Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bulara Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 17 May, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : May 17, 2010
Bulara Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate
Mr. P.S.Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
T.P.S. MANN, J.
This order shall dispose of the present appeal filed by convicts Bulara Singh and six others against their conviction and sentence and Criminal Revision No. 294 of 1999 filed by complainant Gulzar Singh as they have arisen out of one and the same judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 13.8.1998.
Deceased Sukhjit Kaur was married to appellant-
Sukhwaran Singh about two years before her death. No child was, however, born from this wedlock. According to the statement of Sukhjit Kaur, since deceased, which was recorded by SI Balbir Singh before her death, sufficient dowry was given by her parents at the time of her marriage. However, her in-laws were not satisfied with the same and Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -2- had been demanding more dowry. Due to the harsh treatment met out to her by her in-laws, she went to her parents' house and narrated her tale of woes. She remained there for six months. About 20 days before the occurrence, she was sent alongwith her husband Sukhwaran Singh to his village after making him understand. At that time accused Sukhwaran Singh was accompanied by Jagga Singh Sarpanch. On 1.2.1994 Gulzar Singh, brother of the deceased, came to her. In the evening, the deceased was beaten by her husband Sukhwaran Singh and father-in-law Bulara Singh, who told her as to why she was not pressing upon her parents to give more dowry. She replied that her parents were not in a position to give more dowry. At about 10/11.00 p.m., the deceased and her husband were present in a room where an altercation took place regarding the dowry. Accused Kuki, sister of the husband of the deceased, came inside while carrying a kerosene lamp. In the meanwhile, Angrez Kaur, mother-in-law, Bulara Singh, father-in-law, Gurcharan Singh, brother-in-law, Manjit Kaur, sister-in-law, Jasbir Kaur, sister-in-law and Jaskaran Singh (since dead), brother-in-law of the deceased also came there. All of them exhorted Sukhwaran Singh to kill Sukhjit Kaur by telling him that they would get him remarried. On this, accused Sukhwaran Singh took kerosene lamp from the hands of his sister Kuki and poured kerosene upon the deceased as a result of which she caught fire. She raised hue and cry. Lateron, she was removed to Civil Hospital, Bathinda by her husband Sukhwaran Singh and father-in-law Bulara Singh.
Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -3-
Upon arrival of Sukhjit Kaur in a burnt condition in the hospital, Dr. K.L.Dhunna sent ruqa to Police Post Civil Lines, Bathinda to the effect that the victim was admitted in the hospital on 2.2.1994 at 4.50 a.m. Pursuant to the same, Shri S.K.Sachdeva, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda went to the hospital where he made an application Ex.PL to obtain opinion of the doctor as to whether the injured was fit to make statement or not. Vide endorsement Ex.PL/1 at 7.20 a.m., the doctor declared the victim fit to make statement. Sh.Sachdeva then recorded the statement Ex.PW6/A of injured Sukhjit Kaur which he read over and explained to her. He obtained right big toe impression of the victim on the aforementioned statement as both her hands were burnt. Shri Sachdeva also obtained opinion Ex.PL/2 at 7.40 a.m. that the injured remained fit during the course of making statement. The said statement was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate in a sealed cover.
On 2.2.1994 SI Balbir Singh reached Civil Hospital, Bathinda and submitted an application Ex.PM so as to find out the fitness of the injured to make statement. The doctor vide his endorsement Ex.PM/1 made at 10.10 a.m. declared the patient fit to make statement. SI Balbir Singh then recorded the statement Ex.PN of the victim and vide his endorsement Ex.PN/1 sent the same to Police Station, Raman on 2.2.1994 at 11.15 a.m. for registration of a criminal case against the accused. Consequently, FIR Ex.PN/2 was registered at Police Station Raman on 2.2.1994 at 12.45 p.m. under Sections Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -4- 307/498A/148 and 149 IPC. The special report was sent through Constable Kulwant Singh, who handed over the same to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 2.2.1994 at 4.15 p.m. During investigation of the case, SI Balbir Singh took into possession the clothes of the victim. He also reached the spot and took into possession one half burnt shawl, lamp of glass, lid, wick, pair of shoes and some ash from the place of occurrence. He prepared rough site plan showing the place of occurrence. On 19.2.1994 accused Jaskaran Singh, Kuki, Jasbir Kaur and Manjit Kaur were arrested. The victim remained under treatment from 2.2.1994 to 10.11.1994. Thereafter she was discharged but on 28.11.1994 she died due to the burn injuries.
The post mortem on the dead body of Sukhjit Kaur was conducted by Dr. K.S. Brar and Dr. Satpal Garg on 28.11.1994. Dr.Parbodh Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot after analyzing the viscera of the deceased opined that cause of death was due to septicemia as a result of burns.
On completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the appellants other than Kuki who alongwith Jaskaran Singh were separately proceeded against before the Juvenile Court. On 5.6.1995, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda framed charges against the appellants other than Kuki Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -5- for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. However, on 18.1.1996, the charge was amended by charging the appellants other than Kuki for committing an offence under Section 302 IPC as an alternative to the charge under Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution examined a couple of witnesses in support of its case. However, Kuki, who was facing proceedings before the Juvenile Court, was sent to the regular Court for trial, apparently for the reason that she was not declared a juvenile. Accordingly, on 14.10.1997, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda framed amended charge under Section 304-B IPC or, in the alternative, under Section 302 and 498-A IPC against all the appellants including Kuki-appellant. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr.K.S.Brar and PW2 Dr. Sat Pal Garg, who had jointly conducted post- mortem on the dead body of Sukhjit Kaur on 29.11.1994 at 9.30 a.m. They had deposed that the dead body was brought by ASI Swaran Singh and Constable Bhupinder Singh, Police Station Raman. The length of the dead body was 5'-5". It was of a female wearing underwear and surgical dressing present on the chest, abdomen, both upper arms and both thighs. Eyes and mouth were open. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. Post-mortem staining was present on the back of the body sparing pressure spots. Greenish colour pus was present on the front of the chest and abdomen at places with maggots crawling near the Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -6- xiphisternal angel. Redish healed scar was present on the front of both the thighs and back of the upper arm near elbow joint. Scar with contracture was present on the front of the neck extending to both the mandibular angles upto the ear pinna. Scar with contracture was also present on the lower part of the face and both upper arms. Scar was also present on the back of chest, abdomen, both forearms sparing hands. Scar was also present at places on the back of both thighs and part of lower limbs. On the abdomen pubic and anal area were spared. Membranes were congested and part of the brain was sent for histopathological examination. Walls and the cartileges were already described. The pleurae, larynx and trachea were congested. On cut section of both the right and left lung mucopurulent discharge came out and part of each lung sent for histopathological examination. The heart was also sent for histopathological examination. The walls of the abdomen, mouth, pharynx were already described and the peritonium was congested. The stomach and small intestines were both congested and stomach contained about 50 cc of fluid. The large intestines contained faecal matter. The liver, spleen and kidneys were congested and part of each was sent for histopathological examination. The bladder was empty. The cause of death was to be given after getting the report of Histopathology. On the basis of report dated 10.12.1994 of the Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, the cause of death was described as septicaemia as a result of burns.
Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -7-
PW3 Gulzar Singh, brother of deceased Sukhjit Kaur had testified that his sister was married with accused Sukhwaran Singh on 6.4.1992. The prominent articles given at the time of her marriage were motor cycle, fridge and a colour TV, besides other articles keeping in view the status of his family. However, the in-laws of his sister were not satisfied with the same. All the accused had been expressing their annoyance for the dowry being inadequate and demanded a jeep. Feeling perturbed, his sister had come from her in-laws' place to his house where she stayed for about six months. About 20 days prior to the occurrence, the witness accompanied by his mother Hardev Kaur, Chand Singh, Panch and brother Sat Pal went to the village of the accused and on reaching there they told accused Sukhwaran Singh that at that time they were not in a position to fulfill his demand but at the time of next crop, he and his family would give the jeep as demanded. On this accused-Sukhwaran Singh while in the presence of Jagga Singh, Sarpanch of his village took Sukhjit Kaur to his house. On the day of occurrence, the witness had gone to the village of the accused to see his sister. He reached there at about 4.00 p.m. However, in his presence accused-Sukhwaran Singh and his father Bulara Singh took his sister Sukhjit Kaur in a room and gave her beatings and extended threats in order to pressurize her brother for the jeep. The witness informed Jagga Singh, Sarpanch of the village of the accused about the incident and came back. However, on the next day, Jagga Singh, Sarpanch, came to the village of the PW and informed him that accused-Sukhwaran Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -8- Singh alongwith his father Bulara Singh and other family members had poured kerosene on his sister and set her on fire and on his asking she had been taken to Civil Hospital, Bathinda. Accompanied by his mother Hardev Kaur, Jagga Singh, Sarpanch, Chand Singh, Panch and brother Sat Pal, he went to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where he found the police present. He was informed that the statement of Sukhjit Kaur had been recorded by the police as well as by the Magistrate. The treatment of Sukhjit Kaur continued for a period of 10 months at Civil Hospital, Bathinda but thereafter, she succumbed to her injuries. The witness also deposed that during the investigation of the case, the police had recovered one lamp converted from a pint of a bottle of liquor Ex.P1, one half burnt shawl Ex.P2 and one burnt piece of wick Ex.P4.
PW4 Dr. K.L.Dhunna deposed that on 2.2.1994 at 5.10 a.m. he conducted medico legal examination on the person of Sukhjit Kaur, who was brought to the hospital by her husband Sukhwaran Singh and father-in-law Bulara Singh, whose left thumb impression was present on the original medico legal report. The patient was in serious condition. Pulse and B.P. could not recorded because of burns. Smell of kerosene was present. Burns were present on lower part of the face, front and back of neck, chest and abdomen, both upper limbs and front and back of thigh. The nature of injuries was dangerous to life and the burns were caused within a period of few hours from the time of examination. He also stated that he sent ruqa Ex.PJ to Police Post Civil Lines, Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -9- Bathinda about the arrival of the injured in the hospital. On 2.2.1994 Shri S.K.Sachdeva, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, submitted an application Ex.PL on which he opined at 7.20 a.m. that patient Sukhjit Kaur was fit to make statement. Statement of Sukhjit Kaur was recorded in his presence by the aforesaid Magistrate. Upon completion of the statement, this PW gave another certificate Ex.PL/2 that patient remained fit during the course of her making statement.
PW5 Dr. Parbodh Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College proved his report Ex.PK regarding the analysis of the viscera and in his opinion the cause of death was due to septicaemia as a result of burns.
Shri S.K.Sachdeva, who stood posted as Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda on 2.2.1994, appeared as PW6 and stated that on that day he went to Civil Hospital, Bathinda to record the dying declaration of Smt. Sukhjit Kaur. Before recording her statement, he obtained the opinion of the doctor concerned vide application Ex.PL. The doctor vide endorsement Ex.PL/1 made at 7.20 a.m. opined that the declarant was fit to make statement. Then he recorded the statement Ex.PW6/A of Sukhjit Kaur, which he read over and explained to her, whose right big toe impression was taken on the same as both her hands were burnt. He again sought the opinion of the doctor at 7.40 a.m. about the state of mind of the declarant. Upon this, the doctor gave his opinion Ex.PL/2 that the patient remained fit during the course of making her statement. Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -10- The said statement was, thereafter, sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate in a sealed cover.
The investigation part of the case was deposed to by PW7 ASI Kashmir Singh, PW8 SI Balbir Singh, PW9 ASI Roop Singh, PW10 ASI Swaran Singh and PW11 SI Balkar Singh.
