Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbagh Singh & Gurmeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 29 August, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRA No.245-SB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No.245-SB of 2001
Date of Decision:-29.8.2013
Dilbagh Singh & Gurmeet Kaur
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.P.B.S.Goraya, Advocate for
Mr.Amar Pal Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.K.S.Aulakh, AAG Punjab for the State.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this appeal preferred by appellants-convicts Dilbagh Singh (husband) son of and Gurmeet Kaur (mother-in-law) wife of Sukhwinder Singh (for brevity "the appellants"), is to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.2.2001, by virtue of which, all the accused were acquitted for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Accused Sukhwinder Singh (father-in-law) and Paramjit Kaur alias Gorkho (sister-in-law) of Jaswinder Kaur (since deceased) were also acquitted under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. At the same time, the appellants were convicted u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short "RI") for a period of seven years u/s 304-B IPC. However, no separate sentence was awarded to them u/s 498-A IPC by the trial Court of Addl. Sessions Judge.
Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 2
2. The compendium of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that the marriage of Jaswinder Kaur, daughter of complainant Prem Singh (PW1) (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with appellant Dilbagh Singh, 2½/3 years prior to the present occurrence. He was employed in Delhi Police. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a female child Manpreet Kaur was born out of their wedlock. According to the complainant that his daughter Jaswinder Kaur had repeatedly told him that appellants Dilbagh Singh (husband), Gurmeet Kaur (mother-in-law), Sukhwinder Singh (father-in-law) and Paramjit Kaur alias Gorkho (sister- in-law) used to taunt/harass her, by proclaiming that although her father is a transporter, but he has not given a scooter in the marriage. They repeatedly asked her to bring the scooter from her father. Jaswinder Kaur was totally illiterate and did not know how to read and write.
3. The case of prosecution is that on 21st Falgun, there was a marriage of Manjit Kaur, daughter of Nirbhai Singh and niece of the complainant. In connection with the said marriage, he (complainant) along with his son Pargat Singh had come to village Khawaspur. Nirbhai Singh had also invited appellant Dilbagh Singh, his wife Jaswinder Kaur along with the family. Jaswinder Kaur along with her daughter and mother-in-law Gurmeet Kaur had come to attend the marriage. In that marriage, appellant Gurmeet Kaur has again taunted and asked Jaswinder Kaur to demand scooter from her father in the presence of her mother. At Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 3 this, Kashmir Kaur (PW4) stated that she (Gurmeet Kaur) should also give scooter to her daughter and thereafter only, she will give the scooter to her daughter Jaswinder Kaur. Thereafter, Gurmeet Kaur got annoyed and went away to her house in village Manochahal without attending the marriage. Thereafter, on 8.3.1998, her brother Pargat Singh left Jaswinder Kaur to her in-laws' house and complainant along with his family went for pilgrimage to Hazoor Sahib.
4. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 19.3.1998, the complainant along with Ajaib Singh (PW2) and Charan Singn had gone to see Jaswinder Kaur at village Manochahal. Her husband appellant Dilbagh Singh was on leave and was present in the house. Sukhwinder Singh, Gurmeet Kaur (parents-in-law) and Paramjit Kaur alias Gorkho (sister-in-law) of Jaswinder Kaur were also present in the house. They served tea to them. The accused again repeated the demand of scooter. Thereafter, gesture was made towards Dilbagh Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur by Gurmeet Kaur. Accordingly, Paramjit Kaur, Sukhwinder Singh, Gurmeet Kaur and Dilbagh Singh went in a room and after some time, they came out from the room. Appellant Dilbagh Singh brought a steel glass having some liquid in it and asked his wife Jaswinder Kaur to consume it. She did not agree, but finally, Gurmeet Kaur insisted her that first, she should take tea. As soon as, Jaswinder Kaur took tea, she started shivering with pain. All the members of the family of complainant got perplexed and became nervous and they started giving certain homely treatment to Jaswinder Kaur. But all the efforts proved futile and she died at the spot. Thereafter, accused Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 4 Sukhwinder Singh and Dilbagh Singh asked the complainant not to report the matter to the police. However, he (complainant) made his statement (Ex.PB) to the police, which formed the basis of formal FIR (Ex.PB/2).
5. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that on 19.3.1998, appellant Dilbagh Singh had murdered his wife Jaswinder Kaur by administering some poisonous substance to her in connivance with his all other co- accused or alternatively, they were stated to have committed the offence of dowry death. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PB) of the complainant, the instant criminal case was registered against the appellants and their other acquitted co-accused, vide FIR No.34 dated 20.3.1998 (Ex.PB/2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 302, 304-B and 498-A read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Jhobal, District Amritsar, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
6. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellants and the acquitted accused to face the trial for the pointed offences.
7. Having completed all the codal formalities, all the accused were charged for the commission of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Alternatively, they were charge-sheeted on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC as well. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Judge.
8. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 5 against the accused, examined PW1 complainant Prem Singh, who has deposed in the following terms:-
"My daughter Jaswinder Kaur was married to accused Dilbagh Singh about three years ago. One female child was born from the wedlock. Gurmeet Kaur is mother. Sukhwinder Singh is his father. Gorkho is his sister. All the accused are present in the court. During Phagun of 1998 there was marriage of my niece Manjit Kaur. My daughter and her mother in law came on that marriage. Gurmeet Kaur asked my wife that scooter be given in additional dowry. My wife promised that they will give a scooter if they have given a scooter to their daughter. At this Gurmeet Kaur went back without attending the marriage. My daughter had told that they were demanding scooter etc. earlier also. I had written a letter to my daughter which is Ex.PA. Pargat Singh my son left Jaswinder Kaur at Manochahal after 4 days of that marriage. I went to Hazoor Sahib for Yatra on 9.3.1998 till 20.3.98. On 20.3.98 I along with Charan Singh and Ajaib Singh went to Manochahal to know the welfare of my daughter. After serving tea to us all the four accused went inside their bethak with a nod from Gorkho. Dilbagh Singh came out with a steel tumbler in his hand and gave the same to Jaswinder Kaur that she should take tea. All the three accused came there. The substance in the tumbler was consumed half by Jaswinder Kaur and thereafter she felt giddiness. That was not the tea but some medicine. Jaswinder Kaur died in our presence after 10/15 minutes. We intended to inform the police but we were detained by the accused by requests upto 7 p.m. Then I started to report the matter to the police. Police met me at the turning of Bakipur where I made my statement Ex.PB which was read over to me and I thumb marked the same."
9. Sequelly, PW2 Ajaib Singh has tried to support the initial prosecution version of murder, whereas PW4 Kashmir Kaur, wife of the complainant, has corroborated the allegations of cruelty. Instead of reproducing her entire statement and in order to avoid repetition suffice it to say that she has duly corroborated the statement of PW1 complainant on all vital counts, as regards the cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry is concerned.
10. Likewise, PW3 Dr.Kashmir Singh, on police request (Ex.PW3/D), accompanied by inquest report (Ex.PW3/E), conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, vide post Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 6 mortem report (Ex.PW3/A). On receipt of report (Ex.PW3/B) of chemical examiner, he opined that the death was due to consumption of aluminium phosphide, by means of his opinion (Ex.PW3/C).
