Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 31 August, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-532-SB-1998
Date of Decision: 31.8.2010
Jaswant Singh and another
........ Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate with
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Advocate and
Ms. Sonia Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
JORA SINGH, J.
Challenge by the appellants namely Jaswant Singh father-in-law and Parampal Singh husband of the deceased is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.4.1998, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in Sessions case No. 14 dated 4.3.1997, arising out of FIR No. 126 dated 14.11.1996, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Jaitu.
By the said judgment they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years each under Section 304-B IPC and to pay Rs.50,000/- to the parents of deceased CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -2- Parampreet Kaur @ Harjinder Kaur, namely, Jagir Singh father of the deceased and his wife Gurdev Kaur under Section 357 Cr.P.C. i.e. each of them was ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- and in default of said payment to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.
Co accused Nachhatar Kaur, mother-in-law and Parminder Kaur, sister-in-law, were acquitted of the charge levelled against them and against acquittal no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Parampreet Kaur @ Harjinder Kuar, daughter of Jagir Singh-complainant was married with Parampal Singh S/o Jaswant Singh R/o village Sedha Singh Wala about one year and 10 months before the present occurrence but unfortunately from this wedlock there was no issue. Dowry was given by the complainant as per his status but 3-4 months after the marriage, in-laws of Parampreet Kaur (deceased) started demanding dowry by saying that less dowry was brought by her. On number of occasions Parampreet Kaur disclosed to the complainant that accused used to harass and maltreat her by saying to bring more money. One year back, Panchayat was convened and the matter was compromised. For about 5-6 months Parampreet Kaur stayed with her parents. As per Panchayats of both the villages Parampreet Kaur was sent to her in- laws house but again the in-laws of Parampreet Kaur started harassing and maltreating her. 2/3 months earlier Gurtej Singh, sister's son of the complainant had gone to the house of Parampreet Kaur. Rs.2500/- in cash and household articles worth Rs.2500/- were given to the accused On 13.11.1996, Jagir Singh-complainant alongwith Gurtej Singh had gone to the house of Parampreet Kaur then she informed them that accused used to misbehave and maltreat her. She was to be CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -3- eliminated and requested them to take her back from the in-laws house. Then Parampreet Kaur was made to understand by saying that tomorrow Panchayat is to be convened. On 14.11.1996, complainant alongwith Gurtej Singh, Ex-Sarpanch Malkiat Singh and present Sarpanch Amrik Singh had gone to the house of the accused then dead body of Parampreet Kaur was found lying on the cot. Complainant suspected that Parampreet Kaur was murdered by administering some poisonous substance. Complainant had gone to lodge report. At about 10.15 a.m. statement Ex. PA, of Jagir Singh complainant was recorded by ASI Swaran Singh. In view of the statement Ex.PA formal FIR Ex. PW/2 was recorded. Special report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 1.05 p.m. (noon). Investigating Officer alongwith other police officials had gone to the spot. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and after the post- mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for cremation. After inspection rough site plan Ex. PN with its correct marginal notes was prepared. Empty vial from the spot was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PO attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the incharge of the Malkhana. Accused were arrested and after completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case prosecution examined PW-1 Jagir Singh-complainant who had reiterated his stand by saying that his daughter was murdered by administering some poisonous CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -4- substance for want of dowry.
PW-2 Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, alongwith Dr. S.S. Sandhu, had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Parampreet Kaur and observed as under:
"Eyes were closed and mouth was semi opened, rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. Post mortem staining were present on the back. Froath was present on mouth and nostels. Finger nails, lips and ear lobules showed cyanosis."
Cause of death was organo-phosphorous poison.
PW-3 Gurtej Singh, had supported the version of the complainant by saying that death of Parampreet Kaur was un-natural by administering a poisonous substance by the accused for want of dowry.
PW-6 Constable Sardul Singh and PW-7 Constable Sukhchain Singh, tendered their affidavits Ex. PH and Ex. PJ, respectively.
PW-8 SI Manminder Singh, had got prepared the scaled site plan from Madan Lal, Draftsman and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. PW-9 ASI Swaran Singh, had initially investigated the case.
PW-10 ASI Raman Kumar, had also partly investigated the case.