PW12 Gopal Singh proved the registration certificate Ex.PW12/A pertaining to motor cycle Hero Honda No.PB-45-0393 which was in the name of accused-Sukhwaran Singh.
PW13 HC Gurinder Singh and PW14 Constable Bhupinder Singh tendered in evidence their affidavits Ex.PW13/A and PW14/A, respectively.
On 25.4.1998 on police request, learned Additional Public Prosecutor gave up Jagdish Rai as having been won over by the accused and the remaining witnesses as unnecessary. The prosecution evidence was, thereafter, closed.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the prosecution allegations. Written statement was submitted by accused Bulara Singh, in which he stated as under:-
"My whole family has been falsely implicated in this case. No male or female member has been spared by the deceased Sukhjit Kaur, who made statement at the instance of her parents. At the time of alleged occurrence, my daughter Kuki was less than 18 years of age and was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Court, Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -11- Bathinda and her appeal against the order of Sh.R.G.Ahluwalia, Additional Sessions Judge, is pending in the Hon'ble High Court. My son Jaskaran Singh was murdered after the occurrence by brothers of the deceased namely Gulzar Singh and Bikker Singh and a case under Section 302/34 IPC is pending against them in the Court of Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Bathinda. My daughter-in-law Manjit Kaur was away to her parents house at village Dhan Singh Khana as she was in the family way and soon after the occurrence, she delivered a female child at village Dhan Singh Khana. Manjit Kaur has three minor children aged 6 years, 3½ years and 9 months, respectively. My daughter Jasbir Kaur was married at that time at village Malkana to Gurtaj Singh and was present in her in-laws house and she is having two small children, daughter aged 4 years and son aged 2 years. I and my wife Angrez Kaur were sleeping in a different room while my sons Gurcharan Singh and Jaskaran Singh were sleeping in a separate room. Sukhwaran Singh and Sukhjit Kaur were lying in their room on the double bed and a kerosene lamp was burning and at about 10 p.m. burning kerosene lamp fell on them accidentally due to air or small animal like rat. Sukhjit Kaur, who was wearing Nylon clothes, which caught fire instantaneously. Both tried to run away from the room and my son was sleeping on the door side and he was quick to come and she was slow to come. Both got burn injuries. We thereafter arranged for the jeep to remove the injured to Civil Hospital, Bathinda and informed parents of the deceased. Myself, my wife and Sukhwaran Singh removed the injured to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -12- where Sukhwaran Singh and myself got her admitted and arranged for the best medical treatment.
In the meantime, her parents arrived, who tutored her and she made false statement and involved us falsely. There was no demand of dowry or maltreatment. Sukhjit Kaur died after about 9 months while discharged from the Hospital due to faulty treatment and unhygienic condition at her house. No treatment was given to her and she died due to negligence of her parents as there was pus-formation and was having Maggapis and was suffering septicemia".
The remaining accused adopted the plea of Bulara Singh as reproduced above.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Jagga Singh, Sarpanch of the village, who stated that there was no dispute between accused-Sukhwaran Singh and his wife Sukhjit Kaur regarding the demand of dowry. Both of them were having good relations. About the occurrence, he was informed by Bulara Singh that Sukhjit Kaur and her husband Sukhwaran Singh received burn injuries because of accidental fall of earthen lamp upon them. He went to the parents' house of Sukhjit Kaur for conveying the information whereas injured Sukhjit Kaur was removed to Civil Hospital, Bathinda for treatment. He also brought Gulzar Singh, brother of Sukhjit Kaur, Hardev Kaur, mother of Sukhjit Kaur and Chand Singh, Panch from their village to the hospital. On reaching the hospital, those persons asked Sukhjit Kaur to make a Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -13- statement against the entire family of Bulara Singh.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused besides going through the record of the case, the trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. They were also convicted under Section 498A IPC but no separate sentence was awarded.
Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that the prosecution had relied upon the two dying declarations made by Sukhjit Kaur and as both the dying declarations were at variance with each other, none of them could be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the appellants. It was also submitted that the death of Sukhjit Kaur had taken place after about ten months of the incident and, that too, on account of septicaemia, therefore, the appellants cannot be held responsible for committing the dowry death of Sukhjit Kaur. Finally, it was submitted that the prosecution had spread its net too wide by roping in the entire family of the husband of the deceased whereas Jasbir Kaur appellant was present at her in-laws' house while Manjit Kaur appellant was away to her parents' house. Kuki appellant was less then 18 years of age. Bulara Singh and Angrez Kaur appellants were sleeping in a different room and so were Gurcharan Singh appellant and Jaskaran Singh. Only Sukhwaran Singh appellant alongwith his wife Sukhjit Kaur, since deceased, was present in the room where the occurrence had Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -14- taken place. In fact both Sukhwaran Singh and Sukhjit Kaur deceased were lying on a double bed and a kerosene lamp was burning in the room. At about 10.00 p.m. the kerosene lamp fell on them accidentally either due to the blowing wind or some animal like rat hitting against the same and as a result Sukhjit Kaur, who was wearing nylon clothes caught fire. Sukhwaran Singh was able to escape the flames by running away as he was sleeping on one side of the bed, which was closer to the door. Even after the accident, the victim was removed to the hospital and information conveyed to the parents of the victim. The victim was provided with best medical treatment. She was discharged from the hospital whereafter she started staying at her parents' house. However, due to negligence of her parents in not giving her proper treatment, there was pus-formation which led to septicaemia as a result of which she died. Therefore, none of the appellants can be held responsible in causing the death of Sukhjit Kaur.
On the other hand, learned State counsel had submitted that there were no major differences between the two dying declarations made by Sukhjit Kaur. The death of Sukhjit Kaur had occurred on account of septicaemia which was the result of the burns received by her. As all the appellants were responsible for causing the dowry death, they had been rightly convicted by the trial Court.
As per the prosecution, PW6 Shri S.K.Sachdeva, who stood posted as Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda on 2.2.1994 went to Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -15- Civil Hospital, Bathinda and submitted an application Ex. PL to the doctor attending upon the victim to find out as to whether she was fit to make a statement or not. Vide endorsement Ex. PL/1 made at 7.20 a.m. the doctor declared the victim fit to make statement. Shri Sachdeva then recorded statement Ex. PW6/A of Sukhjit Kaur in which she stated that she got married about two years back. Her husband had been treating her badly by asking her to bring an amount of Rs.80,000/- in cash or a jeep. Her husband and members of his family used to quarrel with her. They had been asking her to bring more dowry. On the previous day she was cleaning the motor cycle, which she had brought from her parents. Her mother-in-law instigated her husband saying as to why she was cleaning the motor cycle. Her husband started hitting her with Soti. No one rescued her. Her father-in-law stated that she be killed and he would bring another wife for him within two hours. The remaining family members kept on watching and did not intervene. When the night fell, she went to her bed. She had just closed her eyes when her husband poured kerosene from a lamp, which he was holding in his hand and, thereafter, threw the lamp upon her as a result of which she caught fire. All the members of her in-laws' family were present. Her shrieks did not attract any one from the neighbourhood as the house was situated in the fields. The men and the women in the house did not try to extinguish the fire. Instead, they remained mute spectators. Her mother-in-law also stated that at the most a case could be registered but after spending money, they would get their son discharged from the Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -16- case. After recording her statement Ex. PW6/A, Shri Sachdeva read over and explained the same to her. He obtained her right big toe impression on the statement Ex. PW6/A as both of her hands were burnt. Sh.Sachdeva also obtained opinion Ex. PL/2 at 7.40 a.m. that the victim remained fit during the course of making statement. The statement was, thereafter sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate in a sealed cover.
