Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002
Date of Decision: 6.9.2010
Surjit Singh
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Challenge by Surjit Singh, appellant, is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.3.2002 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala, in Sessions Case No. 10/21.3.1998, arising out of FIR 151 dated 5.11.1997 under Section 304-B IPC, Police Station, Dera Bassi.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years.
Darshan Singh and Amar Kaur, co-accused, were acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
Against acquittal, no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.10.1997, Buta Singh, complainant, reported to the police that his daughter Jaswinder Kaur was married with Surjit Singh on 13.10.1996. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per his status including TV etc., but Surjit Singh, his Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 2 father Darshan Singh and mother Amar Kaur were not satisfied with the dowry articles. In November, 1996, Jaswinder Kaur came to Patiala and at that time, his brother Sohan Singh and neighbour Darshan Singh were also present in his house. Jaswinder Kaur informed him that her husband Surjit Singh, mother-in-law and father-in-law were demanding fridge. Jaswinder Kaur was made to understand and sent back to her in-laws house. After that, Surjit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur came. Surjit Singh was made to understand that he was a poor man and requested not to harass his daughter Jaswinder Kaur. Then Surjit Singh along with Jaswinder Kaur came back to his Village Bhagwas. On 4.3.1997, death of Jaswinder Kaur was in PGI, Chandigarh, due to some poisonous substance administered by Surjit Singh, his father and mother, or she was abetted to commit suicide. Earlier on 5.3.1997, he had made statement before the police as per information supplied by Surjit Singh. Now he is sure that death of Jaswinder Kaur was due to some poisonous substance. Husband, father-in-law and mother-in- law of the deceased are responsible. Statement of Buta Singh dated 23.10.1997 was recorded and he had signed the same in token of its correctness. After getting opinion from DA Legal, formal FIR dated 5.11.1997 was recorded. Accused were arrested. Dowry articles were recovered from the house of Surjit Singh and were taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PM). Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charged under Section 304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 3 of witnesses.
PW1 Dr.Kamaljit Singh stated that on 4.3.1997, he was practicing as RMP in Village Bhagwas. On that day, Surjit Singh came and requested to supply a capsule of Ergocap. After half an hour at 3.00 PM, Surjit Singh came back and informed that his wife was vomiting. He has gone to the house of Surjit Singh and after checking, BP was 100/70. She complained numbness in the limbs. Perinorm injection was administered to stop vomiting. Surjit Singh was requested to shift her to Dera Bassi or Barwala for treatment.
PW2 Dr. Devinder Sharma stated that he was practicing Ayurvedic medicine at Barwala. Jaswinder Kaur was brought to his clinic and after checking, her pulse was not recordable. After first aid, Surjit Singh was advised to shift Jaswinder Kaur to some other hospital. He had injected Mephentin and Hydrocortisone injections.
PW5 Dr.Aditya Kumar Sharma, Sr. Resident, PGI, Chandigarh, stated that on 5.3.1997 at 3.00 PM, he along with Dr.Dalbir Singh had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Jaswinder Kaur and observed as under:-
"The length of the body was 151 cms and the weight was 56 kgs. Her both right pupils were dilated and both right and left cornea was hazy. Cyanosis were present on the finger tips, nail, ear, lobulus etc. Postmortem lividity was present over the neck, back of thorax and lumber region of the abdomen. The rigor mortis was present all over the body. Internally all the organs of the body of the deceased were found congested. Stomach contained 50 cc of light coloured fluid and its mucous Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 4 membrane were congested. The size of the uterus was 6.7 x 4.3 x 2.1 cm and was empty."
As per report of Chemical Examiner, cause of death was shock due to poisoning by aluminium phosphide.
PW3 Buta Singh, complainant, father of the deceased, stated that Jaswinder Kaur was married to Surjit Singh in the month of February, 1996. At the time of marriage, he gave a TV set, but his son-in-law and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry. Jaswinder Kaur came in the month of November, 1996. At that time, his brother Sohan Singh and neighbour Darshan Singh were present in his house and in their presence, Jaswinder Kaur informed him that her in-laws used to misbehave and maltreat her for demand of dowry and were demanding a fridge. Then after 15 days, Surjit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur came to Patiala. Then Surjit Singh was made to understand that he should not misbehave and maltreat Jaswinder Kaur. After that, Surjit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur came back to their village. Death of Jaswinder Kaur was on 4.3.1997 at PGI, Chandigarh. Death was due to poisoning by the accused. On 5.3.1997, his statement was recorded, but that statement was given on the basis of information supplied by his son-in-law. After that, he did not make any statement. On 23.10.1997, his statement (Ex.PA) was recorded. Dowry articles were returned on 2.7.1997.
PW4 Darshan Singh and PW6 Sohan Singh have supported the version of Buta Singh.
PW7 ASI Rattan Lal had recorded formal FIR (Ex.PF) on 5.11.1997.
PW8 HC Kuldip Singh and PW9 Constable Padampal Singh Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 5 tendered their affidavits (Ex.PG and Ex.PH), respectively.
PW10 SI Yusuf Masih stated that on 21.11.1997, investigation of this case was with him. On 4.12.1997, he along with other police officials had arrested Surjit Singh and Darshan Singh. Dowry articles were recovered from their house and the same were taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PM). Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Amar Kaur was also arrested. One pair of ear rings, one finger ring and another ring were recovered from Amar Kaur. Recovered articles were taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PO) attested by the witnesses.
PW11 Inspector Kuldip Kumar Sharma stated that ASI Hazoor Singh had recorded the statement of Buta Singh. Postmortem examination was got conducted by ASI Hazoor Singh. Before receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, statement of Buta Singh was recorded twice. After getting opinion from the DA Legal, challan was presented.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that Jaswinder Kaur complained numbness in her limbs on 4.3.1997. She was taken to village doctor and after first aid, Jaswinder Kaur was referred to Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi. At Dera Bassi, some treatment was given to her and after that, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Jaswinder Kaur was admitted in the PGI and in the PGI, she expired at 8.00 PM. Parents and other relations of Jaswinder Kaur were informed. Statement of his father-in-law Buta Singh was recorded. There was a panchayatnama also signed by Buta Singh, Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 6 Sohan Singh and others. There was no demand of dowry or harassment. Later on, Buta Singh became inimical towards him and got this false case registered.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellant and from the perusal of evidence on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that deceased was married with Surjit Singh on 13.10.1996. Death of Jaswinder Kaur was on 4.3.1997 at 8.00 PM. But third ingredient is missing that deceased was harassed for want of dowry soon before the death. First statement of Buta Singh is Ex.DA dated 4.3.1997. On 5.3.1997, there was a panchayatnama (Ex.DB). As per Ex.DA and Ex.DB, no one was at fault. Second statement of Buta Singh (Ex.DC) is dated 16.3.1997. Allegation of Buta Singh was that death was due to some wrong medicine. At the time of postmortem examination, case was of suspected poisoning but no allegation of the complainant party that before death, deceased was harassed for want of dowry. Appellant had demanded fridge. Report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PL) is dated 24.4.1997. At the time of postmortem examination and as per report of Chemical Examiner, complainant was sure that death was due to some poisonous substance, but no report to the police. In the month of July, 1997, dowry articles were recovered. At the time of recovery of dowry articles, again no complaint to the police that appellants used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Ex.PA is dated 23.10.1997 but immediately FIR was not registered. After getting opinion from DA Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 7 Legal, FIR was registered on 5.11.1997. Story was concocted to the effect that during life time, deceased used to inform the complainant that she was harassed for want of dowry. Appellant demanded fridge but evidence is not cogent and convincing that soon before the death, Jaswinder Kaur was harassed for want of dowry. When Jaswinder Kaur was not feeling well, then she was treated by Kamaljit Singh, RMP. Injection was administered to the deceased. After that, deceased was brought to the clinic of Dr. Davinder Sharma. Dr. Davinder Sharma had also administered some injections. Then Jaswinder Kaur was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh. In PGI also, she remained under treatment but bed head ticket not produced for the reasons best known to the prosecution as to which medicine was administered to Jaswinder Kaur, whether Jaswinder Kaur was brought dead to PGI or she was alive. As per report of Chemical Examiner, complainant was sure that death was due to poisonous substance but complainant remained silent upto October, 1997. Complainant when appeared in Court, then stated that he made statement dated 4.3.1997 but he is silent about his second statement dated 16.3.1997 and panchayatnama dated 5.3.1997. Evidence on file is not cogent and convincing that soon before the death, deceased was harassed for want of dowry. After receipt of dowry articles in the month of July, 1997, story was concocted to harass the appellants to extract payment.
Learned State counsel argued that marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized on 13.10.1996. Unnatural death on 4.3.1997. Death was within 7 years from the date of marriage. Appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry and this fact is clear from the statement of the complainant. Appellant was to explain under what circumstances unnatural death. Under Section 113-B of Indian Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 8 Evidence Act, there is a presumption of dowry death. Appellant was required to lead cogent and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption.
Admittedly Jaswinder Kaur (deceased) was married with the appellant on 13.10.1996. Unnatural death on 4.3.1997. When unnatural death within 7 years from the date of marriage at the in-laws house, then Court is to see whether there was harassment soon before the death for want of dowry.
In the present case, first two ingredients to convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC are clear. Death was within 7 years from the date of marriage and unnatural death at the in-laws house.
To prove the third ingredient, evidence on the file is not cogent and convincing. Ex.DA is the first statement of complainant Buta Singh and statement is to the effect that his daughter Jaswinder Kaur was married about 5 months back with Surjit Singh, appellant. On 4.3.1997 at about 3.00 PM, Jaswinder Kaur was not feeling well, then Surjit Singh brought medicine from the doctor of his village. But after administering the medicine, condition of Jaswinder Kaur became critical. Jaswinder Kaur was shifted to a private hospital at Barwala. At Barwala also, doctor gave first aid. After that, Jaswinder Kaur was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On receipt of telephonic message regarding illness of Jaswinder Kaur at about 12,00 during night time, he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh, but by that time, Jaswinder Kaur had died. After making enquiry from the in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur and other respectables, he was sure that no one was at fault.
Buta Singh when appeared in Court, then admitted that he made statement (Ex.DA) before the police.
Ex.DB is the panchayatnama signed by both the parties Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 9 including Buta Singh and his brother Sohan Singh. Ex.DB also shows that no one was at fault. Ex.DA and Ex.DB were recorded by ASI Hazoora Singh, but he was not produced in Court for the reasons best known to the prosecution.
Ex.DC is the second statement of Buta Singh dated 16.3.1997. Allegation of Buta Singh was that death was due to administration of some wrong medicine. On 4.3.1997, 5.3.1997 or 16.3.1997, despite report by the doctor at the time of postmortem examination that it was a case of suspected poisoning, no allegation was levelled by the complainant that during life time, deceased used to inform him that she was harassed for want of dowry. At the time of recording of statement (Ex.DA) or panchayatnama (Ex.DB), complainant was not sure as to what was the cause of death but when doctor while conducting the postmortem examination found that it was a case of suspected poisoning, then at that time, complainant party should have reported the matter to the police that during life time, deceased used to inform him that she was harassed for want of dowry.
In the month of July, 1997, dowry articles were returned by the appellant to the complainant party, but at that time also, there was no objection by the complainant that by administering some poisonous substance, Jaswinder Kaur was murdered.
PW1 Dr.Kamaljit Singh had initially attended Jaswinder Kaur. He had given injection and patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi.
PW2 Dr. Devinder Sharma from Barwala stated that when patient was brought to his clinic, then he gave two injections, i.e., Mephentin and Hydrocortisone but keeping in view the condition of injured, Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 10 injured was referred to PGI, Chandigarh.
In PGI, Chandigarh, Jaswinder Kaur was admitted at 7.30 PM. Death was at 8.00 PM.
PW5 Dr. Aditya Kumar Sharma from PGI, Chandigarh, had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Jaswinder Kaur and stated that as per bed head ticket, patient was admitted on 4.3.1997 at 7.30 PM as suspected case of poisoning. Death was at 8.00 PM. That means, after admission in PGI, Jaswinder Kaur was treated. There was a possibility of administration of some medicine/injection but bed head ticket was not produced on the file as to which medicine was administered by the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh. Prosecution should have produced bed head ticket that at about 7.30 PM, patient was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, and after admission, she was treated by such and such doctor. While lying admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, such and such medicines were administered.
According to story, Darshan Singh and Sohan Singh were present with the complainant in the month of November, 1996, when Jaswinder Kaur informed them that Surjit Singh, Darshan Singh and Amar Kaur used to harass her for want of dowry, i.e., fridge, but on the basis of same evidence, Darshan Singh and Amar Kaur were acquitted of the charge levelled against them and only Surjit Singh was convicted and sentenced. If we presume that in the month of November, 1996 deceased had reported to the complainant party that she was harassed for want of dowry and her in- laws were demanding fridge, then question is whether harassment for want of dowry was soon before the death. Third statement of Buta Singh is Ex.PA dated 23.10.1997 but on the basis of this statement, FIR was not immediately recorded. FIR is dated 5.11.1997. If in the month of Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 11 November, 1996, deceased had informed her parents regarding demand of fridge in the presence of Darshan Singh and Sohan Singh, then statements of Darshan Singh and Sohan Singh should have been recorded at the time of postmortem examination or at the time when dowry articles were returned or immediately after the receipt of report of Chemical Examiner. Report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PL) dated 24.4.1997 was received in the month of April, 1997, but after receipt of report, no complaint to any authority that death was due to poisoning. Statements of Darshan Singh and Sohan Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 5.11.1997.
At the time of postmortem examination, no injury was noticed on the person of deceased. Before present occurrence, there was no complaint to any authority. There was no panchayat. On 4.3.1997, when statement of Buta Singh (Ex.DA) was recorded, on 5.3.1997, when panchayatnama (Ex.DB) was recorded, on 16.3.1997, when statement of Buta Singh (Ex.DC) was recorded or on 2.7.1997, when dowry articles were returned by the appellant to the complainant party, then no complaint that death was by administering some poisonous substance for want of dowry. After receipt of dowry articles, matter was brought to the notice of police on 23.10.1997. Possibility of extracting money from the appellant side cannot be ruled out. After marriage, deceased used to visit her parental house and if deceased was harassed for want of dowry, then deceased might have brought this fact to the notice of her parents. In case parents of deceased had the knowledge that Jaswinder Kaur (deceased) was harassed for want of dowry, then at the time of cremation or at the time when dowry articles were returned, complainant party should have informed the police that unnatural death for want of dowry. No explanation regarding delay of about 7 Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 12 months.
Complainant is the father of the deceased. Sohan Singh is the uncle of deceased, whereas Darshan Singh is the neighbourer of the complainant. All were very much interested in the success of this case. Statement of complainant was recorded on 23.10.1997, whereas statements of Sohan Singh and Darshan Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are dated 5.11.1997. At the time of postmortem examination and cremation, complainant party did not raise any objection and after receipt of dowry articles in the month of July, 1997, then matter was brought to the notice of police in the month of October, 1997, by citing interested witnesses. When no injury was noticed on the person of deceased and the deceased was attended by different doctors, then I am of the opinion that deceased had consumed something and when she complained, then she was got treated from Dr. Kamaljit Singh and later on, from Dr. Devinder Sharma. When condition of Jaswinder Kaur became critical, then she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. If the appellant had the intention to administer some poisonous substance, then there was no idea to contact different doctors and shift the patient from one hospital to another. Mere presence of aluminium phosphide in the report dated 24.4.1997 (Ex.PL), not sufficient to presume that poisonous substance was administered by the appellants. Initially, three accused were challaned but on the basis of same evidence, two were acquitted. Only appellant being the husband was convicted and sentenced. Occurrence seems to have not taken place as per prosecution story. Possibility of consumption of poisonous substance by the deceased cannot be ruled out in view of different statements, i.e., Ex.DA dated 4.3.1997, Ex.DC dated 16.3.1997 and Panchayatnama (Ex.DB) dated 5.3.1997. Crl.Appeal No.701-SB of 2002 13
All discussed above shows that evidence on the file was not properly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment suffers from illegality and infirmity and the same is set aside. Appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Appeal is accordingly allowed.
6.9.2010 ( JORA SINGH )
pk JUDGE