report. When the police was not going to file challan then private complaint was instituted. When un-natural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage and allegation of the prosecution is that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry then presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, is that death is dowry death at the in-laws house, when no explanation by the appellant as to how un-natrual death.
Admittedly, Rachhpal Kaur, deceased daughter of Ram Kishan-complainant was married with the appellant. Marriage was performed in the month of September, 1994. Un-natural death on 18.2.1995, at the house of the appellant. According to the prosecution story, appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Cruelty or harassment was soon before death whereas allegation of the appellant was that deceased CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -10- was not feeling well and by mistake had taken some wrong medicine. Effort was made to save her but he (appellant) failed to save the deceased. Now the question is whether deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. Cruelty or harassment was soon before death or un-natural death by consuming some wrong medicine when deceased was not keeping good health.
To convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution was required to establish that un-natural death at the in- laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage. Secondly, deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and such cruelty or harassment was soon before death.
Evidence on file shows that in the month of September, 1994, Rachhpal Kaur, aged about 22 years was married with Surjit Singh S/o Charan Dass. No suggestion to any of the witness that marriage of the deceased was not solemnized in the month of September 11, 1994.
According to the prosecution story, un-natural death of Rachhpal Kaur, at her in-laws house. On 18.2.1995, complainant had received information regarding the un-natural death of Rachhpal Kaur. On receipt of information, complainant along with the relations had gone to the house of the appellant. Dead body of Rachhpal Kaur, was found in the house of the appellant. Then matter was reported to the police on the same day. Statement of Ram Kishan Ex. PA, was recorded. On 19.2.1995, PW-2 Dr. Aruna Kumar, had conducted post-mortem CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -11- examination on the dead body of Rachhpal Kaur. Rachhpal Kaur, was found pregnant and pregnancy was 6 months old. Viscera was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner. Ex. PC is the post-mortem report. As per report of the Chemical Examiner, cause of death was poison. No case of the appellant that death was natural. Allegation of the appellant is that deceased was not keeping good health. By mistake, she had taken some wrong medicine. No suggestion to the doctor that when wrong medicine was taken when victim was not feeling good then death would be immediate. Again no suggestion to the doctor that if someone consumed poison by mistake or poison was administered to the victim then death would be immediate. According to the defence version deceased was not keeping good health. By mistake, she had taken some wrong medicine that means death was not natural. No injury was noticed on the person of deceased. No case of the prosecution or defence version that deceased had committed suicide. In view of the statement of doctor and report of the laboratory, trial Court rightly opined that un-natural death at the house of the appellant within 7 years from the date of marriage.
Next ingredient to convict the appellant under Section 304- B IPC was that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for want of dowry and such harassment or cruelty was soon before death. Complainant Ram Kishan lodged report with the police to the effect that at the time of marriage he gave sufficient dowry. Mother-in-law of the deceased had died before marriage but her father-in-law, died after 3-4 months of marriage. Three months after the marriage appellant had demanded dowry and ` 20,000/-. He (complainant) had gone to the CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -12- house of the appellant then Rachhpal Kaur, told him that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat her for want of dowry. After some days, appellant gave beatings to the deceased and she was turned out of the house with a direction to bring dowry as demanded. Deceased came to his house and stayed with him for about one month then appellant came. With the intervention of the Panchayat deceased was sent with the appellant. After that he used to visit the house of the appellant then she told that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat her for want of dowry. On 16.2.1995, appellant came along with deceased and demanded cash but he was in a position to pay only ` 1000/-. Payment was made to the appellant. He came to know about the un-natural incident then matter was reported to the police. No doubt, Ram Kishan in cross-examination admitted that at the time of marriage appellant refused to take dowry. He was saying that he does not want dowry but one thing is clear from the statement of the complainant that he had given dowry as per his status, although there was no demand of dowry by the appellant. Evidence further shows that appellant was serving at the shop of Dr. Sharma but he had left the job at the time of marriage. Complainant party also used to serve at the house of Dr. Sharma. Babu Ram, DW-2, was the mediator. Suggestion was given to Ram Kishan that appellant while serving at the shop of Dr. Sharma, developed relations with the deceased so marriage was simple. Again suggestion was given to the complainant that deceased was an addict and consumed some drugs accidentally but no suggestion to the complainant that appellant tried to save the deceased or after the incident intimation was given to the complainant party or police.
CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -13- Jagir Kaur, PW-5, is the mother of the deceased. She has supported the version of Ram Kishan. In cross-examination, she admitted that no complaint was made to the police or Panchayat. Suggestion was given to Jagir Kaur, that Rachhpal Kaur, used to take intoxicant, last suggestion to Jagir Kaur, was that Rachhpal Kaur, was not keeping good health and she had taken some wrong medicine.
PW-4 Chain Ram, stated that his daughter was also married in the village of the appellant. Whenever he had gone to the house of his dauther and the deceased then she told him that appellant is demanding dowry. Then deceased requested him to report about the demand of dowry to her father. At one time deceased told him that complainant gave one tape recorder, a watch and ` 1000/- to the appellant. He came to know about the death of the deceased, then gave information to the complainant. Suggestion was given to PW-4 Chain Ram that Ram Kishan-complainant had told him that Rachhpal Kaur, had taken some poison by mistake.
Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then stated that deceased was living happily in his house. On the day of occurrence she complained of headache and told him that she has taken some wrong medicine. He tried to save her but failed to save her. All this shows that occurrence was at the house of the appellant. Appellant was present in his house at the time of occurrence. Suggestion was given to the complainant and other witnesses that deceased had consumed some wrong medicine but suggestion was given to PW-4 Chain Ram that deceased had taken some poison by mistake. Appellant is not clear as to whether deceased had taken some CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -14- wrong medicine or she had taken poison by mistake. No explanation who brought the poison and why poison was kept in the house. No suggestion to any witness including doctor that death was immediate after the deceased had taken poison or wrong medicine by mistake. Appellant was serving as a compounder at the shop of Dr. Sharma, before marriage and in case deceased had taken some wrong medicine or poison by mistake then no explanation why deceased was not shifted to the nearest hospital for medical aid. Doctor did not state a word that death was immediate after wrong medicine or poison was consumed by the deceased by mistake. Suppose deceased had taken some wrong medicine or poison by mistake then first of all the appellant should have made an effort to shift the deceased to the nearest hospital for medical aid. If death was immediate then no explanation why intimation was not sent to the complainant party or the police. Complainant party came to know about the un-natural death from PW-4 Chain Ram. Daughter of Chain Ram was married in the village of the appellant. House of the appellant was at a distance of of 3-4 houses from the house of the daughter of Chain Ram. Arrest of the appellant was on 19.2.1995. According to the defence version, deceased was enjoying married life at the house of the appellant and was pregnant then there was no idea to consume poison or take wrong medicine by mistake because defence version of the appellant was that deceased used to visit the house of Dr. Sharma, to give tuition to his children. That means deceased was not illiterate. If deceased was feeling headache then no idea to consume poison. Appellant was a compounder and was having some basic knowledge about the medicines commonly used in the house without CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -15- prescription of the doctors. When deceased was literate and was enjoying married life then it is very difficult to opine that deceased had consumed poison or wrong medicine by mistake. No suggestion to the witnesses as to how appellant tried to save the deceased. Whether he had given any medicine to the deceased or not? When death cannot be immediate after the consumption of poison or some wrong medicine then appellant should have made an effort to shift the deceased to the nearest hospital for medical aid. After un-natural death, appellant was expected to inform the complainant party or the police but no information to anyone. After un-natural death appellant was found missing from the house. Appellant is not clear as to whether deceased had consumed some poisonous substance or consumed some wrong medicine. Appellant was very much present at the spot, at the time of occurrence and he has to explain how un-natural death due to poison.
In defence, DW-1 Darshan Singh, stated that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Deceased had taken some wrong medicine but he is from the village of the appellant.
DW-2 Babu Ram, was the mediator and stated that marriage was simple. There was no demand of dowry. In cross- examination he stated that to his knowledge there was no demand of cash or dowry. He has not stated a word that he had not given intimation to the complainant party.
DW-3 Kashmiri Lal, is also from the village of the appellant and stated that he had also attended the marriage of the appellant and there was no demand of dowry. No evidence on the file that all the DWs had appeared before the Investigating Officer, during CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -16- investigation. DWs were not present at the time of occurrence, so, it is very easy to state that they had attended the marriage and there was no demand of dowry. Before the present occurrence complainant party had no dispute with the appellant. If there was no dispute then why appellant was named. Complainant and his wife are very poor. They had no say in the Police Department whereas the appellant was compounder with Dr. Sharma. When police was not going to present challan then complainant party had no option except to file private complaint. Minor discrepancies in the statements of PWs but when un- natural death was in the presence of appellant then he was not in a position to explain why deceased being literate consumed poison or had taken wrong medicine by mistake. If deceased was not keeping good health then appellant being compounder should prescribe some good medicine and administer the same to the deceased. No explanation how poison was kept in the house and for what purpose. All this shows that soon before death deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty and such cruelty or harassment was in connection with demand of dowry. Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, presumption of dowry death cannot be ruled out.
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld on the point of conviction.
Appellant was convicted under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC but due to mistake by the trial Court he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/-, under CRA-S-1239-SB of 1999 -17- Section 304-B/498-A IPC. Under Section 304-B IPC appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. Under Section 498-A IPC, appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed.
Appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the concerned authority to undergo imprisonment as ordered by this Court, failing which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, is directed to issue re-arrest warrant of the appellant to undergo remaining period of imprisonment.
April 18, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE