Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 December, 2011
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2011
Harjit Singh
.....Applicant
versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Gaurav Sethi, Advocate for the applicant
Jasbir Singh, J.
This application has been filed by Harjit Singh complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 19.5.2011, acquitting respondent Nos.3 to 5 of the charges framed against them. Prayer is also to enhance sentence awarded to respondent No.2 Manpreet Singh.
Heard.
As per admitted facts on record, respondent Nos.2 to 5 were made to face trial in FIR No.118 dated 25.6.2009 for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 304B/34 IPC. It was allegation against them that they on 25.6.2009, had murdered Jaspal Kaur wife of Manpreet Singh -respondent No.2 on account of bringing less dowry at the time of marriage. Marriage between respondent No.2 Manpreet Singh - respondent No.2 and the deceased Jaspal Kaur was solemnized on 11.2.2008. She died Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M) 2 on 25.6.2009. It was an unnatural death and had occurred within seven years from the date of marriage.
Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Judge, reads thus:-
"The facts of the case are that on 25th of June 2009, PW13 ESI Raj Kumar was present at Kapal Mochan Suraj Kund Market along with other police officials in connection with patrolling. The complainant Harjit Singh met him there and got his statement Ex.PB recorded. It was stated in the complaint that Harjit Singh had two sons and two daughters. He had married his eldest daughter Jaspal Kaur on 11th of February 2007 (the date of marriage is actually 11th of February 2008). It was stated that at the time of marriage, he had given dowry articles to his daughter in excess of his capacity and status. After a few days of the marriage, the husband Manpreet Singh, father-in- law Kirpal Singh, mother-in-law Harbhajan Kaur and brother- in-law Gurmeet singh started harassing her for having brought inadequate dowry. They started taunting her and also used to beat her up. It was stated that all of them started demanding money and gold jewelry. They started saying that dowry had not been given as per their status and that as a result of that they had been belittled. It was stated that Jaspal Kaur came to her matrimonial home and told about the same to the complainant. It was further stated that Jaspal Kaur had been harassed and had been beaten up and had been thereafter, sent home. It was stated that she had a seven months old son. It was further stated that the complainant along with his brother- in-law Jaswinder Singh and Satpal Singh, Secretary of the Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M) 3 Gurdwara had gone to the village of the accused and had tried to make the accused understand. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was demanded by them and they stated that till the time the money was not given to them, Jaspal Kaur would not be taken back to her matrimonial home. Their demand was accepted. They were told that the amount would be paid. In January 2009, on the day of "Lohri" Manpreet Singh came to their house and started saying that the complainant had promised to pay the money and he would take their daughter only if the money was paid. The complainant then borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from Sat Pal Singh and gave the same to Manpreet Singh. He then took Jaspal Kaur and the child with him. Thereafter, for sometime they kept his daughter nicely but thereafter, again started harassing her. They then placed the demand of Rs.25,000/-. Jaspal Kaur told about the same to the complainant. The complainant then went to the village of the accused along with his wife and tried to make the accused understand that they did not have the capacity to pay further sum of Rs.25,000/- and came back. On 25th of June 2009 at about 5.45 PM. Manpreet Singh rang up the complainant and stated that Jaspal Kaur was unwell and called them to their village. When the complainant and his family members reached the village of the accused they saw that the dead body of Jaspal Kaur was lying in the Verandah of the house. It was stated that the complainant and the other relatives had made inquiries and had found that Jaspal Kaur had been given poison by her husband Manpreet Singh, Kirpal Singh and Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M) 4 Gurmeet Singh and had been killed by them. On this statement, the first information report was registered."
Process of law was set in motion on a statement made by Harjit Singh (PW10) father of the deceased. After recording his statement, investigating officer ESI Raj Kumar (PW13) went to the place of occurrence, conducted the spot investigation and got prepared a rough site plan with correct marginal notes. Photographs were also taken and he also recorded statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he prepared inquest report on the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr.Dipika Gupta (PW8) on 26.6.2009 at about 10.30 am. On receipt of chemical examiner's report, cause of death was declared as poison due to consumption of aluminium phosphide. The accused were arrested in the meantime. Dowry articles were recovered and on completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Accused were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 13 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution's evidence, statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence.
Trial Court on appraisal of evidence found respondent No.2 namely, Manpreet Singh husband of the deceased guilty of the charges framed against him and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced, however, by giving benefit of doubt, respondent Nos.3 to 5, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respecitively, were acquitted. Hence, this application.
Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M) 5
At the time of arguments, counsel for the applicant has failed to show any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Judge, which may necessitate an interference by this Court.
When acquitting respondent Nos.3 to 5, it was observed as under:-
"15. In so far as accused Harbhajan Kaur is concerned, it stands proved that she was not present in the village when the incident took place. First of all she was not named in the complainant Ex.PB. Further, it has come in the cross examination of PW10, PW11 and PW12 that Harbhajan Kaur was not present when these persons went to the matrimonial house of Jaspal Kaur. It has also come in the cross examination of the investigating officer that she was not present. The evidence led in defence also proves that she was taking treatment at Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir. The relevant record has also been produced. The concerned official has also been examined. It therefore, stands proved that Harbhajan Kaur was not present when the incident took place.
16. Even otherwise, in the considered opinion of this Court, Kirpal Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Harbhajan Kaur cannot be held to be responsible for the death of Jaspal Kaur and cannot be said to have committed her dowry death. Admittedly, the sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to Manpreet Singh. The demand of Rs.25,000/- is also alleged to have been raised by Manpreet Singh. The allegations against Kirpal Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Harbhajan Kaur are vague. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M) 6 in the case of Amar Singh versus State of Rajasthan 2010(9) S.C.C. 64 has held that if in a case under section 304B or 498A IPC the witness merely uses the word "harass" or "torture"
and does not describe the exact conduct of the accused which according to him amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the court. In that case there were vague allegations against the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the deceased also. It was held that mere demand of dowry by itself was not an offence under section 304B or 498A IPC and it was the act of cruelty or harassment that was punishable. It was held that this act must be established for the court to presume that the accused had caused the dowry death.
As held earlier, the allegations against the mother-in- law, the father-in-law and the brother-in-law are totally vague and no specific instance was given either in the complaint or by the witnesses while appearing in the witness box. It has further come in the cross-examination of the complainant itself that the in-laws of the deceased never visited their house after the marriage. Still further, the son of the deceased and accused Manpreet Singh is stated to be living with the in-laws of the deceased right from the very beginning. The complainant has not made any effort to keep the child with him. Still further, the beneficiary of Rs.50,000/- was Manpreet Singh and not his parents or brother. It has to be borne in mind that the propensity to falsely implicate is very high in Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M) 7 India. The normal tendency is to rope in all the members of the family."
To give relief to the above named respondents, reliance was placed upon ratio of the judgment of this Court Kaul Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 113 and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 695 and Salamat Ali and another v. State of Bihar AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1863.
The respondents have proved on record that Manpreet Singh and his wife were living separate from them. To show the above fact, reliance was placed upon deposition made by Lachhmi Chand (DW2), who has so stated. Rup Chand (DW3) has proved that respondent Nos.3 to 5 were having separate ration card. It was also proved on record that Gurmeet Singh- respondent No.3 owns a separate gas connection. DW5 Ravinder Singh Sarpanch of the village, Jagmal Singh (DW6), Amarjeet Singh (DW7) and Rajinder Kaur (DW8) have stated that Harbhajan Kaur was not at fault and she was residing away from the village. This Court feels that the view expressed by the trial Judge is perfectly justified and is as per evidence on record.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-
Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M) 8
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-
appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on Crl.Misc.No.A-869-MA of 2011(O&M) 9 the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed." The application is also barred by limitation. No ground is made out to condone the delay as well.
Dismissed.
However, any observation made in this order shall not affect rights of both the parties in any other litigation.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
12.12.2011 (Sabina)
gk Judge