11. Similarly, Inspector Paramjit Singh (PW7) has maintained that on 20.3.1998, he correctly recorded the statement (Ex.PB) of the complainant. It was read over and explained to him, who thumb marked it in token of its correctness. He made his endorsement (Ex.PB/1) and sent it to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PB/2) was recorded by ASI Sukhdev Singh. Thereafter, he inspected the spot, prepared the inquest report (Ex.PW3/E) and took into possession the vomiting material of the deceased, by way of recovery memo (Ex.PW2/A). It was sealed. He had also taken into possession the letter (Ex.PA) from the house of accused Sukhwinder Singh and invitation card (Ex.PC) of marriage (Ex.PW2/C), vide recovery memos (Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C) respectively. He prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PE) of place of occurrence with its correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of witnesses and deposited the case property with MHC. He has duly testified his entire investigation. PW5 C.Gurnam Singh, PW8 MHC Surjit Singh and PW9 HC Lakhwinder Singh are the formal witnesses, who have tendered into evidence their respective affidavits (Ex.PD, Ex.PG & Ex.PH) to complete the chain of link evidence. PW6 SI Gurbans Singh has formally arrested appellant Dilbagh Singh with the permission of Magistrate and prepared the final police report. PW10 C.Paramjit Singh delivered the special reports to the higher authorities.
12. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 7 the appellants and acquitted accused were recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, appellant Gurmeet Kaur has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following manner:-
"I am innocent. The deceased was of very hot tamper. In fact, I along with my husband were staying with my daughter Gorkho who was lying admitted in Tarn Taran hospital since 17.3.1998. On 20.3.1998 in the morning, I went to my village and remained in the house till about 9.00 A.M. I found my house in a shabby and un-cleaned manner. I scolded the deceased saying that she could not take proper care of the house even for 2/3 days. I also told her that half cooked meals were being sent to the hospital. I then came back to the hospital. Later on I came to know in the hospital that my daughter had died after taking some poisonous substance. A false case has been planted against me after forging false documentary evidence."
13. Sequelly, appellant Dilbagh Singh has also adopted the same line of defence and pleaded that he had gone to Amritsar to purchase certain agricultural items. Later on, he came to know regarding death of his wife. They (appellants) in order to prove their defence, have examined DW1 Jaswinder Kaur wife of Balbir Singh, who has deposed that on the day of occurrence, Gurmeet Kaur accused came to her house at about 7/8 a.m. and they went to Tarn Taran Hospital, where her daughter Paramjit Kaur alias Gorkho was admitted. Sukhwinder Singh accused was already present in the hospital. At about 11 A.M., when they all were present in Tarn Taran Hospital, Mukhtiar Singh of their village came there and informed them that the wife of appellant Dilbagh Singh had expired. Gurmeet Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh left the hospital for the village along with Mukhtiar Singh and she remained there in the hospital. The Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 8 evidence of DW2 Mukhtiar Singh son of Bela Singh is to the effect that on the day of occurrence, the deceased had told him that she had taken something poisonous by mistake. She asked him to save her. He ran to village Manochahal to make arrangement for some doctor. He informed Sukhdev Singh on the way to go to the house of the accused to look after Jaswinder Kaur. He called Ladi a Chemist and when they reached the house of the accused, by that time, Jaswinder Kaur had expired. Then he went to Tarn Taran Hospital to inform the accused. DW3 Dr.Inder Mohan Gupta has proved the fact of admission of Paramjit Kaur in the hospital and maintained that she remained an indoor patient upto 27.3.1998. This is entire oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties.
14. Taking into consideration the pointed evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted all the accused for the commission of an offence u/s 302 IPC. Accused Sukhwinder Singh (father-in-law) and Paramjit Kaur (sister-in-law) of the deceased were also acquitted u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC. At the same time, the appellants were convicted u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced in the manner indicated here-in-above.
15. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter.
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present appeal deserves to be partly accepted in this context.
17. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since the story Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 9 of murder of Jaswinder Kaur, put forth by the complainant, was disbelieved by the trial Court, so, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 cannot and should not be believed as regards the demand of dowry is concerned, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Because the bench- mark and criteria of appreciation of evidence in a routine murder case is entirely different than to sift the grain (truth) from the chaff (evidence) to decide the essential ingredients of Sections 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC, coupled with the legal presumption as contemplated u/s 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act")
18. As depicted here-in-above, the appellants were convicted for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 304-B & 498-A IPC. Section 304-B IPC postulates that "Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death." Similar is the provision of offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC as well.
