Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarvan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 June, 1995
Equivalent citations: I(1996)DMC309
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by Sarvan Singh (hereinafter described as to the appellant) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC. By the subsequent order of sentence dated 24th of November, 1994, the appellant was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months.
2. The brief resume of the facts can well be made. Deceased Paramjit Kaur d/o Gulzar Singh was married to the appellant in October, 1991. The son of Gulzar Singh died during those days. No dowry articles were given at the time of marriage of Paramjit Kaur. Deceased Paramjit Kaur had visited the house of her parents 1 to 1/2 months prior to her death and told them that they should give whatever they could. She was taunted and maltreated for bringing insufficient dowry.
3. On 17th of April, 1992 Gulzar Singh, father of the deceased, had come home on leave. He had already collected some articles to give to his daughter. The deceased and the appellant had also come and were allowed to sit in a separate room. After few minutes he heard the cries of his daughter. He rushed there. The deceased told her parents that the appellant had slapped her. She had taken two pills of poison because she was being tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry in her marriage. In the meantime, the appellant ran away, threatening that he will see what Gulzar Singh can do.
4. After some time, the deceased expired. On the statement of Gulzar Singh, First Information Report was recorded. On 18th April, 1992 Dr. Karnail Kaur (PW 1) conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Paramjit Kaur-deceased. Viscera was sent for chemical examination and it was pointed out thereafter by Dr. Karnail Kaur that the cause of death was consumption of aluminium phosphide poison.
5. Investigation has been taken up by Sub Inspector Nirmal Singh. Besides getting the First Information Report recorded, he had drawn the inquest report and prepared the rough site plan. On 18th April, 1992 he took into possession the clothes of the deceased vide a recovery memo, and the appellant as such was arrested.
6. The learned Trial Court on appraisal of the evidence held that so far as other relatives of the appellant were concerned, there is a possibility that they were implicated indirectly. By way of abundant caution, therefore, they were awarded the benefit of doubt. As against the appellant, the Trial Court believed the prosecution evidence that deceased consumed poison because she was being harassed by the appellant for bringing insufficient dowry. Adverse inference was drawn under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. With these findings, the impugned judgment and the order of sentence were passed. There is no controversy that has been raised that deceased left for her heavenly abode by consuming aluminium phosphide. This was the cause of her death. There is also no controversy that death occurred within seven years of the marriage.
7. Gulzar Singh PW 2, father of the deceased, was the first witness examined. Pertaining to the incident referred to above, he stated that about 1 to 1 1/2 months his prior to the death of his daughter, the deceased had told him and his wife that they should give whatever dowry they could afford. On 17th April, 1992 he had come home on leave and was sleeping in a separate room. He heard his daughter's cry and when he reached the said room, he found his wife and younger son already there. Kulwant Singh had also come there. The deceased told them that the appellant had been harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. She had left his house and come back home. The appellant followed her and thereupon after giving two slaps made her swallow two pills of poison and within 10 to 15 minutes she expired.
8. During cross-examination the witness had deposed that the appellant had already run away and he had not seen him in his house on that day. When Chet Singh had come to their house, Paramjit Kaur was alive. He added that he had told the police that when after reaching his house, he had heard the cries of his daughter and thereupon his daughter had informed him that the appellant had slapped her and given her two pills of poison. In this regard, he was confronted with his earlier statement recorded by the Police, where this fact has not been recorded.
9. Gurnam Kaur-PW 4 is the mother of the deceased and she made an identical statement. As per her version, the deceased and her husband had come to their house. She had gone to prepare tea. Before it could be served, she heard a noise and her daughter told her that the appellant had given her slaps and administered two poisonous pills. She too was confronted with her earlier recorded statement two Section 161 of Cr.P.C, where the fact that the appellant gave two pills to the deceased was not recorded.
10. It is apparent from the aforesaid that while at the initial stage, the case set up by the State was that because of the harassment the deceased took poison, in Court the statements of witnesses were different. They took a somersault and introduced a new version altogether, while stating that the poison tablets were forcibly given to the deceased. The improvement so made makes the testimonies of the witnesses shaky. It even shakes the substratum of the prosecution version. When the witnesses do not seem to be reliable in this regard, trust that they were telling whole truth cannot be put in the said evidence.
11. In fact it appears to be a tailor made story. Gulzar Singh, father of the deceased works at Ludhiana, while Kulwant Singh-PW 3 brother of the deceased is a driver. Their presence at the house of Gulzar Singh at the relevant time is totally doubtful, more so, to state that they were present at the same time.
12. The defence put forward by the appellant was that soon after his marriage with the deceased, he came to know that she was having illicit relations with one Dilbag Singh. The deceased had left for her parents' house and had never returned to his house. There was no question of demanding dowry. It has already been mentioned above that the initial version of the prosecution was that deceased came alongwith the appellant to the house of Gulzar Singh, she had died within 15 to 20 minutes of consuming the poison. Dr. Karnail Kaur appeared as PW 1 and she explained that normally death would take place within 6 to 48 hours after consumption of the poison, depending on various factors. The medical evidence in this regard, therefore, totally contradicts the oral testimony. It negatives the contention of the State that the deceased was not already in the house of Gulzar Singh. This fact gets a support from the event that there was inordinate delay in sending of the special report to the Judicial Magistrate. Incident pertains to 17th April, 1992 at 2 p.m. The special report reached the Magistrate on 18th April, 1992 at 3.25 p.m. The sending of the special report to the Judicial Magistrate is a check, so as to ensure that the First Information Report is recorded in time and no interpolation has been done therein. Special reasons must be forth-coming for the delay. In the present case, the same are absent. It leads the Court to conclude that there was time to deliberate before the First Information Report could be recorded. Thereafter, it appears that names of Gulzar Singh and Kulwant Singh were added. It is the prosecution, which had to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. In face of the shaky evidence, it cannot be held that the case had been proved against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts in terms of Section 304-B, IPC. The appellant indeed is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
13. For these reasons given above, I accept this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of sentence imposed upon the appellant by giving him the benefit of doubt. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other Court.