Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 August, 2013
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 14, 2013
JASWINDER SINGH & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL.
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY.
1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes
----
PRESENT: MR.VISHAL DEEP GOYAL, ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANTS
AND MR.S.S. KHARB, ADVOCATE
AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE APPELLANTS.
MR.S.S.BRAR, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB.
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
1. Accused Jaswinder Singh, Jagroop Kaur and Baljinder Singh were convicted under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine `1000/- each and in default to undergo further period of 1 year. They have preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that Manpreet Kaur (since deceased) was married to accused Jaswinder Singh on 20.10.2004. Accused Jagroop Kaur was the mother-in-law. Accused Baljinder Singh was the brother-in-law of Manpreet Kaur.
3. At the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given by Darshan Singh, the father of Manpreet Kaur. But the accused started harassing Manpreet Kaur. Complainant Darshan Singh gave Zen car as demanded by Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -2- the accused, but the accused were not happy. The matter was reported to Women Cell, Moga and a compromise was reduced into writing. Thereafter, Manpreet Kaur started residing in her matrimonial house.
4. On 18.6.2006, the complainant came to know that his daughter was put on fire and was admitted to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad. After much efforts he located his daughter who was admitted in Adesh Hospital, Jalalabad. She informed the complainant that when she was preparing chapattis, all the three accused set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on her. Thereafter she was admitted to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana.
5. On the basis of complaint given by Darshan Singh, the father of deceased Manpreet Kaur, a formal first information report was registered.
6. PW1 Surjit Singh, mother's brother of the deceased (he will be referred to as Surjit Singh as yet another witness also was given the rank of PW1), PW2 Iqbal Singh, uncle of the deceased (he will be referred to Iqbal Singh as yet another witness also bears the rank of PW2 assigned by the trial Court inadvertently) and PW3 Devinder Singh, father's brother of the deceased have spoken to the demand of dowry and the cruelty committed by the accused to Manpreet Kaur.
7. PW4 Dr.Kamaldeep who was working at Civil Hospital, Jalalabad on 18.6.2006, would depose that Manpreet Kaur was admitted to the said hospital on 18.6.2006 at about 10.00 p.m. with burn injuries. On intimation SI Baldev singh came to the hospital and recorded the statement Ex.D1 based on the certificate issued by him under endorsement Ex.D2 that Manpreet Kaur was fit enough to make her statement.
8. PW12 Dr.J.S.Sandhu who was serving at Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Bhatinda, would depose that on 19.6.2006 Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -3- at 2.00 a.m. Manpreet Kaur was admitted in the said hospital. She sustained 50% burn injuries. As per the bed head ticket Ex.P26 when Manpreet Kaur was sprinking kerosene oil on the firewood and was trying to ignite the same, her hands caught fire and thereafter the fire spread to her legs.
9. PW6 Dr.Parvez Afzal who was working in CMC Ludhiana would speak to the fact that Manpreet Kaur was admitted to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana on 19.6.2006. She was accompanied by her husband at the time of admission.
10. PW2 Kuldip Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana (he would be referred hereinafter as Kuldip Singh, Judicial Magistrate as the rank PW2 had been assigned to yet another witness by the trial Court) has recorded the dying declaration Ex.P5 from Manpreet Kaur, after obtaining opinion Exs.P6 and P7 from the Doctor on duty as to the fitness to give statement by injured Manpreet Kaur, based on the requisition made by the complainant.
11. In Ex.P5, deceased Manpreet Kaur has stated as follows:-
On 18/19 June, 2006 during night her husband Jaswinder Singh put kerosene oil on her and her mother-in-law Jagroop Kaur put lighted match-stick on her from the backside while she was preparing meal and the fire caught her clothes. She embraced her mother-in-law. At that time her brother-in-law Baljinder Singh who was watching television came over there and separated her from her mother-in-law. She went inside in the house and put clothes on her and came to the courtyard and became unconscious. She regained consciousness only after half an hour in the hospital and the Doctors and the entire family of her in-laws insisted that she should make a Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -4- statement in their favour and thereafter they would start treatment for her. They have also said that unless she give statement, the treatment would not be started. Her mother-in- law used to say that Manpreet Kaur was a person of unsound mind. She used to comment that Manpreet Kaur did not know how to do the household work and that she was not doing the household work as she was highly qualified. Her husband used to beat her on the asking of her mother-in-law. Manpreet Kaur remained with her parents for 4 months. A case was filed with Women Cell. They sent her to the matrimonial home about one month prior to the occurrence.
12. Manpreet Kaur died in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana on 3.7.2006 at about 4.30 p.m.
13. PW7 Dr.Sabjeev Hans conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Manpreet Kaur on the said day. He found superficial to deep burns in the front of the trunk, both the upper limbs, inner and outer part of thighs, front and back of both legs below knee. He opined that Manpreet Kaur died due to septicemic shock as a result of multiple burn injuries which were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
14. The accused were arrested and final report was filed by the investigating official.
15. Accused Jaswinder Singh and Jagroop Singh have set up a plea in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were innocent, but a false case was foisted on them. On 18.6.2006 at about 7.30 p.m. Manpreet Kaur was cooking food on earthen hearth. The fire sticks were wet due to Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -5- rain. Manpreet Kaur sprinkled kerosene oil on them and lighted a matchstick. Her clothes caught fire. Accused Jagroop Kaur on hearing cries of Manpreet Kaur came running and tried to extinguish the fire. She also sustained fire injury. People from the surrounding area came and extinguished the fire. Accused Jaswinder Singh took Manpreet Kaur and Jagroop Kaur to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad for treatment. Accused Baljinder Singh would state in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was a student at the time when the occurrence took place. Though he was innocent, he was implicated in this case as he is the brother of accused Jaswinder Singh.
16. On the side of the defence, DW1 Bimal Kumar, Senior Clerk attached to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana spoke to the fact that Manpreet Kaur was admitted to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana on 19.6.2006 by her husband Jaswinder Singh. The medical expenditure also was borne by accused Jaswinder Singh.
17. PW4 Dr.Kamaldeep was examined as DW2 on the side of the defence. He would depose when he appeared as defence witness that he admitted accused Jagroop Kaur to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad on 18.6.2006 with burn injury on both her her hands and forearm. She remained admitted in the hospital till 19.6.2006. Thereafter, she was referred to Government Medical Hospital, Faridkot. He also produced the bead head ticket Ex.D18 of accused Jagroop Kaur.
18. The trial Court having relied upon the dying declaration recorded by Kuldip Singh, Judicial Magistrate from deceased Manpreet Kaur and the evidence of PW1 Surjit Singh, PW2 Iqbal Singh and PW3 Devinder Singh, in the background of medical evidence available on record Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -6- convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra.
19. PW5 Dr.Naresh Kumar attached to PHC, Thathi Bhai has deposed that on 24.1.2006 at about 6.35 p.m., he medico-legally examined Manpreet Kaur who was brought by her father Darshan Singh for treatment. He found an abrasion on the left side of the face, an abrasion on the right forearm, a contusion on the bridge of the nose, a contusion on the left arm and a contusion on the left forearm. He declared that those injuries were simple in nature and the same would have been caused by a blunt weapon.
20. The evidence of PW5 would go to establish that Manpreet Kaur had sustained injuries on her person on 24.1.2006 itself. PW9 Inspector Jaswinder Singh would categorically depose that he received an application from Darshan Singh, the father of Manpreet Kaur when he was Incharge of the Women Cell, Moga and compromised the issue as per the report Ex.P17. As per the report submitted by PW9 during the course of his official duty, it is found that about a month prior to the occurrence a compromise was effected between the accused party and the victim party.
21. Witness Surjit Singh, witness Iqbal Singh have specifically referred to the beatings given by accused Jawinder Singh to Manpreet Kaur, the admission of Manpreet Kaur in the hospital for treatment and the dispute settled by the Women Cell, Moga.
22. Victim Manpreet Kaur in her dying declaration marked as Ex.P5 has categorically stated that accused Jagroop Kaur used to tease her saying that Manpreet Kaur was a mentally unsound person and that she had no inclination to discharge her household duties as she was a highly educated person. The above evidence on record would go to establish that accused Jaswinder Singh and Jagroop Kaur had a grouse against deceased Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -7- Manpreet Kaur.
23. Though witness Surjit Singh and Iqbal Singh would depose that there was a demand of dowry and Darshan Singh, the father of Manpreet Kaur acceded to the demand of dowry made by accused, we find that such a version did not find support from the statement of the deceased Manpreet Kaur. There is also no reference in the report Ex.P17 submitted by PW9 Inspector Jaswinder Singh after compromising the issue between the parties that the dispute arose on account of any demand of dowry. It may be a case where there had been some demand of dowry earlier and the same was met by Darshan Singh. But in our view, the demand of dowry would not have been the proximate cause for the murder of Manpreet Kaur inasmuch as Manpreet Kaur had not whispered anything about the demand of dowry in her dying declaration.
24. The dying declaration Ex.P5 was recorded by Kuldip Singh, Judicial Magistrate. Ex.P5 would to go establish that accused Jaswinder Singh infact poured kerosene oil upon Manpreet Kaur and accused Jagroop Kaur on her part set her on fire. Learned Judicial Magistrate having verified the consciousness and fit state of mind of Manpreet Kaur through the Doctor on duty recorded the dying declaration.
25. It is true that Manpreet Kaur was admitted to hospital with the history of accidental fire under Ex.D1 which was allegedly recorded by SI Baldev Singh who was not examined before the trial Court. Manpreet Kaur had come out with a version at the initial stage that it was a case of accidental fire.
26. Firstly, we find that accused Jaswinder Singh was with her throughout the treatment she had taken. In the dying declaration Ex.P5 she Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -8- has categorically stated that some pressure was mounted by the accused to give the statement in their favour as otherwise the treatment itself would not be given to her. The fact remains that she had sustained only 50% of burn injuries. She having sustained burn injuries had walked into her matrimonial house and having put on the clothes had come out. She should have thought at the inception that she had sustained only superficial burns and that there was every chance for her to return to her matrimonial home for carrying on her matrimonial life. For all these reasons, it appears that she had come out with a twisted version that she sustained injuries in the accidental fire.
27. Of course, when two versions emanated from the deceased were available on record, the Court will have to very carefully analyze those versions to test the veracity of those versions. As the first version given by deceased Manpreet Kaur is found to be a twisted version for the reasons set out above, there is no reason to disbelieve the second version given by her.
28. We find that accused Jaswant Singh and Jagroop Kaur had a grouse as against Manrpeet Kaur. If at all it was an accidental fire Manpreet Kaur would not have come out with a false version before the learned Judicial Magistrate, more especially when her husband admitted her to hospital and met all the medical expenses. In our considered view, the second version of the deceased alone is true. Therefore, we do not entertain any doubt as to the role alleged by the deceased against accused Jaswinder Singh and Jagroop Kaur in the dying declaration Ex.P5 given by her before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The dying declaration Ex.P5 does not implicate accused Baljinder Singh. He had just come out from the house when the occurrence took place and separated deceased from accused Jagroop Kaur. Such an act of accused Baljinder Singh does not attract the Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -9- charge of murder.
29. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned Amicus Curiae appointed by us would submit that accused Jaswinder Singh had given the best of treatment to Manpreet Kaur in various hospitals. Had accused Jaswinder Singh intended to cause the death of Manpreet Kaur, he would not have been taken such efforts to save the life of Manpreet Kaur.
30. Per contra, learned Addl.A.G., Punjab appearing for the State would submit that accused Jaswinder Singh had admitted Manpreet Kaur to the hospital for treatment as Manpreet Kaur was fighting for life with burn injuries. Even otherwise, the act of the husband would not wash away his original intention to commit murder of his wife.
31. We find that a victim of burn injury very rarely dies at the spot. Even if a victim sustains 100% burn injury, she survives for few hours with full mental faculty. The moment the victim sustains fire injury, she attracts the crowd by her hue and cry. The family members have no other go except taking the victim, in order to avoid the wrath of the public, to the hospital for treatment. It may also be a case where the culprit having repented later for his action, started giving treatment to the victim. Just because accused Jaswinder Singh had taken efforts to give treatment to the victim, we cannot jump to a conclusion that he had not intended to cause the death of Manpreet Kaur.
32. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that accused Jagroop Kaur also sustained 10% burn injuries during the process of saving Manpreet Kaur. Had she not made an attempt to save Manpreet Kaur, accused Jagroop Kaur would not have sustained injuries, it is submitted. The victim in her dying declaration has categorically stated Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -10- that the moment she received burn injuries, she started hugging Jagroop Kaur and as a result of which she sustained burn injuries. There is always a tendency for the victim of fire to catch hold of a person who is standing nearby in order to escape from death. Therefore, we are of the view that the reason given by the victim in her dying declaration for the burn injuries found on the person of accused Jagroop Kaur is found to be sound. Further, we find that accused Jagroop Kaur being an old woman would not have attempted to save the life of Manpreet Kaur when her son was very much available in the house. She would have sought a male help to douse the fire. Therefore, the defence set up by accused Jagroop Kaur based on the first version of the deceased is found not acceptable.
33. It was further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that in the dying declaration the victim had stated that accused Jagroop Kaur lighted a matchstick and put it behind the victim. But the medical evidence would go to show that there was no injury on the back side of the body of Manpreet Kaur, it is submitted.
34. Firstly, we find that PW7 Dr.Sabjeev Hans who conducted post mortem examination has categorically noted down the injuries found on the front and back of the legs and thighs of the deceased. Therefore, it is not as if back side body of the deceased did not sustain any injury. Secondly, even if a lighted match is thrown on the backside of the body of the victim, the fire will run fast to the front portion of the body which had been doused in kerosene in no minute. Therefore, there may not be any deep burns on the back side of the body of the victim.
35. For all these reasons, we find that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced accused Jaswinder Singh and Jagroop Kaur. But Gulati Sumit 2013.08.22 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.613-DB of 2010 -11- we find that the charge of murder framed as against accused Baljinder Singh was not established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Therefore, Baljinder Singh is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Baljinder Singh is on bail. The bail bond executed by him shall stand discharged. As a result, the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as against accused Jaswinder Singh and Jagroop Kaur stand confirmed and the appeal qua those accused stands dismissed. The judgement of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court as against Baljinder Singh stands reversed and the appeal qua Baljinder Singh stands allowed. Accused Jagroop Kaur is on bail. Her bail bond stands cancelled. She shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this judgement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, who shall send her to jail to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. If she fails to surrender, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozeupur shall take coercive steps to secure her presence and send her to jail to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
(M.JEYAPAUL)
JUDGE
August 14, 2013 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
Gulati JUDGE
Gulati Sumit
2013.08.22 12:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh