Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarabjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 May, 2013
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007
Date of decision 20.05.2013.
Sarabjit Singh and others
...... Appellants.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present :- Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.S.Chandumajra, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
K.C.PURI, J.
Appellants Sarabjit Singh, Swaran Singh, Harjinder Kaur and Harjit Singh have directed the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.10.2007 and order dated 31.10.2007 passed by Shri A.K.Mehta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which they stood convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 2
The prosecution case in brief is that on 3.5.2005 ASI Charanjit Singh of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana along with other police officials was present at bridge canal of village Gill in connection with patrol duty where Inder Singh complainant met him and gave his statement that his son died in the year 1993 and he solemnized marriage of his grand daughter Navdeep Kaur aged about 21 years on 23.1.2005 with Sarabjit Singh alias Sonu accused in accordance with Sikh rites and that marriage was solemnized at Narela Palace Jalandhar and he gave dowry to Navdeep Kaur as per his capacity. A day before marriage i.e. on 22.1.2005 at the time of Shagun ceremony, the boy raised demand of rings and when he shown his helplessness then an altercation took place with the boy side and they also threatened him that what will the complainant do if they would not arrive with Baraat on the next day, that after some days of marriage, in-laws of Navdeep Kaur started harassing her, Harjinder Kaur, mother-in-law, Sarabjit Singh husband, Harjit Singh brother-in-law, Swaran Singh father-in-law of Navdeep Kaur raised demand of motorcycle bullet and a gold ring for Harjit Singh, elder brother of Sarabajit Singh and when he cold not fulfill their demand, then the above said persons started torturing and harassing Navdeep Kaur mentally that on 30.4.2005 Ravinder Kaur elder sister of Navdeeep Kaur and her husband Charanjit Singh came to Ludhiana to visit Navdeep Kaur and Navdeep Kaur also told them that her in-laws family are demanding more dowry from her and used to torture and harass her mentally and due to continuous mental torture and harassment she became patient of blood pressure. It has been further alleged that on 2.5.2005 Manjit Kaur Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 3 mother of Navdeep Kaur gave a telephonic call to Navdeep Kaur which was attended by Harjinder Kaur and when Harjinder Kaur asked for Navdeep Kaur then Harjinder Kaur accused disconnected the phone by saying that Navdeep Kaur is taking rest. On 3.5.2005 at about 8/8.30a.m., a telephonic call was received by Ravinder Kaur from Sarabajit Singh accused who told that Navdeep Kaur has died and thereafter Sarabajit Singh gave a telephonic call to him stating that Navdeep Kaur is serious and thereafter he (complainant) along with his wife Bimal Kaur, Manjit Kaur, mother of Navdeep Kaur and Pavittar Singh, brother of Navdeep Kaur came to Ludhiana in the house of the accused where they found that Navdeep Kaur has already died and accused side also started quarrelling with them without any reason. Navdeep kaur died being tortured and harassed mentally and as proper treatment was not given to her by her in-laws family i.e. accused, on the basis of the aforesaid statement FIR was registered and investigation commenced. Post mortem examination of the dead body got conducted. Site plan of the place of occurrence was also got prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation challan was presented.
4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused free of costs. Since offence under Section 304-B of the IPC was alleged against the accused, therefore, the Illaqua Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.
4. Charges under Section 304-B of the IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 4
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Inder Singh (PW-1). Thereafter prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was allowed and Harjit Singh accused was ordered to be summoned to stand trial. Fresh charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined Inder Singh PW-1, Ravinder Kaur (PW-2), Rajinder Singh (PW-3), Dr. Manjit Singh (PW-4), Manajit Kaur (PW-5), ASI Charanjit Singh (PW-6), HC Gurbaksh Singh (PW-7), ASI Hardev Singh (PW-8) and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering certain documents.
6. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations as incorrect and pleaded their innocence. Accused Sarabjit Sihgh contended that deceased Navdeep Kaur was patient of High blood pressure and after the marriage she pressed him to have separated mess from the joint family and as such a separate mess was arranged for him and Navdeep Kaur on the first floor adjoining his room. She was never subjected to cruelty nor any demand was raised by him and his family members. She was enjoying a happy married life in her matrimonial home. He further contended that the marriage function as well as ring and Shagun ceremony were performed without any unpleasant happening. He further submitted that deceased was mentally upset due to high blood pressure and on 2.5.2005 she felt some vomiting motion and medicine was got provided from the local doctor by his mother and then she slept in her room alone as he had gone to Amritsar on that day in Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 5 connection with work and stayed at the house of Ravinder Kaur and Charanjit Singh but in the morning hours they received information from his home that the condition of Navdeep Kaur has deteriorated and she was also tried to be hospitalized by arranging a vehicle. Information about the illness of Navdeep Kaur was also given to her parents on 2.5.2005 and 3.5.2005 in the early hours. She died prior to her admission in Krishana Hospital and she died natural death but witnesses in connivance with police officials and doctors of civil hospital converted the natural death into a poisoning case later on. Similar statement has been made by other co- accused also. The accused examined Daljit Singh DW-1, Gurdeep Singh DW-2, Gulshan Kumar DW-3, Paramajit Singh DW-4, Nirmala DW-5, Raghuvir Singh DW-6, Amandeep Kaur DW-7, Kulwinder Singh DW-8, Ashwani Kumar DW-9, Surinder Kumar DW-10, Kuildip Singh DW-11, and closed the defence evidence.
7. The trial court after appreciating the evidence convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment dated 30.10.2007 and order dated 31.10.2007.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 30.10.2007 and order dated 31.10.2007, the present appeal has been directed by appellant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the records of the case.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that basic ingredients of offence under Section 498-A, of the IPC that Navdeep Kaur Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 6 deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry articles is missing in the present case. Even if statement of the prosecution witnesses is taken as it is in that case also, no ingredient of offence under Section 304-B, IPC are made out against accused/appellants Harjinder Kaur, Swaran Singh and Harjit Singh. PW-1 Inder Singh complainant is the star witness for the prosecution. He has stated that at the time of marriage he gave dowry as per his capacity. On 22.1.2005 at the time of Shagun ceremony in-laws of Navdeep Kaur demanded three golden rings and he showed his inability thereafter accused present in the court along with Harjit raised quarrel. It is submitted that the other witness regarding demand of dowry articles was produced as PW-2 Ravinder Kaur sister of deceased. She has categorically stated in the cross-examination that ring ceremony was performed peacefully. So, both the material witnesses are discrepant regarding the demand of dowry at the time of Shagun ceremony.
11. It is further contended that the other allegation levelled by Inder Singh PW-1 is that accused started demanding motor-cycle and golden ring for Harjit Singh. That demand was not fulfilled and all the acused started harassing the deceased mentally and physically. On 30.4.2005 Ravinder Kaur and her husband Charanjit Singh went to Navdeep Kaur deceased and they disclosed that Navdeep Kaur was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. However, Ravinder Kaur has given a different version in the cross-examination. She has stated that on 30.4.2005 after arrival at the house of Navdeep Kaur they accompanied by Navdeep Kaur and her husband had gone for outing. They took dinner at the house of Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 7 Navdeep Kaur. Ravinder Kaur has further stated that they had gone to Gurudwara Alamgarh Sahib on 1.5.2005 in the morning. She has also stated that they stayed at the house of Navdeep Kaur on 30.4.2005 during night. So, the question of demand of dowry articles by the in-laws is not proved.
12. It is further contended that even according to these two material witnesses no specific demand of dowry articles has been attributed to Harjinder Kaur, Swaran Singh and Harjit Singh. These accused cannot be convicted on the basis of vague allegations.
13. It is further contended that accused Harjit Singh has been declared innocent during the course of investigation. He has been summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The evidence against him is not sufficient to make out the ingredient of offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. It is further contended that Harjinder Kaur and Swaran Singh accused were living at the groundfloor of the houseas Harjit Singh was living on the first floor of the house in the separate room. Deceased Navdeep Kaur and her husband Sarabjit Singh were living in a room. So, at the most the ingredient of offence under Section 304-B of the IPC are made out against accused Sarabjit Singh, the husband and ingedients of offence under Section 304-B, of the IPC are not made out against the other accused- appellants.
14. It is further contended that there is a tendency to rope in all the family members in a case under Section 304-B of the IPC. The accused other than Sarabjit Singh have been made accused simply on that account.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 8 prosecution has failed to prove the factum of unnatural death of Navdeep Kaur. The Chemical Examiner report does not prove the fact that Navdeep Kaur died due to administration of poisonous substance. The Chemical report in this regard cannot be accepted. It is submitted that relative of the complainant is posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the police and he has manipulated the report of chemical examiner.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that defence evidence has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. The case of the defence is fully proved. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 AIR (SC) page 3391,
(ii) Bhim Singh and others vs. The State of Haryana and other reported in 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 558;
(iii) Raman Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 Criminal Law Journal page 3034 (S.C.)
(iv) Prem Singh etc. vs. State of Haryana reported in 1998 AIR (SC) page 2628
17. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment and order of the trial Court. It is submitted that all the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B, IPC are made out. The date of marriage is 23.1.2005 and Navdeep Kaur died on 3.5.2005 i.e. less than four months period and chloro-compound poison was found in all the major limbs of the deceased including liver, spleen lungs and heart. Mere fact that there was no histopathological report that does not disprove the case of the prosecution regarding unnatural death of the deceased.
Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 9
18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides.
19. In this case there are two sets of accused (i) Sarabjit Singh husband of the deceased and another set of accused are his parents Harjinder Kaur, Sawaran Singh and Harjit Singh.
20. So far as the guilt of the accused Sarabjit Singh under Section 304-B of the IPC is concerned that has not been seriously opposed by the counsel for the appellants. Otherwise also, death has taken place within four months of marriage of Navdeep Kaur with Sarabjit Singh. The death has taken place in an unnatural manner i.e., by administration of chloro- compound poison a group of insecticides in the viscera. The argument of the counsel for the appellant that report does not prove the factum of administration of chloro-compound poison, does not help the case of the appellant in any manner. All the major limbs of the deceased Navdeep Kaur found containing chloro-compound poison including her liver spleen etc. The report of the Chemical examiner cannot be manipulated by ASI as alleged by the counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. There was demand of motor cycle and Sarabjit Singh appellant would have been benefitted by the said demand and as such I have no hesitation in confirming the finding of the trial Court regarding guilt of Sarabjit Singh under Section 304-B, IPC beyond reasonably doubt.
21. Consequently, the conviction of Sarabjit Singh recorded by the trial Court stands maintained
22. The other set of accused is Harjinder Kaur mother, Swaran Singh father and Harjit Singh brother of Sarabjit Singh. Harjit Singh has Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 10 been declared innocent during the course of investigation and he has been summoned on an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
23. Now reverting to the evidence produced by the prosecution against them. Inder Singh PW-1 star-witness of the prosecution has levelled two instances in particular. Once regarding demand of three golden rings at the time of Shagun ceremony. However, the testimony of Inder Singh PW-1 is contradicted by Ravinder Kaur PW-2 regarding the said demand as PW-2 Ravinder Kaur in the cross-examination has stated that the function of ring ceremony Shagun and marriage were performed by Inder Singh PW-1 and the same were performed peacefully So, according to the testimony of this witness there was no dispute at the time of shagun ceremony.
24. The other set of allegation given by Inder Singh PW-1 is regarding demand of motorcycle and ring for Harjit Singh. There is no specific attribution to any of these three accused regarding demand of these articles. In case the husband demanded ring for his brother in that case, husband is the guilty person and not the person for whom the ring is demanded. The benefit of motor cycle would have been by the husband. Harjit Singh was married prior to the marriage of Navdeep Kaur. In case he would have been interested in any demand, in that case, he could have demanded the dowry articles from his wife and not from the wife of his brother. The member of his in-laws family have come in the witness box and have stated that no demand was made by Harjit Singh. There is a tendency to rope all the family members in a case under Section 304-B, IPC without mentioning any specific allegation of demand of dowry. Ravinder Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 11 Kaur in the cross-examination has stated that she along with her husband has gone for outing with Navdeep Kaur and Sarabjit Singh on 30.4.2005 and have gone to Gurdwara Alamgir on 1.5.2005. According to the prosecution witnesses Swaran Singh and Harjinder Singh were living on the groundfloor and have separate mess. Harjit singh was living in a separate room on the first floor. No doubt, Navdeep Kaur and her husband Sarabjit Singh were residing on the first floor but they were stated to be living in a separate room. On the basis of these vague allegations these three appellants cannot be convicted under Section 304-B, IPC.
25. In authority Amar Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court acquitted mother and brother of the husband where there was no exact act and conduct of mother and brother regarding harassment of deceased. However, the conviction of husband was upheld in that case but the sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to ten years. In the present case, the sentence on the appellant Sarabjit Singh is ten years. So, in view of said authority, no ground for reduction in sentence of Sarabjit Singh is made out.
26. Authority Bhim Singh and others's case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case demand of Rs.1,50,000/- was made for the house and that was said to be not in connection with demand of dowry articles, deceased in that case wanted to lived separately and wanted to open stitching school. Deceased was urbanized and was not able to agriculture work in village. The witnesses in that case have admitted that deceased was short tempered and there was tendency of suicide in the family of Criminal Appeal No.2356 SB of 2007 12 deceased. So, the facts of that case are distinguishable.
27. Authority Raman Kumar's case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case, possibility of accidental till death could be there.
28. In authority Prem Singh etc.'s case (supra) mother was acquitted where she was living separately and there was no demand that she had been initiating her son to demand dowry/money. The other reason for acquittal is that she would not be benefitted if the money is received.
29. So, in view of the above discussion, the findings of the trial Court holding that Swaran Singh, Harjinder Kaur and Harjit Singh guilty for offence under Section 304-B, of the IPC stand set aside and their appeal stands accepted. They stand acquitted of the charges levelled against them after giving them benefit of doubt.
30. So far as the appeal qua accused/appellant Sarabjit Singh is concerned, that stands dismissed, as discussed above.
31. He is stated to be on bail. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
32. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K. C. PURI )
May 20, 2013 JUDGE
sv