On the same day, i.e. 2.2.1994, SI Balbir Singh reached Civil Hospital, Bathinda and submitted an application Ex. PM to find out the fitness of the victim to make statement. The doctor vide endorsement Ex. PM/1 made at 10.10 a.m. declared the victim fit to make statement. SI Balbir Singh then recorded the statement Ex. PN of the victim and vide endorsement Ex. PN/1 sent the same to Police Station Raman on 2.2.1994 at 11.15 a.m. for registration of a criminal case against the accused, pursuant to which FIR Ex. PN/2 was registered at Police Station Raman on 2.2.1994 at 12.45 p.m. In her statement Ex.PN, Sukhjit Kaur had stated that she was married to Sukhwaran Singh about two years back. She had no issue. At the time of her marriage, her parents had given motor cycle, fridge, colour television besides other articles in dowry as per their status. However, her in-laws were not happy with the dowry and demanded more dowry. They also demanded a jeep. On being harassed by her in-laws, she went to her parents' home where she narrated everything to the members of her family. She remained at her parents' house for about six months. About Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -17- twenty days back, her brothers Gulzar Singh and Sat Pal, mother Hardev Kaur and Chand Singh Panch of her village made her husband Sukhwaran Singh understand. Thereafter, her husband, who was accompanied by Jagga Singh, Sarpanch of his village, took her to his house. On the previous day, her brother Gulzar Singh came to see her. In the evening, her husband and father-in-law gave her beatings besides asking her as to why she was not pressing upon her parents to give a jeep in dowry. She replied that they were not in a position to fullfil their demand for a jeep. During the night at about 10/11.00 p.m., she and her husband were present in their bed room when an altercation took place between them on the issue of dowry. Her sister-in-law (Nanad) Kuki came there with a kerosene lamp. Her mother-in-law Angrez Kaur, father-in-law Bulara Singh, brother-in-law (Jeth) Gurcharan Singh, sister-in-law (Jethani) Manjit Kaur, sister-in-law (Nanad) Jasbir Kaur and brother-in-law (Devar) Jaskaran Singh came there. All of them stated that she be killed and, thereafter, they would marry Sukhwaran Singh with some one else. Sukhwaran Singh took the kerosene lamp from Kuki and overturned it upon her as a result of which she caught fire. She raised hue and cry and started writhing in pain due to burns. Her in-laws had set her on fire with an intention to kill her by pouring kerosene upon her for not bringing a jeep in dowry. While setting her on fire, her husband had also received some burns on his hands.
As is apparent from the above, in the first dying declaration Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -18- made before the Judicial Magistrate, Sukhjit Kaur had stated that on the day previous to the occurrence when she was cleaning the motor cycle, which her parents had given, her mother-in-law objected to the same and also instigated her husband against her. She was then beaten by her husband with a Soti and her father-in-law stated that she be killed and he would bring another wife for Sukhwaran Singh within two hours. However, in the subsequent dying declaration, Sukhjit Kaur did not state a single word about her mother-in-law instigating her husband or her cleaning the motor cycle. Though she stated that her husband hit her with Soti yet she also attributed causing of injuries to her by her father- in-law. Similarly, regarding the actual incident, Sukhjit Kaur had stated in her first dying declaration that it was her husband, who poured kerosene upon her from a lamp and, thereafter, threw the lamp upon her as a result of which she caught fire. She also stated that all the members of her in-laws' were present. However, none of them intervened and simply remained mute spectators. Only her mother-in-law stated that after spending money, they would get their son discharged from the case. In the subsequent dying declaration, it was stated that kerosene lamp was brought by Kuki, sister-in-law of Sukhjit Kaur and it was Sukhwaran Singh, who took the lamp from Kuki and overturned it over her as a result of which she caught fire. Other members of her in-laws' family had proclaimed that they would marry Sukhwaran Singh with some one else. Their being material contradictions in the two dying declarations made by Sukhjit Kaur, the Court is of the view that none of Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -19- them can be relied upon to return the finding of guilt against the appellants. As a consequence thereof, the charge under Section 302 IPC goes into oblivion.
Now the Court has to scrutinize the statement made by PW3 Gulzar Singh, brother of deceased Sukhjit Kaur. It was his consistent case that at the time of marriage of his sister Sukhjit Kaur with Sukhwaran Singh on 6.4.1992, sufficient dowry consisting of motor cycle, fridge, a colour television and other articles were given. However, the in-laws of his sister was not satisfied with the same. They were demanding a jeep to be brought by his sister. Because of this demand, his sister had come to his house where she stayed for about six months. About 20 days prior to the occurrence, PW3 Gulzar Singh alongwith his brother Sat Pal, mother Hardev Kaur and Chand Singh, Panch went to the village of Sukhwaran Singh and told him that at that time they were not in a position to fullfil his demand but after the next crop, he would give him a jeep as demanded. As Gulzar Singh had categorically stated about his sister being maltreated by the accused on account of not fulfilling their demand, the Court can safely conclude that the deceased was harassed and maltreated in connection with dowry and such harassment/maltreatment continued till about 20 days before the occurrence. It is also not disputed that the death of Sukhjit Kaur had taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances. Therefore, the accused cannot escape the charges under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC. Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -20-
For the burns received by Sukhjit Kaur, she remained under treatment from 2.2.1994 to 10.11.1994. She was, thereafter, discharged from the hospital but on 28.11.1994 she died due to the burn injuries. As per the testimony of PW1 Dr. K.S. Brar, the cause of death was septicaemia as a result of burns. He had based his opinion on the Pathology report Ex. PK proved by PW5 Dr. Parbodh Kumar, Associate Professor, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot. In the report Ex. PK, it was stated by Dr. Parbodh Kumar that septicaemia was a result of the burns. Therefore, mere fact that the death had occurred after about ten months of the incident does not absolve Sukhwaran Singh and Bulara Singh appellants of the charges against them.
No credence can be attached to the testimony of DW1 Jagga Singh when he stated that there used to be no dispute between Sukhwaran Singh appellant and his wife Sukhjit Kaur regarding the demand of dowry or both of them were having good relations. Said Jagga Singh belonged to the village of the appellants. Therefore, in all probabilities, he would have soft corner for the appellants as against the complainant party.
The case of Gurcharan Singh, Angrez Kaur, Jasbir Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Kuki appellants stands on a different footing than that of Bulara Singh and Sukhwaran Singh appellants. In his statement made before the Court, PW3 Gulzar Singh only levelled general allegations against Gurcharan Singh, Angrez Kaur, Jasbir Kaur, Manjit Crl. Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 -21- Kaur and Kuki appellants of expressing their annoyance over inadequate dowry and demand of jeep. At the time of the visit of PW3 Gulzar Singh to the house of the appellants, he did not mention the presence of Gurcharan Singh and four others. He specifically stated that when he reached there at about 4.00 p.m., Sukhwaran Singh and Bulara Singh appellants took his sister Sukhjit Kaur in a room and gave her beatings besides extending threats in order to pressurize her brother for the jeep. Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution, the Court intends to extend the benefit of doubt to Gurcharan Singh, Angrez Kaur, Jasbir Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Kuki appellants. At the same time no case is made out for either convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC or for enhancing the sentences of imprisonment of Bulara Singh and Sukhwaran Singh appellants, as imposed by the trial Court.
Resultantly, Gurcharan Singh, Angrez Kaur, Jasbir Singh, Manjit Kaur and Kuki appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. The conviction and sentence of Bulara Singh and Sukhwaran Singh appellants, as recorded by the trial Court is upheld.
Criminal Appeal No. 656-SB of 1998 is, accordingly, disposed of. Criminal Revision No. 294 of 1999 is, hereby, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
May 17, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1