PW-11 H.C. Jit Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PS. 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 Jaswant Singh was that CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -5- he was innocent. There was no question of any demand of dowry. He was very small land holder. Dowry was not demanded at any stage. His son Parampal Singh was suffering from sexual ailment and he came to know after his marriage that he is impotent. He got himself treated from Bathinda. Sex was the cause of death. His wife and his brother- in-law were also reprimanding him for his behaviour.
Defence version of accused Nachhattar Kaur was that her husband Jaswant Singh had developed illicit relations with her daughter-in-law (deceased). When they came to know of this fact then deceased could not bear the insult and agony of it and committed suicide. There was no question of any demand of dowry. They did not demand dowry at any stage. She had disclosed this fact to her brothers and also wrote letter Mark-A to her brother Nachhattar Singh.
Defence version of Parampal Singh was that he is innocent and was falsely implicated in this case. At the time of marriage his father-in-law had spent lot of money beyond their expectation. He or his family members never demanded dowry at any stage. He was incapable of committing sexual intercourse with his wife after the marriage and was getting treatment for his sexual weakness from Dr. Bawa Hospital Bathinda. His father Jaswant Singh, developed illicit relations with his wife. His mother, sister and other members when came to know about this fact then his wife could not bear the agony and committed suicide. His wife was also a patient of Tuberculosis prior to the marriage and used to get treatment.
In defence DW-1 Nirbai Singh appeared and stated that deceased was married with Parampal Singh of his village on 16.1.1996 and there was no dispute regarding demand of dowry. After six months CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -6- of the marriage, there was a dispute of arranging separate residence for the deceased and Parampal Singh apart from Jaswant Singh etc. Parampal Singh and deceased had went to the house of Rajinder Singh, brother of Jaswant Singh. There was a Panchayat and it was settled that Parampal Singh and his wife are to stay separately from Jaswant Singh. They stayed separately for about one month. Again Jagir Singh father of the deceased brought them back. Parampal Singh and his wife again settled in the house of Jaswant Singh. Parampal Singh was suspecting that his father developed illicit relations with the deceased and there was a dispute in the family. 10 days earlier to the occurrence there was a Panchayat. Jagir Singh and some other persons were present in the Panchayat. Nachhattar Kaur complained in the Panchayat that behaviour of Jaswant Singh towards the deceased was objectionable. Then Jagir Singh replied that this is their personal matter and they will settle the same.
DW-2 Dr. Rajinder Kumar Bawa, stated that Parampal Singh remained under his treatment for about 1½ / 1¾ years, from the year 1994 onwards. He was suffering from sex weakness. Medicine was given but despite medicine no improvement. Prescription slips are Ex. D-3 to Ex. D-5.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of the evidence available on the file the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide order as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -7- Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that marriage of the deceased with Parampal Singh appellant was solemnized 1 year and 10 months earlier to the occurrence and during this period no complaint to any authority regarding demand of dowry. No MLR on the file that the deceased was ever given beatings at any stage. Vague allegations that the appellants used to harass and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. No injury was noticed on the person of deceased. If there was harassment or maltreatment for want of dowry then the complainant should inform the police or at least she should have convened the Panchayat. No letter from the side of the deceased to the complainant to show that there was demand of dowry at any stage. In fact Parampal Singh was impotent. He was getting treatment from Dr. Bawa. Deceased was also patient of Tuberculosis and was getting treatment. Jaswant Singh, father-in-law had developed illicit relations with the deceased and when this fact came to the notice of other family members including wife of Jaswant Singh, daughter of Jaswant Singh then Nachhatar Kaur wrote a letter to her brother. There was a Panchayat as per defence witness. Deceased failed to tolerate the insult and had committed suicide. Death is un-natural within 7 years from the date of marriage but soon before the death there was no harassment for want of dowry. In case Gurtej Singh had paid Rs.2500/- and had delivered some articles worth Rs.2500/- then payment of articles or cash is not to be treated as demand of dowry. Gurtej Singh, is related to the complainant. Bharpoor Singh was the middle who was very much interested in the success of this case. Case is based on circumstantial evidence. To commit any such crime there must be strong motive but there was no demand of dowry and no reason to CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -8- murder. When there was no harassment for want of dowry then no question of abetment to commit suicide. In fact when illicit relations with her father-in-law came to the notice of other family members then deceased felt ashamed and committed suicide. When on the same evidence there is acquittal of two accused then the present appellants were also entitled to be acquitted.
Learned State counsel argued that marriage was 1 year 10 months earlier to the occurrence. Death was un-natural at her in-laws house. But deceased was harassed for want of dowry. There was a Panchayat and if no writing in the Panchayat then story is not to be ignored because DW-1 has also stated that there was a Panchayat, for raising separate residence but as per defence version no writing. No allegation of the prosecution that deceased used to write letters or the complainant had written letters to the deceased. When there was no letter either by the deceased or by the complainant then there was no question to produce the letter. When there is a dispute regarding dowry then to save the marriage intimation is not given to the parents or Panchayat. When the situation becomes beyond the control of the complainant party only then the matter is reported to the police or Panchayat. In the present case Panchayat was convened to settle the dispute but despite convening of the Panchayat no improvement. Deceased had stayed in the house of the complainant for about 4-5 months. Then at the interference of the Panchayat deceased was sent to the house of the appellants. One day earlier to the occurrence complainant and Gurtej Singh had gone to the house of the appellant then deceased had reported to them that she was harassed by the appellants for want of dowry. Deceased was requested to stay in the CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -9- house for the night with assurance that on the next day Panchayat will be convened. On the next day complainant party had gone to the house of the appellants then dead body of Parampreet Kaur (deceased) was found lying on the cot. Story regarding impotency was fabricated. Doctor has not brought the original record. Without record statement of Dr. Rajinder Kumar Bawa, is without any evidentiary value. Statement of Nirbhai Singh-DW1, is also without any force because as per the story there was a Panchayat to raise separate residence but no writing. If the story was not genuine one then Nirbhai Singh should have appeared before the police. Complaints could be sent to different authorities. Any witness like Nirbhai Singh could be produced in defence. Parampal Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then stated that his father-in-law had spent on their marriage beyond their expectations. In case Jaswant Singh had developed illicit relations with the deceased and this fact had come to the notice of other family members then why the matter was not brought to the notice of the police and the complainant party.
According to the prosecution story, allegations of dowry were against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law but on the basis of same evidence mother-in-law and sister-in-law were acquitted. Only the husband and father-in-law were convicted and sentenced. When allegations against all the accused are same and on the basis of same evidence some of the accused were acquitted and remaining were convicted, then Court was required to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution.
Ex. PA is the statement of Jagir Singh-complainant dated 14.11.1996, recorded by ASI Swaran Singh in the Police Station, CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -10- Bajakhana. Allegation of Jagir Singh was that marriage was 1 year 10 months earlier to the occurrence. 3-4 months after the marriage, in- laws of his daughter started harassing her for want of dowry. For about 5/6 months Parampreet Kaur stayed with him then there was a Panchayat. Then Parampreet Kaur was sent to her in-laws house. 2/3 months earlier to the occurrence his nephew Gurtej Singh had gone to the house of Parampal Singh and gave Rs.2500/- in cash and some articles worth Rs.2500/- to Parampreet Kaur. In Ex. PA there is not a word that car was given in dowry and at one time Rs.5500/- by Gurtej Singh and Bharpoor Singh for gas connection. Ex. PA is also silent as to whether on 13.11.1996, Bharpoor Singh had also gone to the house of Parampal Singh.
Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Parampreet Kaur. At the time of post mortem examination no injury was noticed on the person of deceased. According to the report of chemical examiner Ex. PG no poison was detected but an organo phosphorus a group of insecticide was detected.
Admittedly, the marriage of Parampreet Kaur with Parampal Singh was 1 year 10 months earlier to the occurrence i.e. marriage was within 7 years from the date of occurrence. Un-natural death of Parampreet Kaur was at her in-laws house. Dead body was found lying in the house of the appellants on 14.11.1996 and as per report Ex. PG by the Chemical Examiner death was by organo phosphorous a group of insecticide. Section 304-B IPC dealing with the offence relating to dowry death reads as under:
CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -11- "304-B. Dowry death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused death.
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961)"
In order to attract the application of Section 304-B IPC, the following essential ingredients must be established and proved by prosecution:-
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -12-
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides for the presumption as to 'dowry death'. This section reads as under:-
"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused dowry death.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, dowry death shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Dowry is defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Act as under:-
"Section 2. Definition of 'dowry' - In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mehr in the CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -13-
case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, cloths or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.
Explanation II - The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"
In the present case first two ingredients are clear that the death was within 7 years of her marriage. Death was un-natural at the in-laws house. But the dispute is regarding third ingredient as to whether deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband and others for want of dowry. Cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
Jagir Singh-complainant when appeared as PW-1 then stated on oath that 1 year and 9 months earlier to the occurrence Parampreet Kaur was married with Parampal Singh and from this wedlock no issue. Sufficient dowry was given as per his status. But 3-4 months after the marriage accused started harassing and maltreating his daughter for want of dowry. About 4-5 months prior to death Panchayat was convened of both the villages and as per compromise Parampreet Kaur was sent to her in-laws house. Again after 2-3 months he alongwith Gurtej Singh his nephew had gone to the house of CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -14- the appellants and gave dowry articles worth Rs.2500/- and Rs.2500/- in cash to all the accused. After every 10-15 days he used to visit the house of the appellant to enquire about the welfare of his daughter. Gurtej Singh and Bharpoor Singh had paid Rs.5500/- to the appellants for purchase of gas cylinder. In cross-examination stated that his statement was recorded once when FIR was recorded and second time by the DSP while holding an enquiry. He cannot tell whether Parampal Singh was impotent and Jaswant Singh did not allow his daughter and his son-in-law to meet for marital relations. Suggestion was given to the complainant that his daughter was treated for Tuberculosis from Rajindera Hospital and the Hospital at Rampura Phul but reply by Jagir Singh was that his daughter was not got treated from Rajindera Hospital or any hospital at Rampura Phul. Then state that he cannot state whether Paramapl Singh used to get treatment for the alleged impotency from Dr. R.K. Bawa, of Bathinda. 3-4 months after the death of his daughter he came to know that Jaswant Singh appellant had an evil eye against his daughter. On 14.11.1996 when they had gone to the house of the appellant then no one was present. Jaswant Singh had arranged separate residence for his daughter-in-law and Parampal Singh in the house of his brother. He was not present with his nephew Gurtej Singh when Rs.2500/- and articles worth Rs.2500/- were given to the appellants. No complaint at any stage against the appellants. Suggestion was given to Jagir Singh that deceased had developed illicit relations with Jaswant Singh. Then Nachhatar Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased sought the help of her brother and wrote letter. When family members came to know about the illicit relations of Jaswant Singh with the deceased then deceased failed to bear insult and CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -15- committed suicide. Jagir Singh has not stated a word that he had given a car at the time of marriage. In examination-in-chief stated that 2-3 months before death he alongwith Gurtej Singh had gone to the house of the appellant then gave articles worth Rs.2500/- and Rs.2500/- in cash but in cross-examination stated that he was not with his nephew when cash and articles were given to the appellants. Jagir Singh complainant showed his ignorance as to whether Parampal Singh was impotent and was getting treatment and his daughter Parampreet Kaur was patient of Tuberculosis and was getting treatment from different hospitals. But admitted this fact that after death he came to know that Jaswant Singh had illicit relations with the deceased.
Gurtej Singh PW-3, is related to the complainant and stated that marriage of the deceased with Parampal Singh-appellant was 1 year 10 months earlier to the occurrence. 3/4 months after the marriage there was a dispute amongst the parties regarding demand of dowry. Jagir Singh had given Maruti Car in the dowry besides other costly articles. Deceased had no issue. When the accused party started misbehaving and maltreating the deceased then there was a Panchayat of both the villages. Accused was made to understand not to maltreat and harass the deceased in future. Then he alongwith Bharpur Singh gave Rs.5500/- to the accused to purchase gas connection. At one time he alongwith Jagir Singh had gone to the house of the appellant and gave Rs.2500/- in cash and articles worth Rs.2500/-. On 13.11.1995, he alongwith Jagir Singh had gone to the house of the appellants, then deceased informed them that she was harassed for want of dowry. Then they told her that Panchayat was to be convened on the next day. With a promise to convene a Panchayat deceased CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -16- was left at her in-laws house. According to this witness car was given to the appellants at the time of marriage but this fact is not correct one. In cross-examination Gurtej Singh admitted that he never received letter from the deceased or the complainant. On 13.11.1996, he apprehended danger to the life of deceased at the hands of the appellants but not prior to that Jaswant Singh-appellant never arranged separate residence for the deceased and her husband. Deceased was not given beatings. On 13.11.1996, they had informed the Panchayat of village Lehra Dhoorkot. Jaswant Singh and Nachhatar Kaur were present in their house on 14.11.1996, when police came. Further admitted that deceased was getting treatment from Rampura Phul because she was Tuberculosis patient and the treatment was arranged by them. He cannot tell whether Parampal was impotent and getting treatment from Dr. R.K. Bawa of Bathinda. Lastly stated that he came to know that Jaswant Singh had evil eye towards the deceased. He came to know about the dowry dispute after her death. From the statement of Gurtej Singh one thing is clear that deceased was Tuberculosis patient and was getting treatment. Before death Gurtej Singh had no knowledge of dowry dispute. When dowry dispute was not in the knowledge of this witness, then no question of payment of Rs.2500/- in cash and articles worth Rs.2500/- and at one time Rs. 5500/- for gas cylinder in the presence of Bharpur Singh.
Jagir Singh, father of the deceased stated that deceased was not patient of Tuberculosis and was not getting treatment and before death there was a dispute regarding dowry but statement of Gurtej Singh is contrary to the statement of Jagir Singh. Jagir Singh stated that he was not with Gurtej Singh when dowry articles worth CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -17- Rs.2500/- and Rs.2500/- in cash were given to the appellants whereas Gurtej Singh stated that he alongwith complainant gave articles worth Rs.2500/- and Rs.2500/- in cash. Rs.5500/- was paid by Gurtej Singh in the presence of Bharpur Singh for gas cylinder. But this fact seems to be not correct one because earlier to death Gurtej Singh had no information that there was a dowry dispute. In case there was a dowry dispute only then payment was to be made to solve the controversy. When there was no controversy amongst the parties regarding demand of dowry then no need of payment of Rs.2500/- in cash or some articles worth Rs.2500/-. If Rs.5500/- was paid for gas cylinder then payment cannot be demand for dowry.
In (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 721 ("Appasaheb and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra") it was held that demand made by accused-appellants from parents of deceased to meet domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Held that demand of money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting domestic necessities or purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry.
In 2005 (3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 129 ("Sushil Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana") held that demand of Rs.20,000/- and a golden ring at the time of Chhuchak ceremony is not a dowry demand. Any payment,which is customary payment i.e. given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by the expression dowry.
Third main witness is Bharpur Singh PW-4. He was the mediator and relation of Jagir Singh and in examination-in-chief stated CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -18- that marriage of the deceased with Parampal Singh-appellant was solemnized on 16.1.1995. Sufficient dowry was given by Jagir Singh but after one and half month of the marriage, all the family members of Parampal Singh started maltreating and misbehaving Parampreet Kaur for want of dowry. Whenever he had gone to the house of the appellants then there was quarrel regarding dowry articles. Once there was a Panchayat of both the villages and as per promise Parampreet Kaur was left at her in-laws house with an undertaking from the side of the accused that she was not to be harassed for want of dowry. On day prior to death he had gone to the house of the appellants. All the accused were sitting together with the deceased. Accused were demanding Rs. One lac from the deceased and on seeing him they stopped talking and this fact was disclosed to him by the deceased. But he did not disclose this fact to anybody. Bharpur Singh has not stated a word that he had gone with Gurtej Singh and had paid Rs.5500/- for the gas cylinder. In cross-examination Bharpur Singh admitted that Jagir Singh is maternal uncle of his wife. Car was given at the time of marriage by Jagir Singh but he cannot tell whether Jagir Singh got back the car after the death of Parampreet Kaur. Prarampreet Kaur was not patient of Tuberculosis but he cannot tell whether she was getting treatment from Bathinda and Rampura Phul. Bharpur Singh had also appeared before the DSP. His statement was recorded and before the DSP he had not stated that there was no talk of dowry articles at that time i.e. demand of dowry and on the intervening night of 13/14.11.1996, Gurnaib Singh and Sukhbir Singh of village Sedha Singh Wala came to inform about the death of Parampreet Kaur @ Harjinder Kaur and after that he had disclosed the abovesaid facts to CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -19- Jagir Singh. Bharpur Singh was confronted with his statement recorded by DSP but all these facts find mentioned in the statement recorded by the DSP. As per Bharpur Singh car was given in dowry but this fact was not stated by Jagir Singh. Bharpur Singh was not sure whether deceased was Tuberculosis patient and was getting treatment. Bharpur Singh was very much interested in the success of this case. In case appellants had harassed the deceased for want of dowry and there was a Panchayat and in his presence Rs.5500/- was paid to the deceased for gas cylinder, then prosecution was required to produce independent witnesses who were in the Panchayat. If payment of Rs.5500/- was made in the presence of Bharpur Singh, then in examination-in-chief he should have stated that he had gone to the house of the appellant with Gurtej Singh and in his presence Rs.5500/- was paid to the deceased or the appellants to purchase gas cylinder.
In defence DW-1 Nirbhai Singh, Sarpanch of village Sedha Singh Wala appeared and stated that marriage of Parampal Singh was solemnized on 16.1.1996 but there was no dispute regarding demand of dowry. Six months after the marriage there was dispute for arranging separate residence for the deceased and Parampal Singh. Separate house was arranged in the house of Rajinder Singh brother of Jaswant Singh appellant. For about one month deceased and her husband stayed separately in the house of Rajinder Singh. Parampal Singh suspected that his father Jaswant Singh developed illicit relations with his wife and there was a dispute in the family. 10 days before the occurrence there was a Panchayat. Jagir Singh and some other persons from village Lehra Dhoorkot were also present in the Panchayat. Nachhatar Kaur mother-in-law of the deceased complained CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -20- in the Panchayat that her husband Jaswant Singh's behavior towards deceased was objectionable. Then Jagir Singh in Panchayat replied that it was their personal matter and they will settle the same. Statement of Nirbhai Singh seems to be reasonable one because marriage of the deceased with Parampal Singh was 1 year 10 months earlier to the occurrence and from this wedlock there was no issue. Deceased was Tuberculosis patient and was getting treatment. This fact was admitted by Gurtej Singh PW-3 but denied by Jagir Singh complainant. Suggestion was given to the witnesses that Parampal Singh was impotent and was getting treatment. But Jagir Singh has shown his ignorance as to whether Parampal Singh was impotent or not. But admitted that separate residence was arranged for the deceased and Parampal Singh and Jaswant Singh was not allowing the deceased and her husband to meet for marital relations. When the marriage was one year and ten months earlier to the occurrence and there was no issue then statement of DW-1 inspires confidence that Parampal Singh was impotent and was getting treatment. When Jaswant Singh had an evil eye towards the deceased then separate residence was arranged in the house of Rajinder Singh brother of Jaswant Singh-appellant. In case Jaswant Singh was not allowing the deceased and her husband to meet for marital relations then there was no idea to arrange separate residence.
DW-2 Dr. Ravinder Kumar Bawa, stated that Parampal Singh remained under his treatment for about 1½ / 1¾ years because he was suffering from sex weakness. Ex. D-3 to Ex. D-5 are the prescription slips. No doubt original register was not brought but Doctor had no enmity with the complainant party. He was not related to the CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -21- appellants. To help the appellants there was no reason to concoct the story. Suggestion was given to the PWs that Parampal Singh was impotent and was getting treatment but reply was that they do not know as to whether Parampal Singh was getting treatment from Bathinda for sex weakness. In case the deceased informed the complainant party that she was harassed for want of dowry then the complainant party was also expected to state whether Parampal Singh was impotent and was getting treatment or not. No case of the complainant party that Parampal Singh was getting treatment from any doctor. One witness admitted that deceased was Tuberculosis patient and was getting treatment. Second witness stated that deceased was not a Tuberculosis patient and was not getting treatment.
Gurtej Singh and Bharpur Singh are related to the complainant. Gurtej Singh had gone to the house of the appellants on many occasions and at one time had paid Rs.2500/- in cash and articles worth Rs.2500/- in the presence of complainant and second time in the presence of Bharpur Singh paid Rs.5500/- for gas connection but in cross-examination stated that he came to know about the dowry dispute after her death. When Gurtej Singh used to visit the house of the appellants and had no knowledge about the dowry dispute then why he had paid Rs.2500/- and gave articles worth Rs.2500/- at one time and Rs.5500/- at the second time for gas connection. Evidence regarding payment of Rs.2500/-, articles worth Rs.2500/- at one time and Rs.5500/- for gas connection is contradictory. According to the complainant, he was not present with Gurtej Singh when there was payment of Rs.2500/- with articles worth Rs.2500/- but Gurtej Singh stated that he alongwith the complainant had gone to the house of the CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -22- appellants with the articles. Second allegation is that Rs.5500/- was paid for gas cylinder in the presence of Bharpur Singh but Bharpur Singh did not state a word that he was present with Gurtej Singh when payment of gas cylinder was made.
There was general allegation by the complainant party that 3-4 months after the marriage, in-laws of the deceased started harassing her for want of dowry but on the basis of the same evidence mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were acquitted and against acquittal no appeal.
According to the story, for about 4-5 months deceased had stayed with her parents then there was a Panchayat of both the villages. Matter was settled. Deceased was sent to her in-laws house but no independent witness appeared to state that there was a Panchayat of both the villages and he was in the Panchayat. Dispute was regarding harassment for want of dowry and the dispute was settled. So story of convening a Panchayat of two villages one year earlier to the occurrence seems to be not correct one. If the complainant was not able to produce the witness from the village of the appellants then he could easily produce a witness from his village who was present in the Panchayat. No explanation was given by Jagir Singh as to why no independent witness was produced.
Next allegation of the complainant was that one day earlier to the occurrence i.e. on 13.11.1996, complainant and Gurtej Singh had gone to the house of the appellants then deceased had informed them that she was harassed for want of dowry and possibility of her elimination but deceased was left at her in-laws house. Before 13.11.1996, at one time there was a payment of Rs.2500/- with some CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -23- articles worth Rs.2500/-, second time there was a payment of Rs.5500/- for gas cylinder. 4-5 months deceased stayed with the complainant. Then there was a Panchayat of both the villages that means as per complainant deceased was harassed for want of dowry and there was a possibility of her elimination but without any reason deceased was left in her in-laws house. If deceased had disclosed to the complainant and Gurtej Singh that she was harassed for want of dowry and there was a possibility of her elimination then complainant should have brought the deceased from her in-laws house. So very easy for the complainant to state that one day earlier to the present occurrence he alongwith Gurtej Singh had gone to the house of the appellants. When deceased had told them that she was harassed for want of dowry.
Evidence shows that there was no harassment for want of dowry. In fact the deceased developed illicit relations with Jaswant Singh and when this fact came to the notice of other family members then deceased could not bear the agony. Deceased was Tuberculosis patient and was getting treatment then committed suicide that is why there was no injury mark on the person of deceased.
Next question was if there was no demand of dowry then whether the appellants were to be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Before the present occurrence there was no complaint to any authority. No injury was noticed on the person of deceased. Close relation of the deceased, namely, Gurtej Singh came to know about the dowry dispute after death. Separate residence was arranged for the deceased and her husband. No independent witness appeared to stated that he was in the Panchayat and dispute was regarding demand of dowry. Deceased was not given beatings at any stage and this fact was CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -24- admitted by Gurtej Singh. When the deceased was happy while staying at her in-laws house then nothing to presume that the appellants had abetted her to commit suicide. Evidence on the file rather shows that deceased was Tuberculosis patient and developed illicit relations with Jaswant Singh and when this fact came to the notice of other family members then deceased had consumed tablets.
In 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 1017 ("Raja Lal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand") Hon'ble Supreme Court had opined that harassment to bride making demand of dowry. The bride committing suicide then accused held guilty of offence under Section 304-B IPC even if bride committed suicide. Since the demand of dowry was not fulfilled, the accused either killed the bride or harassed her on account of the said dowry demand but this authority is not helpful to the State because evidence on the file shows that deceased was not harassed for want of dowry. Un-natural death of Parampreet Kaur at her in-laws house but she was not abetted to commit suicide, in fact when illicit relations of the deceased with her father-in-law came to the notice of other family members then deceased had committed suicide. If the appellants were at fault then there was no idea to remain present in the house when police came. Jaswant Singh and Nachhatar Kaur were present on 14.11.1996, when police came at 8.30/8.45 a.m. On 14.11.1996, Malkiat Singh Ex-Sarpanch and Amrik Singh, Sarpanch had also gone with the complainant as per prosecution story but they were not examined to state that deceased was harassed for want of dowry and they alongwith complainant had gone to the house of the appellants.
CRA-S-532-SB-1998 -25- For the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that evidence available on file was not rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Judgment of the trial Court suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is ordered to be set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
August 31, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE