Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhmander Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 18 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. 778-SB of 1996
Date of Decision : May 18, 2010
Sukhmander Singh and another
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate with
Mr. K.B.S.Mann, Advocate
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
T.P.S. MANN, J.
Aggrieved of their conviction under Section 304-B IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.500/- each or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each, as ordered by Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on 13.11.1996, the appellants are before this Court by way of the present appeal.
Appellant Sukhmander Singh was the husband of deceased Amarjit Kaur whereas appellant Balbir Kaur was her mother-in-law, being mother of Sukhmander Singh. Amarjit Kaur was married to Sukhmander Singh about 1¾ years before her death. No child was born Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -2- from the said wedlock. Though complainant Ajmer Singh, father of Amarjit Kaur, had given dowry according to his capacity at the time of her marriage yet as and when Amarjit Kaur returned to her parental house, she used to say that the appellants were maltreating her for bringing insufficient dowry. She used to be beaten by them, as well. They had been saying that she had not brought a scooter in her dowry. The complainant had given a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the appellants for the purchase of a scooter. Despite the same, ten days before her death, Amarjit Kaur went crying to the complainant and told him that she was being harassed and maltreated. She was also told that the amount of Rs.20,000/- had already been spent and she should bring another amount of Rs.20,000/- for running of the shop. The complainant and his brother Sukhdev Singh told Amarjit Kaur that after harvesting the crop, they would arrange the money and make the payment. Even a Panchayat was held so as to make the appellants understand that the complainant party was not able to pay more amount.
On 2.10.1994, the complainant and his brother Sukhdev Singh went to Sadiq to meet their niece Guddi, who was married to Roop Singh. At about 7.00 p.m. Surjit Singh Ramgarhia came there and told them that Amarjit Kaur had been admitted in the Medical Hospital at Faridkot in a serious condition and they should reach there at the earliest. On reaching there, they found that Amarjit Kaur had died due to consumption of some poisonous substance. Accordingly, on the basis Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -3- of the statement made by complainant Ajmer Singh, FIR No. 79 dated 2.10.1994 under Sections 304-B/34 IPC was registered against the appellants at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot.
During investigation of the case, ASI Manjit Singh prepared the inquest report and got conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Amarjit Kaur. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and rough site-plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The appellants were arrested on 9.10.1994. The viscera was sent to Chemical Examiner and after receipt of the report, the cause of death was declared as insecticide poisoning.
Following completion of the investigation, presentation of the challan and commitment of the case, both the appellants were charged for offences under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses.
PW1 Dr. K.K.Aggarwal deposed about the post mortem examination of the dead body of Amarjit Kaur. PW2 Ajmer Singh deposed about the prosecution case including the harassment and maltreatment of his daughter at the hands of the appellants on account of non-fulfillment of their demand for more dowry. PW3 Dharam Singh, Draftsman, prepared the scaled site-plan Ex.PH on 12.10.1994 after Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -4- visiting the spot. PW4 SI Mastan Singh stated that on receipt of the statement Ex.PF of Ajmer Singh recorded by ASI Manjit Singh, he registered the formal FIR Ex.PF/1. PW5 MHC Baljit Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PJ in evidence. PW6 Jarnail Singh stated that on 10.6.1994 complainant Ajmer Singh executed a pronote in his favour for Rs.20,000/-. He had brought the original pronote and the receipt, photostat copy of which was Ex.PK. PW7 Roop Singh deposed that he settled the marriage of the deceased with Sukhmander Singh appellant about 1½ years prior to her death. He also deposed about the maltreatment and harassment of the deceased at the hands of the appellants on account of bringing insufficient dowry. PW8 Gurdip Singh testified that he knew both the appellants, who belonged to his village. His house was at a distance of 40 karms from that of the appellants. After his marriage with the deceased, Sukhmander Singh appellant used to abuse and maltreat his wife. The witness then stated that he knew nothing else about the case. He was, accordingly, declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He then turned around to state that the father of the deceased had given Rs.20,000/- to the appellants for the purchase of a scooter and even after getting the said amount, the appellants kept on beating Amarjit Kaur. PW9 Sukhdev Singh testified on the same and similar lines as was stated earlier by his brother PW2 Ajmer Singh. The investigation part of the case was deposed to by PW10 ASI Manjit Singh and PW11 Constable Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -5- Jasbir Singh. The prosecution also tendered in evidence the affidavits Exs.PQ and PR before closing its evidence.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the appellants denied the prosecution allegations and claimed it to be a false case. According to them, they had never demanded anything from the parents of the deceased. Appellant Sukhmander Singh and his wife Amarjit Kaur were leading a happy married life. However, Sukhmander Singh had strained relations with his in-laws. His wife used to co- operate with him. She had fallen ill and was running fever. By mistake she consumed insecticide. On hearing about the same, the appellants shifted her to a hospital at Faridkot. She was conscious at that time and made statement to the doctor. The appellants had sent an information to the parents of the deceased. When the father of the deceased reached there, the deceased was in conscious state of mind and she did not make any complaint till she remained alive. After her death, the appellants were falsely implicated in the case.
In defence, the appellants examined DW1 Dr. Rajinder Kumar and DW2 Jalour Singh.
The trial Court believed the prosecution case that the appellants were demanding dowry and harassing the deceased. Her death had taken place within seven years of her marriage. Her death was otherwise than under normal circumstances. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -6- appellants were held guilty under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the records.
It is not in dispute that the death of Amarjit Kaur took place within 1¾ years of her marriage. It is also not in dispute that the death of Amarjit Kaur took place on account of consumption of some insecticide. The only issue remains to be seen is as to whether the deceased consumed the insecticide on account of her harassment and maltreatment at the hands of the appellants on account of not fulfilling their demand for dowry or she had consumed the insecticide by mistake after she had fallen sick and was running fever.
According to the prosecution, Ajmer Singh, father of the deceased, had given dowry according to his capacity at the time of marriage of his deceased daughter Amarjit Kaur. After the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased by telling her that she had not brought a scooter in dowry. Demand was, accordingly, raised for bringing a scooter. After executing a pronote on 10.6.1994 in favour of PW6 Jarnail Singh, complainant Ajmer Singh raised an amount of Rs.20,000/- which he gave to the accused for buying a scooter. However, ten days thereafter, the accused again started maltreating the deceased and demanded another amount of Rs.20,000/- for running the Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -7- shop. The complainant assured his daughter that he would arrange the said amount and hand over the same to the accused in a couple of days. He also told her that he would collect the respectables to apprise the accused about his finding it difficult to meet their demands. Before the complainant could arrange the finances or collect the respectables, he accompanied his brother Sukhdev Singh to the house of the latter's son- in-law. At that place the complainant and his brother Sukhdev Singh were informed about his daughter lying in a serious condition in the hospital. When he reached the hospital at Faridkot, the complainant found his daughter dead.
The testimony of PW2 Ajmer Singh is corroborated by his brother PW9 Sukhdev Singh. PW6 Jarnail Singh, who had lent an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant deposed that on 10.6.1994 complainant Ajmer Singh had executed a pronote in his favour for Rs.20,000/. Similarly, Roop Singh, who was examined by the prosecution as PW7 testified that he had settled the marriage of the deceased with Sukhmander Singh appellant and the accused had been maltreating and harassing the deceased on account of bringing insufficient dowry. PW8 Gurdeep Singh, a co-villager of the accused, stated that his house was situated at a distance of 40 karms from that of the accused. He further stated that after his marriage with the deceased, Sukhmander Singh appellant used to abuse and maltreat his wife. The witness then stated that he knew nothing else about the case. After Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -8- being declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, the witness testified before the Court that the father of the deceased had given Rs.20,000/- to the accused for the purchase of a scooter and even after getting the said amount, the deceased used to be beaten by them.
According to the defence, Amarjit Kaur, since deceased, was conscious when she was taken to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot. In this regard, it relied upon the testimony of DW1 Dr.Rajinder Kumar. According to him, the patient was conscious and sweating and it was she, who herself gave the history as intake of some drug accidentally. However, in the report Ex.DB sent by DW1 Dr.Rajinder Kumar to the SHO at the time of the admission of the deceased, it was mentioned as a suspected case of poisoning. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased had taken some drug/insecticide accidentally. Similarly, DW2 Jalour Singh had heard noise from the house of the accused. When he went there, he saw that the wife of Sukhmander Singh had consumed some medicine and she was unconscious. If the testimony of DW2 Jalour Singh is accepted, Amarjit Kaur had already become unconscious while at the house of the accused. Therefore, she would not have been in a position to apprise DW1 Dr. Rajinder Kumar of having taken some drug accidentally. It appears that the case history noticed by DW1 Dr. Rajinder Kumar was on the basis of the information supplied by the accused or by somebody at their behest and not by Amarjit Kaur.
Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -9-
The harassment and maltreatment of Amarjit Kaur at the hands of the accused was to such an extent that she was left with no other option but to end her life by taking some insecticide. Therefore, the death of Amarjit Kaur was not under normal circumstances.
There were no specific allegations levelled by the prosecution against Balbir Kaur appellant. She happened to be the mother-in-law of the deceased. The demand of Rs.20,000/- made in the first instance for purchasing a scooter and Rs.20,000/- again for running the shop would have benefitted Sukhmander Singh appellant alone. It appears that after the death of Amarjit Kaur, there was no love lost between the parties and for that reason the complainant spread the net too wide to implicate Balbir Kaur also as one of the accused alongwith her son Sukhmander Singh.
Resultantly, the conviction and sentence of Balbir Kaur appellant under Section 304-B IPC is set aside. The conviction of Sukhmander Singh appellant under Section 304-B IPC is maintained. However, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from ten years to rigorous imprisonment for eight years. The sentence of fine alongwith its default clause is maintained.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S.MANN )
Cr. Appeal No. 778-SB of 1996 -10-
May 18, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1