Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amardeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 11 January, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.630-SB of 1997
Date of Decision: 11 - 1 - 2010
Amardeep Singh and others .....Appellants
v.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.A.S.Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 1.8.1997. Satnam Kaur deceased was married with Amardeep Singh appellant on 21.10.1990. Jaspreet Singh appellant is younger brother of Amardeep Singh, Satnam Singh and Jaswinder Kaur are parents of Amardeep Singh. At the time of judgment delivered by trial Court, Satnam Singh was aged about 59/60 years and Jaswinder Kaur was aged 56 years.
All the four accused were named as accused in case FIR No.2 dated 6.1.1996 registered at Police Station `B' Division, Amritsar for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA made by Surinder Singh PW1 brother of deceased Satnam Kaur. In his statement Ex.PA, Surinder Singh Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [2] stated that he is a resident of Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and is having a shop of Commission Agent. They were three brothers and four sisters. Younger sister Satnam Kaur was married according to Sikh rites with appellant Amardeep Singh and they had given dowry beyond their capacity. After three years of marriage, his sister Satnam Kaur was renamed as Simarjit Kaur. No child was born to his sister, therefore, she was taunted by her husband Amardeep Singh, brother-in-law Jaspreet Singh, mother-in-law Jaswinder Kaur and father-in-law Satnam Singh. They used to say that Amardeep Singh will remain issueless. Amardeep Singh was having a small Printing Press and he was demanding money from Satnam Kaur on day to day basis, as he was not doing well in the business. Parents of the complainant, with great difficulty used to fulfill the demand so that she could be rehabilitated in her matrimonial home. In spite of fulfilling the demands, Amardeep Singh, his brother Jaspreet Singh, father Satnam Singh and mother Jaswinder Kaur had made the life of Satnam Kaur difficult. On 31.12.1995 Satnam Kaur came to meet her parents at Raja Sansi and narrated her tale of woes. According to witness, earlier her sister had not disclosed all her problems to the parents but since she apprehended that she would be killed by her in-laws, therefore, she expressed her intention not to join matrimonial home, as her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to say that she should go and die some where so that Amardeep Singh could be remarried. Satnam Kaur was made to see reason that rightful place of daughter is in her matrimonial home, therefore, she was sent to her husband's house, on that day at 4.00 P.M. Surinder Singh went to leave her at her in-laws house where Amardeep Singh, his brother Jaspreet Singh, mother Jaswinder Kaur and father Satnam Singh were Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [3] present. Complainant told them that it is not in the hands of ordinary mortal to bless Satnam Kaur to give birth to a child. It is God's will and Satnam Kaur be kept with all affection so, by the grace of God, she may conceive. When Surinder Singh was going to leave the house, his sister started weeping but in-laws said nothing. On the day of occurrence at 9.00 P.M., Jaspreet Singh informed on telephone that Satnam Kaur alias Simarjit Kaur fell from the stairs and has died. Family of complainant reached the house of the accused where Satnam Kaur was lying dead. On the body of Satnam Kaur, there was no injury. A suspicion was raised entertained by the complainant that probably accused had administered something poisonous and, therefore, his sister had died. The matter was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.
Appellants were charged for offence under Sections 304-B IPC for having committed dowry death of Satnam Kaur on 5.1.1996 at about 9.00 P.M., as she died due to consumption of Aluminium phosphide a pesticide within seven years of marriage. In the alternate, the appellants were also charged under Section 302 IPC and lastly they were also charged for offence under Section 498-A IPC.
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar acquitted the appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC but, however, convicted them for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. All the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 304-B IPC. They were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [4] fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Autopsy on the dead body of Satnam Kaur alias Simarjit Kaur was conducted by PW5 Dr.Ashok Chanana. No external injury was found on the dead body. The viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner. After receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, the Medical Officer opined that cause of death was due to consumption of Aluminium phosphide a pesticide which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Surinder Singh complainant appeared as PW1 and reiterated the version what was stated in the FIR. He was confronted by the defence with his previous statement Ex.PA where it was not stated that mother-in-law used to taunt Satnam Kaur for bringing more dowry. He was further confronted with the statement Ex.PA where it was not stated that all the accused were demanding money for running the Press business. The witness stated in examination-in-chief that he was told by his sister that she was maltreated for bringing less dowry. On this aspect also he was confronted with Ex.PA where it was not so recorded. Regarding demand of dowry, regarding maltreatment of the deceased on account of demand of dowry, on various aspects defence confronted the witness with his previous statement Ex.PA.
Tejinder Singh father of the complainant and deceased appeared as PW2. He supported the version given by the complainant PW1 Surinder Singh. He was confronted with his previous statement Ex.DA regarding demand of dowry by all the accused.
Harsukh Lal PW3 had stated that on 6.1.1993 dead body was entrusted to him by ASI Ajit Singh. ASI Ajit Singh PW4 deposed regarding various aspects of the investigation. Girdhari Lal PW6 proved wedding Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [5] card Ex.PG and stated that marriage was performed on 21.10.1990. Rishi Ram, Draftsman PW7 proved scaled site plan Ex.PG. Constable Surjit Singh PW8 proved his affidavit Ex.PH. He was not cross-examined. The affidavit was tendered to prove link evidence.
The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all incriminating evidence was put to them. The same were denied. However, Amardeep Singh appellant gave his version as under:-
"I am innocent. My marriage took place on 23.10.1988. I am running separate business from my parents and even Jaspreet Singh. I am living separate. Since there was no issue from our wed-lock, I used to get treated Simarjit Kaur from various doctors. For the last 8/9 months, she has become frustrated and used to grumble that why she has not been blessed with a child. For this reason, she used to be under depression. At no time, I accepted money from my in-laws and never demanded any money and that there was no maltreatment towards Simarjit Kaur by me or by my any other family member. My relations with her were cordial. Such type of cases have become the phenomena of the day because whereever there is a death of girl, mother, father, brothers and sisters are involved."
