Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhoop Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 24 February, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998
Date of Decision: 24.2.2010
Bhoop Singh and Others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate
General, Haryana, for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been filed by Bhoop Singh, his brother Fateh Singh and Bhanwar Singh (a friend of Bhoop Singh and Fateh Singh). They were nominated as accused in case FIR No. 98 dated 29.7.1992 registered at Police Station Ellenabad, under Section 306 IPC.
The Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide impugned judgment dated 23.10.1998 held the appellants guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and on the next day i.e. 24.10.1998, vide separate order, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 2
The appellants, in the present appeal, have challenged the findings of conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon them.
Criminal proceedings were set into motion, in the present case, on the basis of written application Ex.PG submitted by Bilender Singh, brother of Radha Devi. Application Ex.PG, when translated into English, reads as under:-
"To The Superintendent of Police, Sirsa (Haryana).
Sub.: For taking legal action.
Sir,
It is submitted that my sister Radha Devi,
about 11 years ago, was married with Bhoop Singh son of Sultan Singh, resident of village Munnawali. After some time of marriage, in-laws of my sister started harassing her and after three years of marriage she was deserted. We had instituted a case in Dabwali Court where a compromise was arrived and to rehabilitate her, she was taken to matrimonial home, two years ago. After some time, they shifted to Karamssana near Ellenabad and again started harassing my sister. They told us that she is not able to bear any child, therefore, Bhoop Singh would marry again. We told him to approach some good doctor. On 25.7.1992, they had not Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 3 given any information to us. Yesterday, on 26.7.1992, a barber of our village Om Parkash came and told us that we should reach at the house of in- laws of our sister at Karamsena. We reached there at 2.00 P.M.. They had already made preparation to cremate her. On reaching there, we told them that post mortem on the dead body ought to be conducted. At that time, police was also present. On our insistence, the dead body was brought to Sirsa for post mortem. What happened in the post mortem, was not known to us. But when we demanded the dead body, the police had refused to hand over the same. The police told us that the dead body shall be given to the in-laws. In this entire incident, we see influence of Kani Ram, who is a relative of Jagdish Nehra, Irrigation Minister. He is applying his pressure upon the police. We were also told that we should restrain ourselves and to forget whatever has happened.
Keeping in view of above said facts, we have apprehension that my sister has been killed by Bhoop Singh, his brother Fateh Singh and Bhanwar Singh, who is their companion.
We request you that the entire incident be got investigated and strict legal action be taken against the accused".Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 4
This application was submitted on 27.7.1992. On the above said application, case was registered at Police Station Ellenabad, on 29.7.1992. The formal FIR is Ex.PJ/1.
The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.
The Investigating Agency had found only appellant Bhoop Singh as guilty and other two accused, namely Fateh Singh and Bhanwar Singh were placed in column No. 2.
The Sessions Judge, Sirsa, on 20.1.1994, allowed the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution and summoned accused Bhanwar Singh and Fateh Singh to stand trial.
Radha Devi had instituted a complaint against her husband Bhoop Singh, Santosh wife of Fateh Singh, Sultan Singh, father-in-law and Parkash Singh, brother-in-law. This complaint was instituted on 9.11.1983 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali. At the time of institution of complaint, Radha Devi was minor, therefore, complaint was filed through her father Bakhtawar Singh. It was alleged in the complaint that Bhoop Singh solemnized his second marriage with Santosh and thereby committed an offence of bigamy. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali, vide summoning order Ex.PJ/11 had summoned the accused to stand trial. This complaint was subsequently withdrawn vide order Ex.PJ/1 dated 11.3.1985. The order stated that since matter between the parties had been compromised, therefore, they were permitted to withdraw the complaint. The present incident had taken place after seven years of the withdrawal of the complaint. The root cause of the dispute was that deceased Radha Devi Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 5 was not able to bear a child for her husband Bhoop Singh. After summoning of the accused, on 18.2.1994, a charge for an offence under Section 306 IPC was framed against them for abetting suicide committed by Radha Devi. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PW.4 Dr. Raj Kumar along with Dr. Gurtej Singh had jointly conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Radha Devi on 27.7.1992 at 10.40 A.M. The team found a ligature mark on the neck and opined that deceased died due to asphyxia, as a result of hanging which was ante mortem and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The appellants have not disputed the cause of death.
PW.1 Jai Narain, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Hisar, stated that in July 1992 he was posted as District Inspector, Sirsa. He had conducted an inquiry and submitted the report Ex.PA, on the basis of which the present case was registered.
PW.2 Kali Ram, Constable, got the post mortem conducted from the doctors.
PW.3 Maid Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, stated that on 26.7.1992 at 12.30 P.M., he got an information regarding death of Radha Devi from Nikku Ram. He had also prepared an inquest report Ex.PC and submitted an application Ex.PC/1 for getting the post mortem conducted on the dead body of Radha Devi. He had recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
PW.5 Inderjit, Draftsman, prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PF. Bilender Singh, complainant, appeared as PW.7 and Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 6 reiterated as to what was stated in the written complaint Ex.PG. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that accused Fateh Singh was married with Santosh daughter of his uncle. He further stated that Santosh was living in her matrimonial home but Bhoop Singh, appellant, had enticed away Santosh. This witness further stated in the cross- examination that since the day of compromise in the complaint case, accused Bhoop Singh had shifted to Karamsena along with Radha Devi and Santosh. All the three started living in one house. He further stated that Santosh had a daughter aged ten years, named Seema from the loins of Bhoop Singh accused.
To corroborate the testimony of PW.7 Bilender Singh, complainant, prosecution examined Satbir Singh as PW.6, Bakhtawar Singh, father of deceased Radha Devi as PW.8 and complainant Bilender Singh PW.7.
PW.9 Ram Partap stated that about four and a half years ago, Bhoop Singh came to him and made an extra judicial confession that Radha was not able to give birth to a child, therefore, he wanted to perform a second marriage, due to which she had committed suicide by hanging.
PW.10 Jile Singh, Sub Inspector, had investigated the case and submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution closed its evidence.
The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication.
Bhoop Singh stated in his statement, recorded under Section Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 7 313 Cr.P.C., that Radha Devi had committed suicide due to hanging.
The other two appellants, namely Fateh Singh and Bhanwar Singh denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed innocence.
Dhanna Ram was examined as DW.1. He has stated that there was no dispute pending between Radha Devi and Bhoop Singh, accused.
I have heard Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State.
It is not disputed that Radha Devi had committed suicide due to hanging. It is also not disputed that Radha Devi had not given birth to a child.
From prosecution evidence, it is proved that the marriage was performed around the year 1980. The complaint was filed by Radha Devi against Bhoop Singh, his father Sultan Singh, Santosh wife of Fateh Singh, appellant, and Parkash Singh, another brother of Bhoop Singh, for offence under Sections 494 and 109 IPC. In the year 1983, Radha Devi was minor. The accused were prosecuted through PW.8 Bakhtawar Singh, father of Radha Devi. In the complaint also, a grievance was made that since Radha Devi had not given birth to the child, Bhoop Singh was living with Santosh. It has come in the cross- examination of PW.7 Bilender Singh, complainant, that accused Bhoop Singh had induced the wife of Fateh Singh and was living with her as husband and wife. After the complaint was withdrawn due to compromise, Bhoop Singh was living along with deceased Radha Devi and Santosh at village Karamsena. From the womb of Santosh and Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 8 loins of Bhoop Singh, appellant, a daughter Seema was born. Once accused Bhoop Singh had enticed away the wife of Fateh Singh and was living with both Santosh and Radha Devi by putting up a separate residence, the allegation that Fateh Singh had also abetted the suicide is difficult to accept. Infact, Fateh Singh will be the one who was aggrieved. Bhoop Singh had enticed away his wife. There was no reason for him to join hands with Bhoop Singh. Furthermore, except one stray, vague, general and omnibus allegation, no specific role was assigned to Fateh Singh,appellant. Therefore, benefit of doubt is to be extended to him and appeal preferred by him is to be accepted.
Similarly, appellant Bhanwar Singh is stated to be a companion or friend of Bhoop Singh. There is no specific allegation against him. On the basis of vague, general and omnibus allegations, he can also not be held guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. There was no reason for him to meddle in the affairs of Bhoop Singh. The prosecution has not brought on record as to what kind of relationship he had with accused Bhoop Singh. Thus, benefit of doubt is also granted to appellant Bhanwar Singh. His appeal is also accepted.
Appellant Bhoop Singh was living in adultery. Though reliance has been placed on a compromise and withdrawal of the complaint vide order Ex.PJ/1 and the statement made by PW.7 Bilender Singh in the cross-examination that Bhoop Singh was living cordially with Santosh and Radha Devi, it is not difficult to assume that Radha Devi was living in the company of her Saunt which not only caused heart burning but also day-to-day harassment. Therefore, on the day of occurrence, appellant had stated something which led her to commit suicide. Bhoop Criminal Appeal No. 879-SB of 1998 9 Singh had urged, provoked and incited Radha Devi to commit suicide is apparent. Bhoop Singh had also confessed before PW.9 Ram Partap to this effect. Therefore, conviction of appellant Bhoop Singh is upheld.
Bhoop Singh has been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment by the trial Court. He has already undergone actual sentence of one month and six days. In the present case, present occurrence pertains to year 1992. About 18 years are going to elapse. Protracted trial can be construed as a mitigating circumstance.
Taking this fact into consideration, sentence awarded upon appellant Bhoop Singh is reduced from five years to three and a half years rigorous imprisonment.
Consequently, appeal of Fateh Singh and Bhanwar Singh is accepted. Conviction and sentence awarded upon Fateh Singh and Bhanwar Singh is set aside. They are acquitted of the charge.
The appeal preferred by appellant Bhoop Singh is dismissed. His conviction is maintained, however, sentence is reduced from five years to three and a half year.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 24, 2010 "DK"