Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Satnam Singh on 14 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: I(1997)DMC637
Author: K.S. Kumaran
Bench: K.S. Kumaran
JUDGMENT K.S. Kumaran, J.
1. The State of Punjab has come on appeal against the acquittal of Satnam Singh, the only accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in Sessions Case No.14 of 28.1.1988 decided on 19.2.1991. Accused Satnam Singh faced charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for the death of his wife Neelam and was acquitted. Neelam, the sister of complainant - Tarlochan Singh died on 25.2.1986 at 8.05 p.m. in Shri. Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :-
3. Three years prior to her death Neelam was married to Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh used to maltreat Neelam and was not doing any work. On 24.2.1986 Tarlochan Singh came to know that his sister Neelam was admitted to Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital due to burning. Tarlochan Singh alongwith his mother Gurmej Kaur and Balbir Singh (PW) went to the said hospital, where Neelam was found admitted in the emergency ward. Smt. Chhito the grand mother-in-law of Neelam, who was sitting near her, also slipped away on seeing them. Neelam had been set on fire by Satnam Singh and died due to the same.
4. The prosecution examined Tarlochan Singh the complainant (PW1), Balbir Singh (PW2), Dr. Rakesh Tiwari (PW6) who examined Neelam on 24.2.1986, Dr. N.P. Aggarwal (PW3) who performed the post-mortem, and Assistant Sub Inspector Lakhbir Singh (PW5) who conducted the investigation. The affidavit of Constable Pal Singh, who took the body for post-mortem was marked as PW4. The accused on his side examined two witnesses.
5. Tarlochan Singh (PW1) gave evidence about the marriage of Neelam (deceased) with Satnam Singh (accused), about me alleged ill-treatment by accused Satnam Singh of Neelam, arid also about taking Balbir Singh PW on one occasion alongwith them when they took Neelam to the matrimonial home from his house. Tarlochan Singh (PW1) stated that about one month prior to the death of Neelam, he alongwith his mother-Gurmej Kaur and Balbir Singh (PW) accompanied Neelam to her matrimonial home and requested accused Satnam Singh to treat her properly. According to Tarlochan Singh, the accused stated that they may leave Neelam there, but in case she died, he will not be responsible. Tarlochan Singh PW1 stated that three days prior to her death Balbir Singh informed them that Neelam was lying admitted in the hospital due to bum injuries, and that he alongwith the mother went to the house of the accused at Tarn Taran, noticed quilt and half burnt bed sheet and the scattered long hair lying on the bed at the house of the accused. PW1 further stated that he went to the hospital and found that nobody from the family of the accused was present near Neelam who was lying unconscious. He also stated about giving statement Ex. PA which formed the basis of the FIR.
6. Balbir Singh (PW2) stated the deceased Neelam was his niece that the accused used to ill-treat Neelam for not bringing dowry and used to turn her out from his house after giving her bearings. PW2 stated that they used to leave Neelam at her matrimonial home and reprimand the accused. PW2 further stated that a month prior to the occurrence they went and left Neelam at her matrimonial home and about eight days thereafter, accused Satnam Singh turned her out of the house after giving severe beating. PW2 also stated that on information, he went and saw Neelam lying in the hospital at Amritsar with burn injuries, and that three/four days later she died.
7. Dr. Rakesh, the Civil Surgeon who examined Neelam on 24.2.1986 deposed about it as PW6.
8. Dr. N.P. Aggarwal (PW3), Medical Officer, who performed post-mortem examination of Neelam on 27.2.1986 stated in his evidence that Neelam died on 25.2.1986 at 8.05 p.m. He stated that he found singeing of hair in the front of head, eye brows, eyelashes, axillary and pubic hair, and that vene-section was present on left leg. According to him 1st and 2nd degree burns were present on the face, front of chest and abdomen, part of the back of chest and abdomen, both arms including hands, both lower limbs excluding the sole of foot. He opined that the burns were ante-mortem and death was due to shock as a result of extensive burn injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex. PD is the copy of the post-mortem report.
9. Assistant Sub-Inspector Lakhbir Singh (PW5) of Police Station City Tarn Taran. stated that on receipt of information from the hospital he went to Civil Hospital, Amritsar and recorded the statement of PW1 Tarlochan Singh (PA) on 26.2.1986 on the basis of which the formal FIR was recorded by MHC. He also stated about conducting the inquest, visiting the spot, preparing the rough site -plan, and taking into possession of Shawl and bed sheet (Ex. PI and P2) under memo Ex. PF. He stated that the accused was arrested by Assistant Sub-Inspector Inderjit Singh and that after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was. filed by Sita Ram, Inspector.
10. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Satnam Singh generally denied the allegation and claimed to be innocent. The accused examined Darshan Singh (DW1) Librarian of Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar, who produced the Bed Head Ticket of Neelam. The accused also examined Surjit Kaur, a resident of the house situated in front of his house as DW2, who stated that she was on visiting terms with the accused, that Neelam, during her life-time, never complained to her about the conduct of the accused. She stated that on the day of occurrence on hearing the noise, she went at about 10 p.m. and found that mother and grandmother of the accused present in the house while accused Satnam Singh was not present. DW2 stated that Neelam was present there and was conscious. According to her, she enquired from her the cause of fire and Neelam stated that she was going to prepare milk for her child and on account of bursting of the stove, she caught fire.
11. On an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar gave the benefit of doubt to accused and acquitted him and hence this appeal by the State.
12. We have to now see whether there are grounds for interfering with the judgment of the Trial Court. The case of the prosecution as set out in FIR is that accused Satnam Singh was not doing any work but was ill-treating his wife Neelam and that on 24.2.1986 her brother Tarlochan Singh (PW1) came to know that Neelam was admitted in the hospital due to burning. It is also alleged that he alongwith her mother and Balbir Singh (PW2) went to Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar, found Neelam admitted in the Emergency Ward and Smt Chhito the grand mother-in-law who was sitting near her slipped away on seeing them. It has further been alleged that Neelam was set on fire by the accused, and, therefore, she died. But in his evidence the complainant Tarlochan Singh (PW1) stated that they had not given dowry at the time of marriage of Neelam and, therefore, the accused was not happy and used to ill-treat on the pretext that she had not brought any dowry. PW1 also stated that Neelam used to come back to their house and that they used to take her back to the matrimonial home. He also deposed that Neelam used to tell them about the cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused. He deposed further that about a month prior to her death, he, accompanied by his mother Gurmej Kaur and Balbir Singh (PW2), took Neelam to her matrimonial home and requested the accused to treat her properly, but the accused replied that they may leave her there but in case she died, he will not be responsible. We find that it has not been mentioned in the FIR that the accused was not satisfied as no dowry was given to Neelam or that he use to ill-treat Neelam on account of that. It has merely been stated in the FIR that the accused was not doing any work but was ill-treating Neelam. As to why the accused was ill-treating her has not been specifically mentioned in the FIR. If really the accused was ill-treating Neelam on the ground that she had not brought dowry then it is wholly improbable that PW1 would have failed to mention that fact in the FIR. In his evidence, in cross-examination Tarlochan Singh (PW1) stated that Neelam was turned out of the house by the accused after giving her heatings. PW1 also stated that on one occasion, he noticed a contusion on the shoulder of Neelam. But PW1 stated he had not lodged any report with the police against the accused. According to PW1 Neelam was turned out of the house 10 or 12 times after giving her heatings. If that be so, it is difficult to believe PW1 would have omitted to mention this fact in FIR. Further, it has also not been stated in the FIR that a month prior to the death of Neelam, he alongwith his mother and Balbir Singh accompanied Neelam to her matrimonial home or that the accused stated that in case she died he will not be responsible. It has also not been stated in the FIR that Neelam used to tell them about the cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused. Even in the inquest report, as admitted by the Investigating Officer (PW5), there is no mention about the demand for dowry.
13. Apart from these omissions in the FIR, it is also improbable that PW1 and his family members would have kept quiet without convening a Panchayat. There is not even a letter by deceased Neelam about the alleged treatment by her husband. Of course, itis stated that Balbir Singh (PW2) accompanied them to the house of the accused and he reprimanded the accused. PW2 Balbir Singh also stated in his evidence that about a month prior to the occurrence, he accompanied Tarlochan Singh and Neelam to the house of the accused, and that the accused told them that they may leave Neelam there. PW2 did not say that the accused told them that if Neelam died, he will not be responsible. Apart from this, he is the uncle of both deceased Neelam and PW1 Tarlochan Singh, and there is no other independent evidence to support the plea that Neelam was ill-treated as no dowry was given.
14. Therefore, we find that there is no evidence not only with regard to the alleged ill-treatment by accused on the ground that Neelam did not bring dowry, but also with regard to the alleged act of the accused setting Neelam on fire. It may be that Neelam sustained bum injuries at the house of the accused, but that by itself will not show that the accused set her on fire. Even if we leave aside the evidence of PW2 Surjit Kaur that Neelam told her that she (Neelam) caught fire while she was preparing milk for the child, there is no presumption that the accused set her on fire. Although a charge has been framed under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted to this case because, it came into effect with effect from 19.11.1986 whereas the occurrence in this case took place on 24.2.1986. Therefore, the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be applied to an occurrence which occurred prior to 19.11.1986. So, there cannot be any presumption against the accused as provided for under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, and this is especially so, when there is no evidence to show that soon before her death Neelam was subjected to cruelty by her husband (accused) in connection with any demand for dowry.
15. This apart Neelam had sustained these burn injuries on 24.2.1986-and she died on 25.2.1986. But the complaint to the police was made only 26.2.1986. As pointed out already the evidence of PW1 is that Neelam was given heatings and turned out of the house on 12 occasions. If that be so, there was no reason for delay in lodging the FIR. It has been mentioned in the FIR that on 24.2.1986 itself PW1 came to know that his sister Neelam was admitted in the hospital and that PW1 went and saw her in the hospital.' According to his evidence, he went to inform his relations and came back to the hospital within 30 or 45 minutes. PW1 Tarlochan Singh stated that ASI Lakhbir Singh (PW 5) came to the hospital' when he had gone there on the first day itself and that he narrated the incident to ASI Lakhbir Singh, but he did not record his evidence on that day, rather he stated that nothing would come out of it and that he would give shoe heatings to the accused. PW2 Balbir Singh also stated in his evidence that the police had come to the hospital on the first day and that he narrated the incident to the police. But, he at first stated that he did not know if the police recorded his statement or that of Tarlochan Singh, but later on changed and stated that their statements were recorded by the police on the same day when they had gone to the hospital. But PW 5 Lakhbir Singh (ASI) stated in his evidence that on 21.2.1986 he had gone to the hospital but neither Tarlochan Singh nor Balbir Singh met him on that day, and that they met him for the first time on 26.2.1986. It was suggested to him that Tarlochan Singh and Balbir Singh met him in the hospital on 24.2.1986 and that they disclosed that Neelam had received accidental burn injuries. Of course, it was denied by him. It was also denied by him that he had destroyed the earlier statements and substituted the subsequent statement. But, if we take into consideration the circumstances pointed out by me, then it will be clear that the investigation officer (PW 5) was not telling the truth when he stated that he did not record the statements of Tarlochan Singh and Balbir Singh on 24.2.1986. If he had met them on 24.2.1986 and recorded their statements as deposed by PW 1 and PW 2, then the suggestion made to the investigating officer by the defence gets strengthened. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the delay in recording of the FIR is also a factor which goes to affect the case of the prosecution.
16. Therefore, taking into consideration all these factors, we are of the opinion that the accused was rightly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the Trial Court.
So, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.