Other appellants simply denied the prosecution version. The appellants in defence examined seven witnesses. DW1 Pritam Singh Parwana stated that Jaspreet Singh was living on the ground floor with his mother and father, whereas Amardeep Singh used to reside on the first floor of the house along with his wife Satnam Kaur. He stated that he has not heard of any matrimonial dispute. Tarlochan Singh DW2 stated that Amardeep Singh Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [6] was having separate Press at Sultanwind Gate and he was not partner in the Press in which his father Satnam Singh was partner. Harbans Kaur appeared as DW3. She stated that she was neighbour of accused-appellants and deceased had never complained against the accused. Dr.A.P.Singh of Guru Ram Dass Hospital, Amritsar was examined as DW4 to prove his signatures Ex.D4 on Chit Mark `X'. Dr.Manjit Singh Gill appeared as DW5. He appeared to say that deceased was taking medicine regarding infertility since 1992. DW6 Kewal Mohan, Cashier-cum-Clerk of State Bank of Patiala, Chattiwind Gate Branch appeared to prove Bank account statement of M/s.Surinder Singh Paramjit Singh. DW7 Balwinder Singh, Clerk also proved the Bank Account of Surinder Singh & Co.. According to counsel for the appellants DW6 and DW7 were examined to say that the complainant party was having sufficient funds, therefore, version projected by them that demand of dowry was fulfilled after borrowing the money has been concocted after consultations and deliberations.
I have heard Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate and Mr.A.S.Jattana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr.Ghai has stated that from bare reading of the FIR, it is apparent that the deceased was allegedly maltreated and harassed for not giving birth to a child. When the deceased died, it was six years old marriage. Senior counsel has submitted that it is later that prosecution witnesses have improved their case and have introduced demand of dowry, therefore, no office under Section 304-B IPC is made out and offence, if any, will fall under Section 306 IPC. It is further submitted that in the FIR no specific allegation regarding demand of dowry was levelled against Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [7] brother-in-law Jaspreet Singh, father-in-law Satnam Singh and mother-in- law Jaswinder Kaur. Mr.Ghai has further urged that prosecution has failed to discharge necessary ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC that soon before her death, the deceased was maltreated on account of demand of dowry.
To controvert this, Mr.A.S.Jattana has submitted that in the FIR, it has been specifically stated that as the business of husband Amardeep Singh had fallen to bad times, he was demanding money from her wife on day to day basis and the demand was being fulfilled by parents of the deceased. Mr.Jattana has further contended that all the accused used to harass Satnam Kaur.
I have perused the evidence with the aid of counsel for the parties and has considered rival submissions advanced. In the present case, deceased was married with Amardeep Singh on 21.10.1990. She died due to consumption of Alminium phosphide a pesticide on 5.1.1996 at 9.00 P.M.. The statement of Surinder Singh complainant-brother of the deceased was recorded on 6.1.1996. In his statement Ex.PA it has been specifically stated that besides, the grievance that deceased was not giving birth to a child, deceased was asked by her husband to fulfill the demand of money as business of the husband was passing through difficult times. Prosecution has conclusively proved that deceased died within seven years of marriage. Death of Satnam Kaur was due to unnatural circumstances. She died in the house of her husband. In the FIR, it has been also stated that the husband was demanding money on and off and the demand was fulfilled. Regarding other accused, in the FIR there are general omnibus and vague allegations that father-in-law, mother-in-law, younger brother of husband used to taunt Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [8] the deceased that she was barren and had not advanced the progeny of Amardeep Singh. No specific role has been assigned to them. Defence has proved that deceased was residing separately with her husband on the first floor. Even otherwise, the very first version which was given promptly and spontaneously contain all allegations that deceased was harassed for not giving birth to a child. It was six years old marriage. Surinder Singh complainant five days before the occurrence when went to leave her sister in the house of the appellants, specifically stated that to bless with birth of a child is not in the hands of human being but it requires grace of God. Therefore, at that time also it is evident that husband had not reconciled to the fact that his wife has not conceived. The stray line in the FIR regarding demand of money is attributed to the husband alone. In the Court witnesses have made improvements regarding demand of dowry, maltreatment, on that account on part of all the accused and the witnesses have been duly confronted with their previous statements Ex.PA and DA. Thus, offence under Section 304-B IPC is made out against the husband alone. There is no specific evidence to infer that other accused were also demanding dowry. Hence, appeal of Jaspreet Singh, Satnam Singh and Jaswinder Kaur is accepted and they are acquitted of the charge. The conviction of appellant- husband Amardeep Singh for offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC is upheld.
The above said view formulated by this Court is fortified from the following observations made by Hon'ble Apex court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 707:-
"....For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the Crl.Appeal No.630-SB of 1997 [9] 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 deaths. 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 as appears to have happened in the instant case."
Having upheld the conviction of appellant-husband for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, this Court has to determine whether in the present case, sentence of 10 years awarded by the trial Court is justified or not. In the present case, occurrence has taken place in January, 1996. Period of about 14 years is going to elapse. Appellant Amardeep Singh has suffered a protracted trial. Therefore, ends of justice would be fully met, in case sentence awarded to Amardeep Singh is reduced from 10 years to 7 years while maintaining the sentence of fine and default clause. With these observations, the appeal stand disposed of.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 11, 2010. JUDGE RC