19. Therefore, a conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that the prosecution is legally required to prove the following essential ingredients before invoking the provisions of sections 304-B and 498-A IPC:-
(i) The death of wife should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death should have been occurred within seven years of the marriage;Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 10
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.
20. At the same time, the distinction between the legally required and appreciation of relevant evidence brought on record by the prosecution in dowry death case against the main accused & husband on the one hand and his other relatives on the other hand, was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324(1), which was subsequently followed in a line of judgments, wherein it was ruled that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry death. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
21. Again the same very view was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 11 Another 2010(7) SCC 667.
22. Above being the legal position & evidence on record, now the core controversy, which invites an immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether all the essential ingredients of the offences in question are complete or not ?
23. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the prosecution was successful in proving all the essential ingredients as regards the main accused appellant Dilbagh Singh (husband) is concerned. At the same time, it has miserably failed to prove any specific role or overt-act in respect of appellant Gurmeet Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased, in this relevant direction. She deserves the benefit of doubt and acquittal as well, for the reasons mentioned here-in- below.
24. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that Jaswinder Kaur died an unnatural death within a period of three years of her marriage. In this manner, the initial two premises of indicated offences stand established on record. However, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution has led sufficient and reliable evidence to establish the pointed 3rd & 4th ingredients i.e. soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with and on account of dowry articles and by whom or not?
25. As is evident from the record that marriage of Jaswinder Kaur was solemnized with appellant Dilbagh Singh, 2½/3 years prior to the present occurrence. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a female child Manpreet Kaur Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 12 was born out of their wedlock. The complainant claimed that his daughter had told him that the accused were taunting and harassing her on account of demand of scooter. The same demand of scooter was repeated by appellant Gurmeet Kaur at the time of marriage of Manjit Kaur, niece of the complainant in the manner as projected here-in-above.
26. At the very outset, as regards the cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased, relatable to appellant Gurmeet Kaur is concerned, in this regard, the crux of the evidence of complainant (PW1) and his wife PW4 is that the appellants and acquitted accused used to harass and asked the deceased to bring the scooter from her parents. That means, the very very vague and general allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry are assigned to appellant Gurmeet Kaur (mother-in-law) of the deceased. It is not a matter of dispute that almost similar allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry were assigned to Sukhwinder Singh (father-in-law). Although the trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of PW1 and PW4 with regard to the demand by him (father-in-law), but believed the same in respect of appellant Gurmeet Kaur (mother-in-law) is concerned. Sukhwinder Singh (father- in-law) was acquitted on the ground that no specific instance of demand of scooter at the hands of in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur has been brought on the record and he would not have been benefitted by the demand of scooter. To my mind, the same very grounds of acquittal of Sukhwinder Singh (father-in-law) were more deeply applicable to extend the benefit of doubt to appellant Gurmeet Kaur (mother-in-law) as well as she was Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 13 on better footing than her husband. Even no specific role or overt-act or demand of dowry except vague allegations of demand of scooter are assigned to her as were assigned to her husband (father-in-law) (acquitted accused). She was not going to be benefitted from the scooter, meant for her son appellant Dilbagh Singh (husband). As he was posted in Delhi Police, therefore, such like demand of scooter can originate from his mouth only, who might be interested in enhancing his status by receiving the scooter. It remains an unfolded mystery as to how, when and in what manner, mother-in-law had demanded the scooter except vague and general statements of PW1 & PW4. There is no cogent evidence on record even to suggest remotely that appellant-mother-in-law had ever treated the deceased with cruelty. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted), the mere repetition of the demand of scooter on the eve of marriage of Manjit Kaur, niece of complainant, by her for her son (appellant Dilbag Singh) legally would not constitute the pointed offences against her in the absence of any specific evidence of cruelty on her part. In this manner, she appears to have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case in order to wreak vengeance by leveling the indicated very vague and general allegations. Thus, the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kans Raj and Preeti Gupta's cases (supra) 'mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the case of appellant-mother- in-law and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Therefore, to me, it would not be safe to convict her, in the absence of any acceptable evidence of specific role, overt-act and demand of dowry, soon before the death of the deceased. She is entitled to the benefit of doubt, deserves to Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 14 be and is hereby acquitted as well.
