Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anita And Others vs State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2011
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995
Date of Decision : February 21, 2011
Anita and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. Ishwar Pal Singh, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the complainant.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 12.12.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby they stand convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each.
According to the prosecution, on 7.8.1994, complainant Joginder Singh, alongwith his relations, was going to the Police Station to report the matter when the police met them near village Happowal crossing. He made statement Ex.PH to the effect that his niece, namely, Sukhwinder Kaur, who was Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -2- M.A., was married to Parshotam Singh, who was employed in CRPF out of Punjab. Balbahadur Singh appellant was her father- in-law, Kulbir Singh her devar, Santosh her mother-in-law and Anita was her nanad. The complainant had given dowry as per his capacity to Sukhwinder Kaur at the time of her marriage. Sukhwinder Kaur had told him that all the appellants used to maltreat her and demanding more dowry. They were asking for either Hero Honda or Scooter and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash which was beyond his means. The complainant could not oblige the appellants. Whenever Sukhwinder Kaur visited the complainant, she complained about her maltreatment at the hands of the appellants on account of not fulfilling their demand for dowry. Sukhwinder Kaur was made to look after her husband's grand-mother, who was quite old and suffering from paralysis. Sukhwinder Kaur also told the complainant that she was made to wash her clothes as well as remove her human excreta and to pick up the stool and the urine of old grand- mother-in-law, which she had been doing against her wishes. The complainant assured his niece that he would come to her in- laws and talk to them. The complainant, alongwith Malkiat Singh and Gurmukh Singh, members of the Gram Panchayat went to the house of the appellants at Karnana, a week before the death of Sukhwinder Kaur, where the complainant asked them to behave with her properly and not to maltreat her but the Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -3- appellants did not pay any heed to their request. Sukhwinder Kaur told the complainant and the persons accompanying him that she was being kept as a prisoner in the house and the appellants did not permit her to even leave the house. After hearing this, the complainant met Sucha Singh, resident of Karnana, who had arranged the marriage and told him about the miserable condition of Sukhwinder Kaur because of the maltreatment by the appellants and to convene a meeting of the village Panchayat in order to prevail upon the appellants not to maltreat her. On 7.8.1994, Sucha Singh informed the complainant that when he went to inquire about Sukhwinder Kaur, he found her dead. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR No.59 dated 7.8.1994, under Sections 306/304-B/302/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Banga, against the appellants.
Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, followed by commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -4- In support of its case, the prosecution had examined PW1 Dr. Baldev Singh, PW2 Joginder Singh, PW3 Sucha Singh, PW4 Kamaljit Kaur, PW5 Madan Lal Sharda, Draftsman, PW6 ASI Kabal Singh, PW7 HC Kailash Chander, PW8 C-II Balbir Singh, PW0 C-II Pawanjit and PW10 ASI Swaran Singh.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the appellants denied the allegations appearing against them and pleaded innocence. They further stated that Sukhwinder Kaur had committed suicide as she could not adjust in married life. Anita appellant was residing at her in-laws' house since her marriage and she never resided at village Karnana after marriage.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Siri Ram, DW2 Parshotam Singh, DW3 Hardyal Singh and DW4 Inspector Avtar Singh, Food & Supplies, Hoshiarpur.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.
It may not be out of place to mention here that Balbahadur Singh and Santosh appellants died during the pendency of the appeal. In view of the same, the Court, vide Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -5- order dated August 12, 2010 dismissed their appeal as having abated. The appeal now survives qua Anita and Kulbir Singh appellants.
I had heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance.
Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in his statement Ex.PH made to the police, Joginder Singh, uncle of the deceased, did not state that accused had been harassing his daughter Sukhwinder Kaur on account of giving insufficient dowry and were demanding motor cycle/scooter and Rs.50,000/- and on account of non-fulfilment of their demand that the deceased used to be harassed and maltreated. In such a situation, it could not be said that the deceased was being harassed in connection with dowry and consequentially no offence under Section 304-B IPC was made out. At the most, it may be an offence under Section 306 IPC.
It is true that in the statement Ex.PH no mention was made regarding demand for dowry or any harassment being met out to the deceased in connection thereof yet the initial version is not required to be encyclopedia of all the events. At that point of time, facts disclosing commission of cognizable offence are required to be brought to the notice of the police so that Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -6- necessary action may be initiated against the culprit. A perusal of the statement Ex.PH clearly establishes that the deceased used to be maltreated by her in-laws so much so that she was forced to look-after her husband's grand-mother, who had suffered paralysis and the deceased was required to clean her private parts. It was also stated that PW2 Joginder Singh alongwith two members of the Panchayat of his village went to the accused in order to make them understand but no one listened to him. Rather, the deceased told him that the accused had practically detained her in the house and not allowing her to move out. At that point of time, Sucha Singh, who was married to the elder sister of the deceased and residing in the village of the accused and was the go-between in the marriage of the deceased with Parshotam Singh had told the accused that the deceased was educated and he would convene a Panchayat of his village and make the accused understand. It is also mentioned in the statement Ex.PH that the deceased was married to Parshotam Singh only a year before her death. In such a short span of time, a young and educated girl left this world on account of harassment meted out to her by the accused. Perusal of the statements made by PW2 Joginder Singh, PW3 Sucha Singh and PW4 Kamaljit Kaur would reveal that they had consistently and categorically stated before the trial court about the accused maltreating Sukhwinder Kaur and demanding more dowry. As Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -7- regards PW3 Sucha Singh and PW4 Kamaljit Kaur their first version before the police was regarding maltreatment of the deceased at the hands of the accused on account of non fulfillment of the demand for dowry. It was primarily for that reason that none of them was confronted with their statements made to the police. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the deceased had not been harassed on account of non-fulfilment of the demand for more dowry and, accordingly, it has to be held that the accused were liable for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
Another argument made by counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution did not examine Malkiat Singh and Gurmukh Singh, members of the Gram Panchayat of the village of the complainant although they were said to have accompanied the complainant to the house of the appellants a week before the death of Sukhwinder Kaur. Further, both PW3 Sucha Singh and PW4 Kamaljit Kaur were interested witnesses against the accused and, therefore, could not be relied upon to return a finding of guilt against the accused.
Both Malkiat Singh and Gurmukh Singh were given up by the prosecution on 19.10.1995 as having been won over by the accused. As such, their non-examination by the prosecution Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -8- would not cast any doubt qua the truthfulness of the prosecution version. As regards the interestedness of Sucha Singh and Kamaljit Kaur, it may be noticed that Kamaljit Kaur is sister of Sukhwinder Kaur deceased and wife of Sucha Singh. Said Sucha Singh belongs to village Karnana, the village of the accused and it was he who had acted as go-between in the marriage of Sukhwinder Kaur with Parshotam Singh. Because of their relationship with Joginder Singh, they can be termed as witnesses in relation but that does not mean that they were interested against the accused. Being resident of the village of the accused, both, Sucha Singh and Kamaljit Kaur were expected to take care of the welfare of Sukhwinder Kaur and to report to complainant Joginder Singh in the event of her maltreatment and harassment at the hands of the accused. Merely because Sucha Singh and Kamaljit Kaur were closely related to deceased Sukhwinder Kaur is no ground to reject their testimonies.
It is true that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence but in the present case, the testimonies of PW3 Sucha Singh and PW4 Kamaljit Kaur can be relied upon to show that both Balbahadur Singh and Santosh accused had come to their residence and confessed their guilt by stating that they had murdered Sukhwinder Kaur and he should help them to effect a compromise with her in-laws. PW3 Sucha Singh belongs to the Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -9- village of the accused and also their close relative. Being married to another niece of complainant Joginder Singh, it was natural for the accused to have reposed faith in him so as to impress upon his in-laws to effect a compromise.
The defence has tried to make capital of the letters Exs. D1 to D7 as well as the greeting card to show that at no point of time, Sukhwinder Kaur was ever maltreated or harassed in connection with dowry. PW2 Joginder Singh did not state if those letters were written by Sukhwinder Kaur. On the other hand, the defence neither sought the help of an expert or produced her admitted writings to establish that they were in the handwriting of the deceased. Moreover, her husband Parshotam Singh was not living in the village but was serving in CRPF and deployed at a far of place. In the event of the deceased complaining to her husband about her maltreatment at the hands of the accused, her life would have been made more miserable as she was already been made to take care of the personal hygiene of her husband's grand-mother.
From the testimony of PW1 Dr. Baldev Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nawanshahar it stands established that though there was no mark of external injury yet there were abnormal movements of the head at the atlanto-occipital joint.
Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -10- Deeper dissection revealed fracture of first cervical vertebra. Underlying ligaments were torn. Muscles of neck on the back were ruptured. There was extra-vassation of fluid blood in the subcutaneous tissues. Clotted blood was present in the layer of muscles. There was laceration of spinal cord and medula oblongata. He further deposed that after receipt of the report of the chemical examination, he opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of poison and the injury described was ante-mortem in nature. He further deposed that the injury was sufficient to cause death and possibility of injury being caused by a karate blow given on the neck after putting a cloth on the neck could not be ruled out. It, therefore, establishes that immediately after the poison was administered to the deceased that violent force was used as a result of which the neck of Sukhwinder Kaur was broken. This fact had also appeared in the extra judicial confession made by Balbahadur Singh and Santosh accused that after Balbahadur Singh had given poisonous substance in milk to Sukhwinder Kaur, his son Kulbir Singh accused, who was player of karate gave 3/4 karate blows to Sukhwinder Kaur with the result that her neck was broken.
In view of the above, the prosecution has been able to establish the ingredients for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. However, at the same time, the Court is of the view that Anita Criminal Appeal S-791-SB of 1995 -11- appellant might not have played any role in committing the crime. Admittedly, she was married about about 5 years earlier to the marriage of Sukhwinder Kaur deceased with Parshotam Singh, her brother, and ever since then, she had been residing at her in- laws' place. Possibility cannot be ruled out that because of her relationship with the other accused that she was falsely implicated in the present case. At the same time, no case is made out for doubting the involvement of Kulbir Singh in the commission of the crime punishable under Section 304-B IPC.
In view of the above, the appeal of Anita appellant is accepted, her conviction and sentence is set aside and she is acquitted of the charge under Section 304 IPC. The appeal of Kulbir Singh appellant is dismissed and his conviction under Section 304-B IPC and sentence of seven years is maintained. No orders are required to be passed qua the appeal of Balbir Singh and Santosh appellants as their appeal already stands disposed of on 12.8.2010 as having abated.
( T.P.S. MANN )
February 21, 2011 JUDGE
satish