Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdip Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 August, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-13-SB-2000
Date of Decision: 31.8.2010
Gurdip Singh
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
JORA SINGH, J.
Gurdip Singh S/o Ram Kishan Singh, preferred this appeal to impugn the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.1999, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, arising out of FIR No. 58 dated 7.9.1989, registered under Sections 304-B/201/342 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jaurkian.
By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted under Sections 304-B/498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years for offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and further to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 498-A IPC.
CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -2-
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Co-accused namely Gurjant Singh, Pritam Kaur and Piara Singh were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Against acquittal no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.9.1989, Kapur Singh complainant lodged a report to the police that he is the resident of village Dhanaula and has two sons and a daughter. Daughter, namely, Ranjit Kaur was married with Gurdip Singh. Marriage was solemnized on Fagan 4 (i.e. during February 1989) and about Rs. 2 lacs was spent. Through mediator Randhir Singh there was a demand of scooter, television and ten tolas of gold. Complainant was not intending to fulfill the demand of accused but keeping in view his prestige he gave these dowry articles to the accused. About 200 persons came in the Barat (Marriage Party) and he had spent Rs.50,000/- on clothes etc. Later on Ranjit Kaur informed his wife Mukhtiar Kaur that the accused are not happy with the dowry articles. Accused are demanding Rs.20,000/- for opening a medicine shop. Gurdip Singh and Ranjit Kaur came to the house of the complainant. Ranjit Kaur requested the complainant to arrange payment otherwise they might kill her. Rs.7000/- was borrowed from Jagrup Chand as per pronote and Rs.3000/- were arranged against the fixed deposit receipt of Ranjit Kaur. Payment was made to Gurdip Singh. On 31.8.1989, there was Bhog Ceremony in the house of the complainant regarding death anniversary of his uncle and the ceremony was attended by Ranjit Kaur and her in-laws. Ranjit Kaur informed the complainant that accused have demanded money from her but the complainant refused to give money to the accused party. On CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -3- 5.9.1989, at about 9.00 p.m. Piara Singh brother-in-law of Gurjant Singh came to the house of the complainant in a car and informed that Ranjit Kaur is sick and he has come to take the complainant immediately. Then the complainant, his uncle Saggar Singh and his wife Mukhtiar Kaur were going towards village Kotra but on the way Piara Singh told the complainant to enquire about Ranjit Kaur from Civil Hospital, Mansa. Then the complainant party was being taken to Civil Hospital, Sardoolgarh but on the way near Bhakra Canal, Piara Singh requested the complainant to enquire about Ranjit Kaur from village Kotra. At about 4.00 a.m. they had reached the house of Gurdip Singh. Dead body of Ranjit Kaur was found lying in the courtyard. Complainant and other persons after removing shroud (Kafan) from the face of the deceased then found mouth of the deceased containing froth. Number of ladies were sitting there and weeping near the dead body. On enquiry from the ladies regarding the death of Ranjit Kaur then they replied that it was all will of the God. Accused hurriedly arranged for the cremation of the dead body of Ranjit Kaur and thereafter they disclosed at 12.00 p.m. that Ranjit Kaur had consumed some pesticide. Accused party also requested the complainant to hush up the matter. After cremation of Ranjit Kaur, accused had kept the complainant party in their house up to 12.00 p.m. and after that the complainant and other persons came back to their village. About 20-25 days earlier to the occurrence Ranjit Kaur was checked up by Dr. Chanderlekha R/o Barnala. Ranjit Kaur was found pregnant. On 7.9.1989, complainant alongwith some other persons from his brotherhood reported the matter to the Police Station Jaurkian. In view of the statement of Kapur Singh CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -4- case was registered that Ranjit Kaur was being harassed for want of dowry by the accused party. Ranjit Kaur was also not shifted to any hospital for medical aid after the consumption of pesticide.
SI Sukhdev Raj, SHO, Police Station Jaurkian had collected the ashes of the deceased from the cremation ground. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes was also prepared. Parcel of the ashes and bones of the deceased was sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A/304- B/201/342 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. J.S. Dalal, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicines. He stated that on 29.11.1989, at about 11.00 a.m. one sealed parcel containing about ½ Kg ashes, 2 Kg small pieces of burnt wood, a burnt blackish metallic hair pin and about ½ kg pieces of burnt bones was received and after examining the contents of the parcel, opined that bones are of a lady aged about 22/23 years.
PW-2 Kapur Singh father of the deceased stated that his daughter Ranjit Kaur was married with Gurdip Singh. Rs.2 lacs was spent to perform the marriage. Sufficient dowry was given. Randhir Singh was the middleman and through him, the accused had demanded dowry i.e. scooter, television and 10 tolas of gold ornaments. Three months after the marriage Ranjit Kaur came and informed him that she was pressurized by the accused to bring Rs.20,000/- for opening a CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -5- medical shop. After arranging Rs.7000/- from Jagrup Chand and Rs.3000/- after encashing FDR in the name of his daughter. Rs.10,000/- was paid to Gurdip Singh. They had performed the death anniversary of his uncle, Ranjit Kaur and her in-laws came to attend the same. Ranjit Kaur informed him that her in-laws are demanding more payment but he was not in a position to fulfill the demand of her in-laws. After some days Piara Singh came at about 8.00 p.m. and informed him that Ranjit Kaur was ill then he alongwith his wife and uncle Saggar Singh had gone to Civil Hospital, Sardulewala where Ranjit Kaur was stated to be admitted. They were in a car. Near Mansa, Piara Singh requested him to enquire from Civil Hospital Mansa, about Ranjit Kaur. They were left at Civil Hospital, Mansa. Piara Singh came back after 2-3 hours and informed him that he could not find out the whereabouts of Ranjit Kaur. They were requested to enquire from Civil Hospital, Sardoolgarh. When they were going towards Sardoolgarh then on the way Piara Singh requested them to enquire about Ranjit Kaur from village Kotra. After that they had gone to village Kotra. At about 2.00 a.m. they had reached in the house of accused. Dead body of Ranjit Kaur was found lying in the courtyard. Some persons were sitting there and they had noticed foam emitting from the mouth of Ranjit Kaur. They had enquired from the persons present as to what happened, then persons present replied that it was all the will of Waheguru and despite protest, the dead body of Ranjit Kaur was taken to the cremation ground and was cremated. Accused had participated in the cremation of Ranjit Kaur. After cremation they came back to the house of the accused. Some persons present in the house of the accused told them that Ranjit CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -6- Kaur had consumed some pesticide and was not provided medical aid. Next day they were allowed to leave the house by the accused. They came back to their house. Before death Ranjit Kaur was pregnant and pregnancy was 5 months old. Death of Ranjit Kaur was 7 months after the marriage.
PW-3 Saggar Singh has supported the version of Kapur Singh-complainant. PW-4 Constable Gurwinder Singh had tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-4/A. PW-5 Karnail Singh, Bank Manager stated that on 24.2.1989, Rs.2500/- was lying deposited in the shape of FDR in the name of Ranjit Kaur. Date of maturity was 24.2.1991. Against the FDR Rs.1500/- was obtained as loan on 12.6.1989, by Ranjit Kaur. PW-6 Jagrup Chand stated that Kapur Singh was known to him. Kapur Singh had borrowed Rs.7000/- from him as per pronote on 22.5.1989. PW-7 Mukhtiar Kaur is the wife of Kapur Singh. Statement of Mukhtiar Kaur is similar to the statement of Kapur Singh and Saggar Singh. PW-8 Constable Maghar Singh, stated that on 7.9.1989, he had delivered special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. PW-9 SI Sukhdev Raj is the Investigating Officer. PW-10 Inspector Gurjit Singh, had recorded the statements of Karnail Singh, Bank Manager, Krishan Singh, Jagrup Chand, MHC Harbans Singh and Constable Maghar Singh.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the appellant was that his marriage was performed with Ranjit Kaur 8 years earlier to her death. Only Muklava ceremony was performed in February, 1989. He was adopted by his CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -7- uncle Maghar Singh, who was issue less. His father and mother were residing separately. His brother Gurjant Singh was residing at Mansa in the neighbourhood of Gurbinder Singh, Advocate. Piara Singh was serving as J.E. (Irrigation) and was residing at Mansa. Death of Ranjit Kaur was due to heart attack. Jarnail Singh and Maghar Singh were sent to inform about the death of Ranjit Kaur to Gurjant Singh at Mansa. His mother was also present at the house of Gurjant Singh at that time. Gurjant Singh had sent a car alongwith Piara Singh to inform his in- laws. Kapur Singh, Saggar Singh, his mother-in-law and other relations came and they were satisfied about the natural death of Ranjit Kaur. Ladies gave last bath to the deceased. Shroud (Kafan) was also brought by his mother-in-law and was put on the dead body. Dead body was cremated by them in the presence of his in-laws and his relations. Pyre was lit by Kapur Singh. After that the complainant party went away. On the next day complainant party demanded cash in lieu of dowry articles but they were unable to pay cash to the complainant party. Later on false case was got registered against them.
Defence version of the other accused was that they were residing separately from Gurdip Singh. Gurdip Singh was married 8 years earlier to the occurrence. Only Muklava ceremony was performed in February, 1989.
In defence DW-1 Jaman Lal brought the summoned record and stated that Piara Singh was serving as J.E. in Irrigation Department, w.e.f. 15.8.1979 and is still in service.
DW-2 Baltej Kaur, stated that Gurdip Singh was residing separately from his parents. After the death of Ranjit Kaur intimation CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -8- was given to the complainant party. Complainant party had also enquired about the death. Last bath was given to the deceased by her mother and other ladies from both the sides. Complainant party had also offered shroud. Dead body was cremated in the presence of complainant party. DW-3 Maghar Singh stated that Gurdip Singh was adopted by him. Gurdip Singh was married with Ranjit Kaur about 18 years back. Only the Muklava ceremony was performed 7/8 months prior to her death. Parents of Gurdip Singh were residing separately. Death of Ranjit Kaur was due to heart attack. He alongwith Jarnail Singh had gone to Mansa to inform Gurjant Singh about the death of Ranjit Kaur. Gurjant Singh had sent Piara Singh to intimate the parents of Ranjit Kaur. Parents of Ranjit Kaur came and in their presence dead body was cremated. After cremation complainant party had gone to the house of Gurdip Singh and after taking tea they had left for their village. Next day the complainant party came and demanded Rs.2 lacs. Gurdip Singh declined to make payment. After that the matter was reported to the police.
DW-4 Jarnail Singh has supported the version of Maghar Singh. DW-5 Gurbinder Singh stated that Gurjant Singh was his tenant from 1985 to January, 1990. He had purchased his own plot in the month of May/June 1989. After that he had constructed his house and was residing in that house. He was a Government Contractor. In the month of September, 1989, when Gurjant Singh was getting soil filled in his residential plot he was also present there. Then uncle of Gurjant Singh and another person came there and informed him about the death of his brother's wife due to heart attack. Gurjant Singh had sent CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -9- Piara Singh to inform the parents of the deceased. DW-6 Smt. Nirmala Devi brought the summoned record and stated that sale deed dated 10.5.1989 was executed by Gurdial Singh in favour of Gurjant Singh. Certified copy of the sale deed is Ex. DW 6/A. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of the evidence available on the file the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide order 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 7 years earlier to the present occurrence Ranjit Kaur was married with Gurdip Singh. Only Muklava ceremony was performed in the month of February, 1989. In case as per prosecution Ranjit Kaur deceased was married with Gurdip Singh in the month of February, 1989, even then prosecution evidence inspire no confidence because according to the story death was on 5.9.1989. After death intimation was given to the complainant party. Complainant party had gone to village Kotra. In the presence of complainant party last bath was given to the deceased. Dead body was cremated in the presence of complainant Kapur Singh and his relations. There was no objection from any side that death was not due to heart attack. On the intervening night of 5/6.9.1989, Kapur Singh, his wife and other relations had stayed in the house of the appellant. Cremation was on 6.9.1989. After cremation Kapur Singh with his other family members came back to the house of the appellant. CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -10- After cremation Kapur Singh demanded cash in lieu of price of the dowry articles but the appellant was not in a position to make payment. Then on 7.9.1989, at 1.40 p.m. the matter was reported to the police. In case death was un-natural then immediately after reaching village Kotra, complainant party should have reported the matter to the police. Argued that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry. If some payment was demanded to carry on business then the complainant party cannot argue that deceased was harassed for want of dowry. There is no eye-witness. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Earlier to the present occurrence there was no complaint to any authority regarding harassment or mal-treatment. There was no motive to administer poisonous substance. In the absence of motive, statements of the witnesses are to be scrutinized with great care and caution to find out as to whether they are telling the truth or not. Kapur Singh, his uncle Saggar Singh and his wife came to the house of the appellant after the death of Ranjit Kaur and they were in the house of the appellant on the night of 5.9.1989. In their presence, the dead body of Ranjit Kaur was cremated and no objection was raised by them. Then possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, when appellant had shown his inability to pay cash in lieu of dowry articles. Argued that the trial Court while acquitting other accused opined that no offence punishable under Section 201 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. After scrutiny of the evidence on the file co-accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them but on the same evidence appellant was convicted. Acquittal of co-accused when cremation was in the presence of the complainant party shows that CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -11- story is not natural one.