27. Be that as it may, as regards the role of appellant Dilbagh Singh (husband) and main accused is concerned, there is a legal presumption as envisaged u/s 113-B of the Act, which postulates that "When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death." A comparative study of Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Act would reveal that the legislature in its wisdom has used the word "shall" thus, making a mandatory application of Section 113-B on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. It is unlike the provisions of Sections 113-A of the Act where a discretion has been conferred that the court may presume abetment of suicide by a married woman. Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113-B relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. The only legal requirement is that the death of a woman has been caused or occurred within 7 years of her marriage and she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other his relative in connection with any demand of dowry. In the instant case, appellant Dilbagh Singh has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
28. Not only that, although there is a legal presumption u/s 113- Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 15 B of the Act, but still, there is an ample acceptable evidence of cruelty against appellant Dilbagh Singh (husband). PW1 and PW4 have stated that the accused used to harass the deceased and demanded the scooter. Appellant Dilbagh Singh was very much present in the house at the relevant time. He was working in Delhi Police, but he did not take his wife to the place of his posting. The defence taken by him and the evidence of DW1 & DW2 deserve to be outrightly rejected. Their statements do not inspire confidence. They appear to have made their statements to screen him from legal punishment. Indisputably, DW1 Jaswinder Kaur is relative of appellant Dilbagh Singh. There would be no difficulty for him to procure the evidence of DW1 and DW2 to save his own skin. Thus, preceding on these premises, it can safely be inferred that appellant Dilbagh Singh was not happy with the deceased and used to treat her with cruelty. The demand of scooter was directly relatable and attributable to him only. Hence the legal presumption is applicable and prosecution has duly proved the case against him beyond reasonable doubt in this relevant direction.
29. Above-all, the epitome of the evidence of PW1 and PW4 raises accusing finger only towards the guilt of appellant Dilbagh Singh, husband of the deceased. It was only Dilbagh Singh, who was going to be benefitted by the demand of scooter. The demand in question is strictly relatable to him only as no other person was going to be benefitted in this behalf. He was the ultimate beneficiary of the demand of scooter. As indicated here-in-above, the appellant was posted in Delhi Police and such like demand can originate from his mouth only, who individually Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 16 might be interested in enhancing his status by receiving the scooter.
30. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that appellant Dilbagh Singh and the deceased were residing as husband & wife under the same roof. She died in his presence in his house. In that eventuality, it was his duty to explain the reasons as to how and in what manner, she died an unnatural death, which he has utterly failed to do so in this respect. On the contrary, there is an acceptable evidence of PW1 & PW4 that the appellant treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of scooter.
31. Therefore, if the epitome of the totality of the facts & evidence, emitting from the record coupled with legal presumption u/s 113-B of the Act, as discussed here-in-above is put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that it was appellant Dilbagh Singh (husband) alone, who had demanded the scooter, harassed and treated the deceased with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. Meaning thereby, he has committed the offence of dowry death and the trial Court has rightly convicted him for the offences in question.
32. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
33. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal is partly accepted. The impugned judgment of conviction, relatable to appellant Gurmeet Kaur (mother-in-law), is set aside. Having extended the benefit of doubt, she is acquitted of the charges framed against her. At the same time, the appeal of appellant Dilbagh Singh (husband) is hereby Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.09.10 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.245-SB of 2001 17 dismissed as such. Consequently, the impugned judgment of his conviction & order of sentence are maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of appellant Dilbagh Singh forthwith and commit him to jail to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence.
Needless to mention that the necessary compliance and procedural consequences would naturally follow.
Sd/-
29.8.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No
Arvind Kumar Sharma
2013.09.10 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh