Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swinder Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000
Date of decision : 19.03.2013
Swinder Kaur and another
.... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
***
Present : Ms.B.K.Maan, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
*** INDERJIT SINGH, J The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which appellants-accused Navtej Singh and Swinder Kaur have been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. However, Darshan Singh, Santokh Singh, Shiv Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Gurmej Kaur have been acquitted Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [2] whereas proceedings against accused Karam Singh, who had died during the pendency of trial, have been abated.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.02.1994 Dilbagh Singh got recorded his statement to Sub Inspector Sakattar Singh, SHO, Police Station Shri Hargobindpur in which he stated that his elder sister Sukhjinder Kaur aged about 30-32 years was married to Navtej Singh on 09.07.1992. His sister has one son aged about 10 months. After sometime of the marriage, Navtej Singh, husband, Karam Singh, father-in-law, Savinder Kaur, mother-in-law and Gurmej Kaur, grand mother-in-law of Sukhjinder Kaur started teasing her for bringing more dowry. They started demanding scooter and VCR. Upon this, about one year ago, complainant alongwith his father Charan Singh, Mediator Jarnail Singh and Member Panchayat Chuhar Singh went to the house of in-laws of his sister at Village Cheema Khudi. The complainant party tried to make understand the accused but they told them that if they want their girl to be settled happily then their demand of scooter and VCR was to be accepted. Complainant, his father and other respectable persons made them to understand that they had already given dowry upto their reach and now scooter etc. is out of their reach. After making them understand, complainant party came back. Even then they kept on continuously taunting and teasing Sukhjinder Kaur. Whenever, she came to her parental home, she told the complainant party about this. Complainant further stated that on 25.02.1994, at about 11:00 a.m., Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [3] one Puran Singh son of Ghamanda Singh came to their house and told that condition of Sukhjinder Kaur is not good and if they want to see her then go and see her. Upon this, complainant alongwith his brother Bakhtawar Singh, father Charan Singh, other members of the family and respectable persons of his village reached Village Cheema Khudi at about 1:00 p.m. where they came to know that Sukhjinder Kaur has died and her dead body has been taken to cremation ground by the family members of her in-laws for cremation. When the complainant party reached cremation ground, they saw that family members of her sister's in-laws had set fire to her pyre. The pyre was burning. Karam Singh, father-in-law and Santokh Singh, Shiv Singh and Harbhajan Singh, brothers-in-law of Sukhjinder Kaur were present there. Karam Singh told the complainant party that Sukhjinder Kaur had taken some poisonous substance. Complainant further stated in his statement that he has full doubt that his sister has been killed by her mother-in-law, father- in-law, grand mother-in-law and husband by giving poisonous substance or otherwise. After leaving his father Charan Singh and other members near the pyre, when complainant was going to police station to report the matter, police party met him on the way and his statement was recorded. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered on the same day i.e. 25.02.1994 at 2:00/2:50 p.m. Then Sub Inspector Skattar Singh alongwith police officials and complainant went to the place of occurrence. He called Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [4] the photographer. The fire of pyre of Sukhjinder Kaur was extinguished by putting water. Thereafter, ashes and bones were separately sealed. Bones were put in an iron box whereas the ashes was put in a cloth bag. Both the parcels were separately sealed and taken into police possession vide memos Ex.PC and Ex.PD. Three half burnt wood were also taken into police possession. Inquest report Ex.PK was prepared. Site plan Ex.PL was also prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 26.02.1994 except Navtej Singh, all the accused were arrested. Thereafter, accused Navtej Singh was also arrested. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 304-B read with Section 149, 306, and 201 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Constable Gulshan Kumar, who mainly deposed regarding delivery of special report to Ilaqa Magistrate on 25.02.1994 at 5:00 p.m. PW2 Dilbagh Singh, complainant, brother of deceased Sukhjinder Kaur, mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW3 Bakhtawar Singh, who is another brother of Sukhjinder Kaur (deceased), also deposed as per prosecution version. PW4 Amarjit Singh, Photographer, Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [5] mainly deposed regarding clicking of photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and regarding negatives Ex.P5 to Ex.P8. PW5 Sub Inspector Piara Singh mainly deposed regarding taking into police possession photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, negatives Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 and photocopies of letters, which were handed over by Charan Singh, father of deceased Sukhjinder Kaur, to him. PW6 Gurjit Singh, Patwari, mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PH. PW7 Head Constable Tarsem Singh is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PJ. PW8 Sub Inspector Skattar Singh, who is the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding conducting the investigation of this case. PW9 Dr.R.K.Goria mainly deposed that on 30.03.1994, he alongwith Dr.Gurmanjit Rai conducted the examination of one bag and one tin in case FIR No.29 dated 25.02.1994. As per their opinion, no opinion can be given regarding cause of death and whether these bones were of human being or not. PW10 Head Constable Sukhwinder Singh mainly deposed regarding taking over two parcels containing ashes and bones for depositing in Medical College, Amritsar. Public Prosecution tendered into evidence reports Ex.PO and Ex.PQ of Chemical examiner and Forensic Science Laboratory respectively.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Accused Navtej Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [6] Singh also pleaded that only after 15 days of his marriage, Sukhjinder Kaur was suffering from fits. Then he applied for Government quarter on 03.08.1992 and quarter was allotted on 04.08.1992 and he took her at Jalandhar and got her treated from Jalandhar hospital and other doctors. Prior to her death, she came to meet her parents alongwith his grand-mother Gurmej Kaur, who was also staying at Jalandhar since last ten years. Sukhjinder Kaur had high temperature and died in the presence of her mother and father and her dead body was also cremated by themselves with PWs Dilbagh Singh and Bakhtawar Singh. Lateron, Dilbagh Singh filed a false case against him and his relatives. Accused Swinder Kaur took the same plea as taken by accused Navtej Singh.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Puran Singh son of Ghamanda Singh, who deposed that Karam Singh has two sons. One of his son Navtej Singh married in Village Bhumbli and his wife had died about six years back. She had a temperature about 5-6 days prior to her death. He (DW1) also deposed that he was sent to the house of her parents to inform them. Her parents came. All the members of her family including her parents were present when she died. Her parents and so many other persons of his (DW1) village were present at the time of her cremation which took place at 11:00 a.m. Accused were arrested in the evening on the same day. DW2 Dr.Manjit Singh Saini, Psychiatrist, mainly deposed that on 18.05.1993, he was posted as psychiatrist in Civil Hospital, Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [7] Jalandhar. On that day, he attended patient Sukhjinder Kaur wife of Navtej Singh. He issued certificate Mark D-1 and prescription slip Mark D-2. As per record, patient Sukhjinder Kaur remained under OPD treatment from 18.05.1993 till 04.11.1993. DW3 ASI Surinderpal Singh mainly deposed that in the year 1992, he was posted in the office of D.I.G., Jalandhar Range at Jalandhar. He also deposed that he knows accused Navtej Singh, who was his subordinate. He (DW3) was putting up official accommodation in quarter No.9. Accused Navtej Singh used to reside in quarter No.6 alongwith his wife. This witness also deposed that he knows Hans Raj, O.H.C. He is conversant with the handwriting of Hans Raj. Wife of Navtej Singh accused stayed in quarter No.6 for 5-7 months. She has died. DW4 Ram Dass Singh, DSP (retired) deposed that on 25.02.1994, ASI Surinderpal Singh informed him that wife of Navtej Singh had expired. On that day, Navtej Singh was present in his office. After 2-3 months of her death, police from Police Station Sirihargobindpur came to their office and recorded their statements. Accused Navtej Singh moved an application for obtaining certificate regarding his leave taken from August 1993 to 10.03.1994. He also deposed that he had issued certificate Mark-D3 to that effect. DW5 Head Constable Balbir Singh brought the summoned record regarding leave account of Navtej Singh. As per record, Navtej Singh did not take any casual leave in the year 1994. He (DW5) also brought the record regarding long leave from 1990 to 1995. Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [8] During this period, accused Navtej Singh did not avail long leave. He (DW5) proved photocopies of casual leave account Ex.DA and long leave account Ex.DB.
The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced appellants-accused and acquitted Gurmej Kaur, Darshan Singh, Santokh Singh, Shiv Singh and Harbhajan Singh whereas proceedings against accused Karam Singh were abated as he had died during the pendency of trial, as stated above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that death of Sukhjinder Kaur was natural. At the time of her death, her parents were present. She was cremated in the presence of her parents and brothers. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that there is nothing on the record to prove unnatural death of Sukhjinder Kaur, conviction of accused under Section 304-B IPC or to take benefit of presumption under Section 113-B of the evidence Act. Unnatural death has to be proved. She further contended that prosecution is to prove demand of dowry and harassment immediate before the occurrence on the ground of demand of dowry. She further contended that no Panchayat member has been produced to prove the prosecution version regarding convening of Panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that there is no specific allegation and only general allegations are against mother-in-law of deceased Sukhjinder Kaur regarding demand of dowry. Learned counsel for Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [9] the appellants also contended that defence version, as given by DW1 Puran Singh is more probable. Therefore, she contended that appeal should be allowed and appellants should be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab contended that case of the prosecution is duly proved. Death of Sukhjinder Kaur took place in the house of accused on the intervening night of 24/25.02.1994. There is no evidence on record produced by the accused to show that Sukhjinder Kaur was suffering from fever or her death was natural. These are the special facts within the knowledge of the accused but no cogent evidence has been produced to prove the same. Secondly, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab contended that there is no evidence that parents of deceased Sukhjinder Kaur were present at night time in the house of accused and she died in their presence. Similarly, there was no evidence that when dead body of Sukhjinder Kaur was taken to cremation ground, her parents were present there. He further contended that demand of dowry and harassment to Sukhjinder Singh are duly proved by PWs. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab further contended that DW1 Puran Singh was the prosecution witness. He was given up being won over by the accused. He has not made any complaint etc. to the higher authorities regarding false implication of the appellants. He contended that there is no evidence except statements of Puran Singh (DW1) that parents of deceased Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [10] Sukhjinder Kaur were present at the time of her death. Therefore, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab contended that there is no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance, I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the evidence on record, I find no merits in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants. Marriage of Sukhjinder Kaur was solemnized with Navtej Singh on 09.07.1992 and she died during the intervening night of 24/25.02.1994 i.e. after about 1/½ years of the marriage. She was having ten months old child at that time. The death of Sukhjinder Kaur had taken place in the house of accused and these facts are especially within the knowledge of accused and they are to explain the same. Secondly, PW2 Dilbagh Singh and PW3 Bakhtawar Singh have deposed regarding demand of dowry and harassment and maltreatment given to Sukhjinder Kaur by the appellants-accused. There are specific demands of VCR and scooter. PWs have also deposed regarding convening of Panchayat etc. Even if no Member of Panchayat has been examined even then both the PWs have consistently deposed regarding convening of Panchayat also. I have perused cross- examination of all these PWs. There are neither any contradictions nor material improvements in their statements which may go to the root of the case. Perusal of the cross-examination of these PWs Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [11] shows nothing which may make their statements unreliable. The version given by accused that Sukhjinder Kaur (deceased) was suffering from high temperature and they sent the message to her parents regarding her illness cannot be believed. She was not taken to any hospital. Neither she was admitted in the hospital nor there is any documentary proof regarding taking medicines or purchasing medicines etc. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that Sukhjinder Kaur (deceased) was suffering from temperature. If she was too serious then the message was to be given to her parents to come and to see her. The natural course for the appellants-accused was to get her admitted in the hospital or to get her medically treated from some doctor. This conduct leads to inference that Sukhjinder Kaur (deceased) was not suffering from temperature nor she was seriously ill before her death. Statement of DW1 Puran Singh that parents of Sukhjinder Kaur (deceased) were present in the house of appellants-accused at night time when she died cannot be believed. As already discussed, if Sukhjinder Kaur (deceased) was too serious and her parents would have come on the call of accused then she might had been taken to hospital. The other circumstance which shows that the death was unnatural is that the dead body of Sukhjinder Kaur was taken to cremation ground and the pyre was lit before the arrival of her parents, brothers and other persons from her parental village. This conduct to cremate the dead body of Sukhjinder Kaur in hurriedly manner without waiting for her Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [12] parents and brothers to reach her matrimonial village shows that her death was not natural. Otherwise, the accused might have waited for her parents and relatives. Even for the argument sake, if it is taken that parents of Sukhjinder Kaur were present in the house even then they have to wait for her brothers to attend the cremation. As per statements of PW2 Dilbagh Singh and PW3 Bakhtawar Singh, they alongwith their parents, relatives and persons of their village reached village of accused at about 1:00 p.m. and they were informed that Sukhinder Kaur had died and she had been taken to cremation ground. It is in the evidence that when they went to cremation ground, most of the body of Sukhjinder Kaur had already burnt, therefore, they did not extinguish the fire. As per defence version as well as prosecution version, cremation took place at about 1:00 p.m. and the FIR was got registered immediately at about 2:00/2:50 p.m. and the special report was received by the Judicial Magistrate at 5:00 p.m. There was no unnecessary delay in reporting the matter to the police. The police reached at the spot and extinguished the fire by putting water and then ashes and bones were taken into police possession. If everything was natural and the parents and brothers of deceased Sukhjinder Kaur were present at the house of accused before taking her dead body to cremation ground then the question of reporting the matter to the police in such a short time does not arise. The FIR in the present case is prompt one. PWs have consistently deposed regarding demand of dowry. They have also deposed Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [13] regarding harassment given to Sukhjinder Kaur. PW2 Dilbagh Singh has stated that on 25.02.1994 at about 11:00 a.m., one person namely Puran Singh came to his house and told that Sukhjinder Kaur was in serious condition. DW1 Puran Singh has also deposed that he was sent to the parents house of the deceased Sukhjinder Kaur to inform them. Version of this witness that her parents came and all the family members were present when she died cannot be believed. In cross-examination, he stated that accused are from his brotherhood. He also stated in cross-examination that he visited the house of accused 5 or 6 days prior to the death of Sukhjinder Kaur. She was having fever. He also stated that she was taken to the doctor. But, as already discussed, there is no documentary evidence that she was taken to doctor. Again the conduct of Navtej Singh running away from the spot is another circumstance to show the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime. The defence version that she was suffering from disease and was treated from psychiatrist etc. is not proved from the evidence on record. The documents i.e. certificate and prescription slip are simply marked and are not proved as per law. The defence evidence that Navtej Singh never took casual leave in the year 1994 nor took long leave from 1990 to 1995 also cannot be believed. It is nowhere the case of the accused that he did not attend the cremation of his wife Sukhjinder Kaur. The accused was arrested in June 1994. There is nothing on the record to show whether on these dates he was on leave or he Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [14] was absent from duty. One thing is clear that he was not present on duty on these days. Therefore, in the absence of attendance record, it cannot be held that accused Navtej Singh was present on duty on that day nor there is any other evidence to show this. Further, as per Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.PQ, no opinion was given regarding parcels sent there. However, as per Chemical examiner report, no poison was detected. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited judgment delivered in case Gurdeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 300 (Supreme Court). I have gone through the said judgment. The facts in the present case are distinguishable from the facts of aforesaid case as in that judgment there was specific case that a young women died due to poison but in the present case, it is not the specific case of the prosecution that she died due to poisonous substance. Rather in the FIR, it is stated that she died due to poison or otherwise. From the evidence on record, I find that death of Sukhjinder Kaur was unnatural. There was demand of dowry. There was also harassment given to her before the occurrence as PW2 Dilbagh Singh has stated that Sukhjinder Kaur came to their house about 6-7 days earlier to the occurrence. Suggestion that she had come alongwith Swinder Kaur accused has been denied. There is evidence that even after convening the Panchayat, the accused were maltreating Sukhjinder Kaur and she was informing her parental family whenever she used to come to them. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Criminal Appeal No.S-650-SB of 2000 [15] Evidence Act applies in the present case and accused have to prove that how Sukhjinder Kaur died but there is no cogent evidence on record from the appellants' side to prove her death in their house which was within seven years of marriage and it was a dowry death. Therefore, from the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has duly proved its case against appellants by leading cogent evidence. As such, conviction and sentence passed against appellants are upheld.
Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE 19.03.2013 mamta