Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldip Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 20 February, 2018
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari, Inderjit Singh
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 1
341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003
Date of decision: February 20, 2018
Kuldip Singh and another
......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Anupam Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel with
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Ruchika Sabharwal, AAG Punjab.
****
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J (Oral)
The appellants-Kuldip Singh and Surjit Kaur have put to challenge
the judgment and order dated 05.02.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib, by which they were convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and appellant No.1-Kuldeep Singh to
pay fine of `5,000/- and appellant No.2-Surjit Kaur to pay fine of `2,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
one year each.
FACTS
In brief, the prosecution case was that Mandeep Kaur wife of
Kuldip Singh-appellant No.1 died in her matrimonial home on 22.03.1996 at
about 4:00/5:00 A.M. at village Nanuwal Khurd. Appellant No.2-Surjit Kaur is
her mother-in-law. The deceased was aged about 24-25 years married with
Kuldip Singh 7 years before and having a son and a daughter with aged 4 and
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:23 :::
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 2
2-1/2 years respectively. Her name was changed to Gurmit Kaur after marriage.
On 22.03.1996 at about 4:00-5:00 A.M., appellant No.1-Kuldip Singh had
visited the house of complainant and told that Gurmit Kaur had set herself on
fire by sprinkling kerosene and committed suicide. Complainant, his wife
Mohinder Kaur and Sarpanch Malkiat Singh went to the village Nanuwal
Khurd and saw Gurmit Kaur lying in burnt condition. The motive projected by
the prosecution was that appellants wanted the hand of Jasbir Kaur, sister of the
deceased for marriage with the brother of Kuldip Singh, namely Baljit Singh.
But the parents of Jasbir Kaur did not agree and that lead to the harassment of
deceased-Mandeep Kaur/Gurmit Kaur. Being perplexed, the mother of the
deceased made a statement Exhibit DD before the ASI Balwinder Singh
claiming that she did not suspect any foul play in the death of her daughter.
Police were of the view that due to mental illness of the deceased, she ended
her life and as such, DDR was registered. The postmortem was got conducted
and cause of death was as a result of shock caused by extensive burns. One tub
empty kerosene oil can, pair of chappals from the spot were recovered. The
father of the deceased was carpenter by profession and he had gone to Doha
Katar for earning his livelihood. On receipt of information, he came to India
and he was present in the house when the police party came in the village. He
made a statement Exhibit P8 and suspected that his daughter ended her life due
to ill-treatment by the accused persons. His statement was recorded by DSP
Ranjit Singh Dhillon and accordingly, case under Section 306 IPC was
registered. Investigation was carried out by ASI Manjit Singh who recorded
supplementary statement of mother of the deceased and other witnesses. The
appellants were arrested. However, Baljit Singh, brother of Kuldip Singh was
found innocent during investigation. Usual formalities were completed and
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:24 :::
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 3
thereafter, final report was filed before the trial Court. The charge was framed
under Section 306, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused. The
prosecution examined 10 witnesses and also exhibited number of documents.
The trial Court, thereafter, heard the parties and finally came to the conclusion
that the appellants were guilty for the offences for which they were charged,
namely 302/34 IPC. Hence, this appeal.
ARGUMENTS
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the prosecution had ultimately framed charge under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC. Thus, the prosecution had intended to prove that the
appellants had committed murder of Gurmit Kaur. Learned counsel therefore,
contended that the prosecution did not have any direct evidence and for that
murder even the indirect evidence and had merely relied upon the factum of the
deceased living in the house and nothing more. According to the learned
counsel, the factum that the deceased was living in the house with the children
is not in dispute. But then, by itself could not be raised as a circumstance to
hold that he had committed murder of the deceased. At any rate, according to
the learned counsel for the appellants, no details as to how the murder had been
committed are forthcoming. Even the motive that has been alleged by the
prosecution is highly improbable and there is no allegation of even any demand
of dowry or as the case may be so as to harass the deceased for any reasons.
Except saying that the appellants wanted hand of the sister of the deceased to
be given to the brother of appellant No.1, there is absolutely no motive against
the appellants for alleged commission of murder. Learned counsel then
contended that the complainant was already present in the village and he was
not examined because he had died during investigation. There is however,
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:24 :::
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 4
evidence on record to show that in a very short time, he was in the village and
there are material inconsistencies regarding the delay on the part of the
prosecution in cooking up the story of murder. There is evidence on record
about the compromise that was said to have been arrived at. To say that the
compromise was not notarized, is absurd and what is relevant is the factum of
the compromise. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, there is
absolutely thus, no evidence about the commission of murder and on the
contrary, what is seen is that because of the operation of the deceased, there
was always abdominal pain to her and she committed suicide having been fed
up with the same. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, prayed for
allowing the appeal and acquittal of the appellants.
Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned
judgment and order made by the learned trial Court. She contended that it were
the appellants who were bound to explain the cause of death of the deceased to
the satisfaction of the Court. According to her, having not given any
explanation as to how the injuries were seen on the body of the deceased, they
were guilty of the offence of murder. She then contended that the documents of
compromise that were inserted by the defence, have been rightly rejected by the
trial Court as the same were not notarized nor any authenticity could be
attached to the said documents of compromise. Learned State counsel
submitted that the reasons given by the learned trial Court are legal, correct and
proper and based on evidence and there is no need to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order. She then, prayed for dismissal of the present
appeal.
CONSIDERATION
We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. We
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:24 :::
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 5
have perused the impugned judgment and order made by the trial Court. We
have carefully seen the entire evidence tendered by the prosecution in support
of its case. It is not in dispute that the complainant-Ram Singh, father of the
deceased had gone to Doha for earning his livelihood, on 22.03.1996. PW1-
Malkiat Singh Sarpanch of the Village deposed accordingly and he further
stated that he returned after 10 days of the occurrence. The occurrence took
place on 22.03.1996, which means that Ram Singh had returned on
01/02.04.1996. He supported the prosecution case about the motive, but then in
the cross-examination, it is seen that his entire evidence regarding motive
which he wanted to buttress was in the form of omissions amounting to
contradictions. Hence the evidence is not trustworthy. At any rate, regarding
motive, he stated that Ram Singh was telling him about the motive to the effect
that it was Kuldip Singh, appellant No.1 who was demanding the hand of sister
of the deceased. His statement was recorded by the police on 22.07.1997 as
against the incident of 22.03.1996. In his evidence, he admitted certain facts,
which, in our opinion are also relevant. We quote the following portion from
his cross-examination at record Pages 115-116 regarding the compromise etc.:-
"...........It is correct that on 5.5.1996 we had made Balwant Singh
father of Kuldip Singh accused to deposit Rs.10,000/- each in the
bank in the name of the daughter and son of Mandeep Kaur
deceased through Ram Singh and the said compromise between
them was reduced into writing in the court premises at Fatehgarh
Sahib and I had signed that compromise deed. The said
compromise is also signed by Ram Singh, father of the deceased,
Gian Parkash ex-sarpanch, Kakrala, Manjeet Singh, Sukhvir
Singh, Gurdev Singh member Panchayat Nanuwal, Nachattar
Singh Lambardar Thikriwala, Gurdeep Singh brother of the
deceased. Mehar Singh, Pal Singh Ex-sarpanch Khamano Kalan,
Malkiat Singh of Nanuwal and Gurdev Singh Ex-sarpanch
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:24 :::
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 6
Nanuwal, Kulvir Singh Sarpanch resident of village Khamanon. It
may have been written in the compromise deed that we did not
suspect anybody regarding the death of Mandeep Kaur and we do
not want any legal action to be taken. The compromise deed was
read over to us before I signed. Copy of the compromise deed is
Ex.DA (objected to)."
Thus, in the month of May that is almost one and a half month,
steps were taken to deposit the money as stated by him.
PW3-Gurdeep Singh, brother of the deceased deposed as under in
his evidence (record page-129):-
"........On 22.3.1996 we were sleeping at our house at village
Thikriwal when my brother in law Kuldeep Singh came to us at 6-
00 a.m. and he told us that Gurmeet Kaur had sprinkled kerosene
and she had set herself ablaze and she has died. I my mother
Mohinder Kaur and our village Sarpanch Malkiat Singh then went
to village of the accused Nanowal khurd and saw my sister in
burnt condition lying in the Tub which was in a bath room and
smoke was emitting out of the body my sister Gurmeet Kaur and
by the side of bath room a burnt quilt was also lying there in the
house of the accused. The quilt was in such a position that it
appear to have been wrapped to the burnt body of Gurmeet Kaur
and some pieces of her flesh stuck to the quilt."
His evidence that the deceased-Gurmit Kaur was being harassed
by the accused for the said alleged motive, is in the form of omission
amounting to contradiction. He further admitted that the only cause of death of
Gurmit Kaur was maltreatment and harassment. He admitted that she was
operated for tubctomy six months prior to her death. He admitted the contents
of compromise Exhibit P8.
PW4-Mohinder Kaur was the mother of the deceased who deposed
about the health conditions of the deceased as under (record pages 149-151):-
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:24 :::
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 7
"..........It is correct that before the death of my daughter she was
operated for tubctomy and that operation was done with the
consent of the accused. This operation was done about 6 months
prior to the death of the deceased Gurmeet Kaur. My daughter
never told me that due to operation she was feeling pain in her
abdomen/waist or she was continuously running temperature. As I
was not in my senses, I do not know whether in my statement
before the police I had stated that due to operation or due to some
other ailment she continued having pain and fever. Confronted
with portion A to A1 in her statement Ex.DD dated 22.3.1996
wherein this fact is recorded. I do not know whether my daughter
had tonsel in the throat. I did not state so to the police.
Confronted with her statement Ex.DD from portion B to B1
wherein it is so recorded. I had stated to the police that my son in
law used to get my daughter Mandeep Kaur medically treated as
and when she is lying ill. It is correct that about 9/10 days prior to
her death my daughter Gurmeet Kaur alias Mandeep Kaur had
come to our village Thikriwala from Khamano. ........... As I was
not in my senses I do not know whether in my statement before the
police I had stated to the police or not that from the date of
marriage of my daughter till her death her in laws never beating
and they demanded any dowry and there was nothing serious
dispute and my daughter did not disclose to me and she was living
happily in her house. Confronted with her portion C to C1 in her
statement Ex.DD wherein it is so recorded."
She also stated in her cross-examination that after the death of her
daughter Gurmit Kaur, her husband came back from Doha three days after the
incident, which means her husband had reached on 25/26.03.1996. Ram Singh,
her husband made a complaint on which offence was registered. The following
portion from her evidence is also relevant (record page 155):-
"........... From the date of marriage with Kuldeep Singh till her
death we have not filed any complaint against the accused
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:24 :::
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 8
regarding the harassment at the hands of the accused. People
from the nearby villages had told us that the accused have burnt
my daughter but I cannot tell the name of the villages. I did not
state to the police till today that we have come to know that my
daughter was burnt by the accused persons.........."
PW2-Dr. Avtar Singh stated that cause of death was shock due to
extensive burns. The burn injuries were ante-mortem. She was almost 100%
burnt. The police had reported that it was the case of accidental death.
Apropos, the evidence discussed above, what is seen is that the
occurrence of 22.03.1996 was reported on first time on 18.07.1996 by the
complainant Ram Singh who had arrived three days after the death and was
with his family members. The compromise so was arrived at was for the benefit
of children. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in such a serious matter
when the allegations regarding murder were being made. The registration of
offence itself was on 18.07.1996, i.e. almost four months thereafter. It is true
that Ram Singh died. But then burden to prove the case of murder cannot in
any case be diluted and it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. In so far as the custody of the deceased in the house of the
accused is concerned, there may not be any doubt about it, but then the
question is whether mere custody would be enough to draw inference about the
commission of murder by the appellants. The prosecution has not relied on any
theory of weapons being used and the manner of commission of murder. At any
rate, we find that even the motive that has been projected by the prosecution
does not appear to be probable and trustworthy. There is no allegation about
demand of dowry or harassment. On the contrary, it appears that the deceased
was suffering from abdominal pain after surgery of tubctomy was done which,
perhaps, was not successful and therefore, she was always in deep pains. That
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:24 :::
CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 9
is the probability and benefit of doubt would obviously go to the accused
persons and not the prosecution. We are, therefore, of the firm opinion that the
appellants are required to be extended the benefit of doubt and it would be
risky to convict them for the offence of murder. In the result, we make the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) CRA-D-197-DB of 2003 stands allowed;
(ii) Impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, in Sessions Case No.45T/5.11.96/8.6.2001 by which appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and appellant No.1- Kuldeep Singh to pay fine of `5,000/- and appellant No.2-Surjit Kaur to pay fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each, is set aside;
(iii) Appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
(A.B. CHAUDHARI) JUDGE (INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE February 20, 2018 mahavir Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 9 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 21:21:24 :::