Learned State counsel argued that appellant is the husband of the deceased. Marriage was in the month of February, 1989 and not 7 years earlier to the occurrence. Appellant was residing with the deceased and death was un-natural. Appellant was to explain under what circumstances un-natural death. Argued that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized. No reason to differ with the trial Court.
According to the prosecution story, Ranjit Kaur (deceased) daughter of Kapur Singh-complainant was married with Gurdip Singh appellant in the month of Fagan i.e. in the month of February, 1989. After marriage appellant used to harass Ranjit Kaur for want of dowry. Before marriage through mediator Randhir Singh, appellant had demanded Colour Television, Scooter and gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas. 200 persons were in the barat and Rs.50,000/- was spent for clothes etc. Appellant was not happy with the dowry articles. Appellant wanted Rs.20,000/- to open medical shop. Rs.7000/- was arranged from Jagrup Chand and Rs.3000/- was arranged from the bank against the FDR. Then Rs.10,000/- was paid to Gurdip Singh. During life time Ranjit Kaur was reporting to her parents that the appellant was not happy with the dowry articles. She was being harassed for want of dowry. Death of Ranjit Kaur on 5.9.1989, was un-natural at her in-laws house by consuming pesticides whereas the case of the appellant was that death was due to heart attack. Deceased used to get medicine from Barnala. After death intimation was given to the parents of the deceased. Parents came and in their presence dead body was cremated. After cremation, parents of the deceased demanded cash in CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -12- lieu of dowry articles. When appellant failed to arrange cash then this false case.
As per evidence on file Ranjit Kaur was married with the appellant in the month of February, 1989 but in Court Kapur Singh stated that Ranjit Kaur was married with Gurdip Singh about 7 years back but in last lines of his examination-in-chief Kapur Singh stated that death of Ranjit Kaur was 7 months after the marriage. Ex. PB is the statement of Kapur Singh dated 7.9.1989 and according to the FIR marriage of Ranjit Kaur was solemnized in the month of February, 1989 i.e. 7 months before her death. No suggestion to the complainant that marriage of Ranjit Kaur with the appellant was 7 years earlier to the occurrence. Saggar Singh PW-3 stated that 7 years back in the month of Fagan 4 Ranjit Kaur was married with the appellant. Occurrence is dated 5.9.1989. Saggar Singh appeared in the Court on 10.3.1995. So from the statement of Saggar Singh nothing to opine that the marriage was 7 years before her death. PW-7 Mukhtiar Kaur in chief stated that her daughter Ranjit Kaur was married with Gurdip Singh about six months prior to her death. No suggestion to Mukhtiar Kaur that marriage of Ranjit Kaur was 7 years earlier to the death and not six months before the occurrence.
Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then stated that his marriage was performed with Ranjit Kaur, 8 years prior to her death and only Muklava ceremony was performed in February, 1989.
In defence DW-2 Baltej Kaur stated that Ranjit Kaur was married with Gurdip Singh about 18 years ago. Statement of Baltej CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -13- Kaur DW-2 was recorded on 19.8.1999 that means the marriage was in the year 1981.
Maghar Singh DW-3 when appeared in the Court on 25.8.1999, then stated that Gurdip Singh was married with Ranjit Kaur 18 years earlier. As per statement of Maghar Singh, marriage was in the year 1981. If the marriage of Ranjit Kaur with Gurdip Singh was in the year 1981 i.e. 7/8 years earlier to the occurrence then in defence appellant could easily produce the copy of Ration Card, voter list to show that marriage was 7/8 years earlier to the occurrence and not 6/7 months earlier to the occurrence. DWs when appeared in the Court then stated that marriage was 7 years earlier. They have not stated a word that marriage was 7 years earlier to death in September, 1989. After Muklava ceremony was performed in the month of February, 1989, then suggestion could easily be given to Mukhtiar Kaur, Kapur Singh and Saggar Singh that the marriage was 7/8 years earlier to the death and only Muklava ceremony was performed in the month of February, 1989. So from the perusal of the evidence one thing is clear that marriage of Ranjit Kaur was in the month of February, 1989 and not 7/8 years earlier to the occurrence.
Second allegation of the prosecution was that un-natural death at the in-laws house by consuming poisonous substance but in support of this allegation there is no report of the laboratory regarding the cause of death. Bones and ashes were taken into police possession. Sealed parcel was sent to laboratory but as per Dr. J.S. Dalal, bones were of an adult human female aged about 22/23 years. Report is silent regarding the cause of death.
CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -14-
Grievance of the complainant party is that after death Piara Singh came in a car and reported that Ranjit Kaur was ill. Complainant party had gone with Piara Singh in the same car. On the way Piara Singh requested the complainant party to enquire from Civil Hospital, Mansa, as to whether Ranjit Kaur was brought to Mansa or not then while going towards Sardoolgarh side Piara Singh requested the complainant party to visit Civil Hospital, Sardoolgarh, to enquire about the whereabouts of Ranjit Kaur but later on as per request of Piara Singh, they had gone to the house of the appellant situated in village Kotra. Dead body of Ranjit Kaur was found lying in the Courtyard. Evidence shows that on 5.9.1989, complainant party came to know about the death of Ranjit Kaur. On the intervening night of 5/6.9.1989, at about 4.00 a.m. complainant party had reached village Kotra. In the presence of complainant party dead body was cremated on 6.9.1989. After cremation complainant party came from village Kotra to Mansa then to Barnala and ultimately to village Dhanaula, by boarding different vehicles. Kapur Singh in examination-in-chief stated that on 6.9.1989, at about 2.00 a.m. they had reached the house of the appellant. Number of persons were found present in the house. Froth was seen coming out of the mouth of the deceased. Dead body was taken to cremation ground and was cremated. From the cremation ground they came back to the house of accused. Some persons present there had reported that Ranjit Kaur had consumed some pesticide and was not provided medical aid. On the next day at noon time they were allowed to leave the house of the accused. Prior to death Ranjit Kaur was pregnant. Next day they had gone to police station Jaurkian to lodge CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -15- report but in cross-examination admitted that at the time of engagement there was no demand of dowry. Suggestion was given to the witness that prior to marriage Ranjit Kaur suffered from fits and was getting treatment from Barnala. But suggestion by the appellant was denied by Kapur Singh, whereas Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Kapur Singh, in cross- examination has admitted that Ranjit Kaur was getting treatment from Barnala. Kapur Singh in cross-examination admitted that he did not enquire from any person regarding the death of his daughter. Before cremation there was no last bath to the deceased. No letter was received from the deceased regarding harassment or demand of dowry. So there was no Panchayat when there was no dispute. Piara Singh came in a car and in the same car they had gone to village Kotra. Accused took them forcibly to cremation ground and after cremation they had not gone to Police Station Jaurkian, Mansa, Barnala or Dhanaula. After death dowry articles were demanded. Application was given to the Deputy Commissioner, to get back the dowry articles and as per application there was no cash payment. On perusal of the statement of Kapur Singh-complainant one thing is clear that after death of Ranjit Kaur message was sent through Piara Singh. There was no demand of dowry at the time of engagement. No letter was received from the deceased qua demand of dowry and due to this reason there was no Panchayat and at the time of cremation complainant party was not forcibly taken to the cremation ground. If by seeing the dead body complainant party had noticed froth coming out of the mouth and they were forcibly taken to the cremation ground and from the persons present on the spot they came to know that Ranjit Kaur had consumed CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -16- pesticide then after reaching village Kotra, complainant party should have informed the police, that death was not natural, in fact some poisonous substance was administered to the deceased. In case appellant had administered some poisonous substance or had abetted the deceased to commit suicide then there was no idea to send message to the complainant party through Piara Singh by sending a car and after cremation there was no idea to get back dowry articles. Kapur Singh in examination-in-chief stated that few days earlier to the occurrence his grand son had died. Bhog ceremony was not attended by the in-laws of Ranjit Kaur. That means when Bhog Ceremony was not attended by the appellant then complainant was of the view that appellant was not happy that is why he failed to attend the Bhog Ceremony and after the un-natural death of Ranjit Kaur, this fact came to the notice of the complainant before cremation then there was no idea to remain silent. No question of taking the complainant party forcibly to the cremation ground. When cash was demanded in lieu of dowry articles after cremation and the appellant was not ready to make payment then complainant party reported the matter to the police at 1.40 p.m. on 7.9.1989.
As per evidence, PW-4 Saggar Singh and PW-7 Mukhtiar Singh mother of the deceased had also gone to village Kotra in the same car with Piara Singh. Saggar Singh in examination-in-chief supported the prosecution story but in cross-examination admitted that in a car they had gone to village Kotra and reached there at 4.00 a.m. i.e. on 6.9.1989. After last bath was given, shroud (Kafan) was placed on the dead body, then the body was cremated. They remained in the CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -17- cremation ground for about half hour. About 50 persons were present at the time of cremation. After cremation they came back to their village but had not gone to police station. According to this witness number of ladies and gents were present in the house of the appellant where dead body was lying. Suggestion was given to Saggar Singh that they were demanding cash in lieu of dowry articles but suggestion was denied whereas Kapur Singh complainant in last lines of his cross-examination has admitted that they had demanded cash in lieu of dowry articles vide Ex. DA.
PW-7 Mukhtiar Kaur, is the mother of the deceased and in examination-in-chief same story was repeated which was disclosed to the police on 7.9.1989 at about 1.40 p.m. Mukhtiar Kaur, in chief stated that they had enquired from Gurdip Singh about the cause of death but reply was not satisfactory. Then stated that the accused party did not allow them to bring their relations and they were kept there forcibly. On the next morning dead body was cremated. They remained in the house of the appellant till 12 noon. After that they came to their village. Next day the matter was reported to the police. In cross-examination Mukhtiar Kaur admitted that regarding preparation of gold ornaments, there was a writing by Ami Chand Goldsmith but no such writing is on the file. Her statement was not recorded by the police. Again stated that she was unconscious so cannot tell whether her statement was recorded by the police or not. She had not visited the Police Station in connection with this case. Police never came to her house in connection with this case. Ranjit Kaur did not write any letter to them. Again said that Ranjit Kaur had written 2-3 letters about her CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -18- maltreatment. She does not know if those letters were produced before the Court or not. No letter was received from Ranjit Kaur. Before the death of Ranjit Kaur, appellant was running a pesticide shop. Her daughter was getting medicine from a private doctor at Barnala. No one from the side of the appellant came to attend the Bhog ceremony of her grandson. Appellant had sent a car after the death of Ranjit Kaur, at about 9.00 p.m. on 5.9.1989. They had reached at village Kotra. Ranjit Kaur was given last bath before cremation. Number of persons were present at the time of cremation. They were forced to leave the house at 12.00 noon. No intimation was given to any police station after cremation. She had gone with her husband to police station and lodged report. So from the statements of Kapur Singh, Saggar Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur, one thing is clear that on 5.9.1989, message was received through Piara Singh regarding the death of Ranjit Kaur and on receipt of message they had gone in the same car with Piara Singh to village Kotra. As per evidence froth was seen coming out of the mouth of Ranjit Kaur. Number of persons were present near the dead body. In the presence of both the parties dead body was cremated. If the complainant party was suspecting some foul play and was forcibly taken to the cremation ground and after cremation forced to leave the house then firstly before cremation complainant party should have reported the matter to the police. Complainant party can raise hue and cry that death was not natural. Appellant could easily be restrained from cremating the dead body. If the cremation was against the wish of the complainant party then immediately after cremation, report should have been lodged to police. After cremation at about noon time, the CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -19- complainant party came back to their village. On the next day i.e. 7.9.1995 at about 1.40 p.m. matter was reported to the police. Defence version of the appellant was that in lieu of dowry articles complainant was demanding cash from the appellant but he was not in a position to pay cash, then this false case. Kapur Singh in the last lines of his cross-examination admitted that after the death, there was demand of dowry articles. Application was given to the Deputy Commissioner to get back the articles.
Trial Court while acquitting the co-accused, namely, Gurjant Singh, Pritam Kaur and Piara Singh in para Nos. 11 and 15 of the judgment observed as under:
"11. To succeed in this case against the accused persons, the prosecution was bound to establish that Ranjit Kaur died an un-natural death within a period of seven years of her marriage and that all the accused persons were harassing and treating her with cruelty to compel her as well as her parents to give more dowry and that they also cremated and thereby destroyed her dead body with an intent to destroy evidence and that they also restrained and kept complainant Kapur Singh, his wife Mukhtiar Kaur and his uncle Saggar Singh, in illegal confinement at their residence at village Kotra on 6.8.1989. However, as discussed below the prosecution though has succeeded in establishing its case for an offence punishable under Section 304- CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -20- B/498-A IPC, against accused Gurdeep Singh yet it has failed to establish its case against the remaining accused persons, namely, Gurjant Singh, Pritam Kaur, Piara Singh as well as Ram Kishan deceased for any offence and even against Gurdeep Singh for offences punishable under Sections 301 or 342 IPC and as such the prosecution case, though succeeds against accused Gurdeep Singh and yet against the remaining accused persons the same is liable to fail.
15. Even the court has failed to find any direct, convincing, sufficient or reliable evidence to establish the prosecution case on this point against accused Pritam Kaur. There is nothing material on record to prove if said Pritam Kaur ever demanded any dowry article from PW 1 Kapur Singh or PW 7 Mukhtiar Kaur, the father and mother of the deceased nor they have stated so in their statements nor any specific demand of any money or dowry article has been attributed to her in the F.I.R. Even no specific allegation regarding her having harassed or treated the deceased in a cruel way to compel her to bring more dowry could have specifically been attributed to her. Even according to D.W. 2 Baltej Kaur, DW 4 Jarnail Singh and DW5 Gurbinder Singh on the relevant day, she was residing with her son Gurjant Singh at Mansa. It is also to be noted that all the CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -21- material prosecution witnesses (PWs 2, 3 and 7) are closely related to the deceased and as has been proved from Ex. DA, the parents of the deceased by filing a complaint against the accused persons before the concerned Deputy Commissioner have also got back whole of the dowry articles given at the time of her marriage. It is also to be kept in mind that deceased Ranjit Kaur, who admittedly was matric pass was reasonably expected to write a letter to her parents about her having harassed or given a cruel treatment by her in-laws had accused Pritam Kaur or her husband Ram Kishan (now deceased) treated her in such a way to compel her to bring more dowry. It is also to be kept in mind that such an oral allegations can be alleged at any time against any person though the same may be most difficult to rebut and there has been a considerable and inordinate delay of about two days in first reporting the crime to the police vide Ex. PB. Under the circumstances the possibility of said allegations against the said accused Pritam Kaur and her husband Ram Kishan and accused being fabricated and put forth as a result of consultations to compel them to return dowry articles or cash in lieu thereof also cannot be ruled out. So, for want of any cogent, reliable of sufficient evidence, the prosecution case CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -22- on this material point against said Smt. Pritam Kaur or deceased Ram Kishan also cannot be held established beyond the scope of a reasonable doubt, nor it can be held proved that she ever treated deceased Ranjit Kaur or harassed her to compel her to bring more dowry and, as such, he also cannot be held to ever abetted or compelled to commit suicide. Consequently, charge for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A or 304-B IPC even against her or against deceased Ram Kishan could not be held established beyond the scope of a reasonable doubt and as such the same is liable to fail."
In the FIR allegation was that earlier to marriage through Randhir Singh, Television, Scooter and gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas were demanded. But Randhir Singh was not examined in support of the allegation that the appellant had demanded Television, Scooter and Gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas.
Second allegation is that appellant was not happy with the dowry articles and this fact has reported to the complainant by Ranjit Kaur and Rs.20,000/- was demanded to open medicine shop. After arranging the payment, Rs.10,000/- was paid to the appellant. Karnail Singh PW-6, stated that Rs.2500/- was lying deposited by Ranjit Kaur in the shape of FDR and against this FDR Rs.1500/- was taken as loan on 12.6.1989, whereas the allegation of the complainant was that Rs.3000/- was arranged against this FDR. Rs.7000/- was borrowed from Jagrup Chand as per pronote dated 27.5.1989 but this document CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -23- could easily be prepared at any time. Kapur Singh appeared in the Court on 10.3.1995 and in case he had borrowed Rs.7000/- as per pronote dated 27.5.1989, then he could easily state that payment was repaid. On the basis of pronote and receipt dated 22.5.1989 there was no recovery suit by Jagroop Chand. No question of suit for recovery, if Kapur Singh by appearing in the Court would have stated that Rs.7000/- with interest was returned, so there was no idea to file recovery suit. When payment was not repaid with interest as per pronote dated 27.5.1989 then it means that document was prepared simply to strengthen the prosecution story because no letter was written by the deceased regarding harassment or maltreatment for want of dowry. There was no Panchayat before the present occurrence. No complaint before the Panchayat or police that appellant used to mishbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. When no enquiry from any person present at the time of cremation or in the house of the appellant before cremation then question is how the complainant came to know that the deceased had consumed some poisonous substance and was not shifted to the hospital for medical aid. Someone should have been produced to state that he had seen the deceased while consuming poisonous substance or after consuming poisonous substance in the house of the appellant. When no one had seen the deceased while consuming poisonous substance, then who had reported to the complainant that the deceased had consumed some poisonous substance and was not shifted to the hospital for medical aid. So story regarding consumption of poisonous substance was without any evidentiary value.
CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -24-
Next allegation was that Rs.20,000/- was demanded to open medicine shop. Rs.10,000/- was arranged and payment was made to the appellant. If this fact is correct one then demand of cash to carry on business cannot be said to be a demand for dowry.
In (2007) 3 SCC (Criminal) 468 ("Appasaheb and another Vs. State of Maharashtra") case was under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/34 IPC. Demand made by the accused from the parents of deceased to meet domestic expenses and for purchasing manure then held that demand cannot be said to be a demand for dowry.
In (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 537 ("Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab"). Case was under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Demand was of share in ancestral property. Then held that demand does not amount to dowry.
In 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 355 ("Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab"). FIR was under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 IPC, wherein it was held that there are three stages relevant to the dowry, one is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is at any time after the marriage but demand of dowry should be in connection with the marriage of the said party. But in the present case there was demand of dowry before marriage, through Randhir Singh, but Randhir Singh was not produced in the Court. Secondly there was a demand of Rs.20,000/- to open medicine shop but Rs.10,000/- was paid by arranging Rs.1500/- on 12.6.1989 and Rs.7000/- on 22.5.1989 that means the payment of Rs.10,000/- was not genuine. But payment of Rs.10,000/- cannot be said to be a demand for dowry. CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -25-
Another allegation of the complainant was that before the death of the deceased, she was pregnant and was got checked up from one doctor of Barnala but no doctor was summoned from Barnala to state that deceased was found to be pregnant after checking.
As discussed earlier, there was no demand of dowry from the side of appellant at the time of engagement. Panchayat was not convened when there was no dispute and if at the time of cremation complainant party had the knowledge that Ranjit Kaur was reporting to them that appellant had demanded Rs.20,000/- to open medicine shop and was not happy with the dowry articles. Rs.10,000/- was paid after arranging payment from bank and one Jagrup Chand. Froth was noticed coming out from the mouth then at that time complainant should have raised hue and cry. There was no reason to allow the appellant to cremate the dead body without intimation to the police. In fact deceased was getting treatment from a doctor. Possibility of death due to heart attack cannot be ruled out. After death complainant demanded cash in lieu of dowry articles but when appellant had shown his inability to pay cash then the matter was reported to the police on 7.9.1989. No explanation why the matter was not reported to the police on 5/6.9.1989, before cremation. When there was no complaint to any authority before death, then very easy to lodge report that when the deceased was alive then used to inform that she was being harassed for want of dowry and as per demand there was cash payment.
Impugned judgment is to be set aside if the same is against law and perverse.
CRA-S-13-SB-2000 -26-
After going through the evidence available on file I am of the opinion that evidence on file was not scrutinized with great care and caution. Impugned judgment suffers from infirmity and illegality and is ordered to be set aside.
Accordingly, the present appeal is accepted.
August 31, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE