Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Joginder Singh Son Of Mukhtiar Singh Son ... on 10 January, 2003
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: R.L. Anand, Virender Singh
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda dated September 17, 1992, vide which Joginder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh respondent stands acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing the murder of his wife Chhinder Kaur on October 18, 1990.
2. Brief diary of the prosecution case is that Chhinder Kaur deceased, daughter of Gurbachan Singh (PW-2) was married to Joginder Singh respondent three years prior to her death. No child was born out of the wed-lock. Joginder. Singh had allegedly started maltreating and beating her as he was not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and also because she did not bear a child. She was turned out or her matrimonial home and started living with her father. However, due to the intervention of the Panchayat, she again started living with the respondent.
3. Gurdip Singh (PW3), brother of Chhinder Kaur had allegedly gone to the house of the respondent a day prior to Diwali (i.e. on 17-10-1990) alongwith certain Diwali gifts and had stayed at the house of the respondent overnight. The respondent and Chhinder Kaur had some altercation before going to bed. In the morning Gurdip Singh heard cries of his sister, went to the place where she was sleeping and saw that the respondent was siting on the chest of his sister and was strangulating her with a string. He allegedly made an attempt to intervene but was pushed by the respondent. The respondent filed away from the spot. Gurdip Singh made an attempt to save his sister but she was already dead. Gurdip Singh then went to Talwandi Sabo, which is at a distance of 16-17 miles from the place of occurrence and informed his father. Thereafter they came to Bhatinda at the house of the respondent, saw the dead body and then went to the concerned police station and lodged the First Information Report against the respondent.
4. Originally, the case was registered under Section 304-B IPC but the challan against the respondent was presented under Section 302 IPC. He was charged under Section 302 IPC and on a consideration of the entire evidence, the learned trial Judge acquitted him of the charge. Hence this appeal by the State of Punjab.
5. We have heard Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab and Mr. A.P.S. Deol, learned counsel for the respondent. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, the evidence recorded by the trial Court and the other relevant documents have been perused by us minutely.
6. Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the case of the prosecution is proved to the hill and that the acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is bad. Advancing his arguments, Mr. Gill submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve Gurdip Singh (PW3), the real brother of the deceased, who had witnessed the respondent sitting on her chest and strangulating it with a string. Simultaneously, it has also been argued by Mr. Gill that in case the prosecution story is not believed for the purpose of bringing home the guilt to the respondent within the four corners of Section 302 IPC, he should have been convicted under Section 304-B IPC on the basis of the cogent evidence on the file which shows that Chhinder Kaur was being harassed and maltreated on account of bringing less dowry and that she had died an unnatural death at the house of the respondent within seven years of her marriage. Mr. Gill thus prays that acquittal of the respondent is bad and he may be convicted under Section 304-B IPC if not under Section 302 IPC.
7. On the other hand, APS Deol, learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that it was a case of strangulation in any manner to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC against the respondent. According to Mr. Deol, the statement of Gurdip Singh (PW-3) is most unreliable on the face of it and possibly he had not witnessed the respondent killing his sister, as alleged. Advancing his arguments on this count, Mr. Deol has submitted that the medical evidence on the record is also not corroborating the version given by Gurdip Singh (PW-3) because according to his statement two turns around the neck wee made by the respondent with the string and that the sides were then pulled, whereas according to Dr. Charanjit Garg, the Autopsy Surgeon (PW-1), he found only one reddish brownish groove above the thyroid cartilage on the right side of the neck and a similar groove on the left side of the neck at the level of angle of mandible. As such, according to Mr. Deol, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution story on this count. He has further submitted that the evidence of Dr. Charanjit Garg (PW-1) is enough to uproot the prosecution story in its totality because the statement of this witness makes it crystal clear that Chhinder Kaur died because of asphyxia on account of hanging and not because of strangulation.
8. To meet the second submission of learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Deol has submitted that there is no cogent evidence worth the name adduced by the prosecution to prove any specific demand of dowry within three years of marriage. In this context, Mr. Deol has taken us through the statement of Gurbachan Singh (PW-2), the father and Gurdip Singh (PW-3), the brother of the deceased, in which they have not stated even a word about any specific demand of dowry from the side of the respondent. Mr. Deol at the same time has read out the statement of Sohan Singh son of Kartar Singh (PW-5), who is read brother of the deceased's mother (Mama) and has stated in his cross-examination that he had not mentioned anything regarding the demand of dowry in his statement before the police and that he had only told the police about the strained relations between the deceased and the respondent. He, in fact, is a common relative of both the sides and had brought about the marriage between the deceased and the respondent (as Bachola). Mr. Deol, picking up the thread from this evidence, has submitted that in fact Chhinder Kaur was not bearing a child for a continuous period of three years after her marriage and that she used to get aborted after the conception, which brought a lot of depression on her and consequently she committed suicide by hanging herself and as such, there is no inherent infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court for acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him and that the present appeal merits dismissal.
9. Since it is an appeal against acquittal, we are alive to the proposition laid down by the Apex Court that the Appellate Court should not interfere in an appeal against acquittal as long as the view taken by the trial Court is most unreasonable and perverse. Although the Appellate Court is fully competent to re-appreciate the materials on record and in coming to its conclusion, at the same time, it is also expected from the Appellate Court to bear in mind the reasons advanced by the trial Court while acquitting the accused. No doubt, the acquittals shake the confidence of the people in the system but much worse is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person.
10. We have minutely scanned the entire evidence on record and are of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the respondent on any count. Gurdip Singh (PW-3), the so-called eye witness of the occurrence has rendered himself most unreliable. If his evidence is appreciated in the light of the medical evidence, it leaves no room of doubt that he was not present on the night a day prior to Diwali at the house of the respondent. The charge under Section 302 IPC is, thus, not proved to the hilt.
11. So far as the second contention of Mr. Gill regarding involvement of the respondent in the offence under Section 304-B IPC is concerned (though no charge framed by the trial Court on this count), after minutely scanning the statement of the two star witnesses, viz. Gurbachan Singh (PW-2) and Gurdip Singh (PW-3), we are of the considered view that they are of no help to the prosecution. These two witnesses, being father and brother of the deceased, do not talk of even a word about any specific demand from the side of the respondent during the period of three years of the marriage of Chhinder Kaur. There is a general allegation of demand for dowry, which in the circumstances of the present case, cannot be given any weightage. Rather the case of the prosecution as projected by these two witnesses is that Chhinder Kaur was being maltreated on account of the fact that she was unable to bear a child. It rather strengthens the defence of the respondent. The prosecution has not been able to prove even the basic ingredients of Section 304-B IPC.
12. There is no compelling and substantial reason for this Court to come to a conclusion different from the trial Court in this case and we are of the view that the impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge recording acquittal of the appellant is indicative of the cogent reasons based on proper appreciation of the entire evidence.
13. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.