Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 Date of decision : 19.8.2008 Ajit Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Jaspreet Singh Sekhon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. S. D. ANAND, J. Appellants Ajit Singh, Chint Kaur and Sham Singh were convicted by the learned Trial Court for offences under Sections 304-B/34 and 498-A/34 IPC. For the former offence, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of the payment of fine, the appellants were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. For the latter offence, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The (substantive) sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -2- **** They are in appeal. The prosecution allegations, at the trial, were as under:- Swaran Kaur, a fatherless sister of PW-4 Swaranjit Singh and PW-6 Ranjit Singh, was initially married to one Ganda Singh of village Jagera. However, she separated from her husband on the basis of a panchayati compromise which was documented. It was thereafter that she married appellant Ajit Singh by means of 'Anand Karj' ceremony about three years prior to the impugned occurrence. Appellant Chint Kaur and Sham Singh are mother and uncle respectively of appellant Ajit Singh. The appellants were not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by her and they used to harass and belabour her on that account. She would bring the conduct of the appellants to the notice of her brothers and mother whenever she would visit her natal house. PW-4 Swaranjit Singh brought facts to the notice of Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch, Gurdas Singh, Panch and few others who visited the appellants and their request to the appellants to refrain from raising any dowry demand was conceded by them. However, the appellants did not mend their ways and continued to harass her. Few days before the impugned episode, Swaran Kaur visited her natal house and demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- which appellants required for the construction of a house. Swaranjit Singh PW-4 advised her to go back to her matrimonial house as he was not in a position to provide that amount on account of financial incapacity. On 13.11.1995, Gurmeet Singh, a maternal cousin of Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -3- **** PW-4 Swaranjit Singh and PW-6 Ranjit Singh informed them that Swaran Kaur had been set ablaze and was hospitalised at Civil Hospital, Malerkotlas. PW-4 Swaranjit Singh and PW-6 Ranjit Singh accompanied by few others reached at Civil Hospital, Malerkotla. They were informed that Swaran Kaur had been referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. When they reached there, they found that she had died. PW-1 Dr. S.S. Oberoy, Senior Lecturer, Department of Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Patiala who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Swaran Kaur on 14.11.1995 found as under:- “The whole of the body except soles of both feet and perineum was showing epidermal to dero\mo epidermal burns”. He further opined that “the cause of death was shock due to burns which were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in routine course of nature.” PW-2 Inspector Ajaib Singh (then posted as Station House Officer at Police Station, Ahmadgarh) arrested Ajit Singh and Chinto who were produced before him by Major Singh, Sarpanch on 15.11.1995. Major Singh, Sarpanch produced appellant Sham Singh before PW-2 Inspector Ajaib Singh on 17.11.1995. PW-3 Gurnam Singh, a Draftsman, had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PD by visiting the spot. PW-4 Swaranjit Singh and PW-6 Ranjit Singh are real Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -4- **** brothers of the deceased lady. PW-5 Gurdas Singh is Member Panchayat, who accompanied one Mukhtiar Singh and few others when they went over the house of the appellants. PW-7 Hira Singh attested memo Ex. PF vide which one cot, one bed sheet and one stove Ex. P1 were taken into possession by the police. PW-8 ASI Teja Singh (then posted at Police Station, Ahmedgarh) had investigated this case. PW-9 Constable Baljit Kaur attested the personal search memo Ex. PK which documented the conducting of personal search of appellant Chinto who had been produced before Inspector Ajaib Singh by Major Singh. Appellants denied the prosecution allegations and alleged that Swaran Kaur accidently caught fire. DW-1 Dr. Sital Jain, S.M.O., Civil Hospital, Malerkotla was examined in defence. He testified that appellants Ajit Singh and Chint Kaur accompanied Swaran Kaur to the hospital on 12.11.1995 at about 8.00 P.M. Swaran Kaur was admitted to the hospital initially and thereafter referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala where she was taken by appellant Ajit Singh and one Nachhtar Singh. Learned Trial Judge indicted all the three appellants by holding them accountable for the death of Swaran Kaur and also recorded a finding that she had been subjected to dowry-related Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -5- **** torture. I have heard Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Jaspreet Singh Sekhon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. As per testimony of ASI Teja Singh PW-8 “there is only one room in the house”. The prosecution presentation is to the effect that appellant Ajit Singh and his deceased wife Swaran kaur were sharing one room accommodation with former's mother appellant Chint Kaur and uncle appellant Sham Singh. The proposition evident from the above quoted statement of Investigating Officer defies logical comprehension. There is no evidence that the husband of appellant Chint Kaur is dead. There is nothing on record to explain the marital status of appellant Sham Singh. There is no precise allegation against appellants Chint Kaur and Sham Singh that they had raised, specific dowry demand. It cannot, thus, be said that appellants Chint Kaur and Sham Singh would have been, in any case, beneficiaries even if the alleged dowry demand had been met. In view, thus, of the fact that there are no specific allegations against them in the FIR, and also at the trial, and there also is no reliable evidence to prove that they were joint in mess and residence with appellant Ajit Singh, they get the benefit of doubt. Appellant Ajit Singh, is none else or other than the husband of his deceased wife Swaran Kaur. Though appellant Ajit Singh raised a plea that deceased Swaran Kaur accidentally caught Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -6- **** fire, he did not at all try to elaborate the plea. As he and his deceased wife Swaran Kaur were sharing one room accommodation, it was for him to indicate to the Court the circumstances under which Swaran Kaur caught fire. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as Amicus Curiae, has a grievance that testimony of PW-4 Swaranjit Singh(real brother of the deceased lady), in the context of the allegations pertaining to dowry-related torture, ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court as that witness was not in a position to give the particulars of the date and time at which the deceased lady had been subjected to dowry-related torture. The plea advocated is completely unmindful of the prevalent societal scenario and the handicap which prosecution suffers in a case of this category. The natal family of the deceased lady is normally not in a position to get any supportive nod from those living around the matrimonial house. Whether it is the fear of annoying a life long neighbourer or an impending reprisal, the fact remains that those living in the neighbourhood of the matrimonial house of the deceased lady do not generally come forward to the aid of the prosecution presentation in the relevant behalf. The deceased must have been an illiterate or semi-literal lady. This fact I cull out from the statement made by PW-4 Swaranjit Singh to the effect that he is a Mason by profession. His father is not living. Appellant Ajit Singh is a Motor Mechanic by profession. In such a contingency, the deceased lady could not have documented her tale of woe and Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -7- **** the only option with her was to share the torture she was undergoing whenever she would visit her natal house. Thisis the precise allegation in this case. It is with a view to advance the interest of such like hapless female that the law makers though it appropriate to bring on the statute book presumptive provision like Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act which enables the Court to draw an inference in the context if certain essentials are otherwise available. In the present case, the deposition of PW-4 Swaranjit Singh, with regard to dowry related torture, is cemented by PW-5 Gurdas Singh, Member Panchayat who owned up prosecution plea that Panchayat had visited the house of appellant to request him to refrain from torturing the deceased lady on account of her inability to meet the dowry demand. Learned counsel for the appellants argue that testimony of PW-5 Gurdas Singh does not deserve to be relied upon inasmuch as he had conceded that he did not attend the marriage of the deceased lady with appellant Ajit Singh, that he cannot indicate exact date, month or year the panchayat visited the appellant and that he also cannot indicate the time at which they had gone to the appellant. The plea raised is devoid of merit. There mere fact that PW-5 Gurdas Singh could not attend the marriage of the deceased lady with appellant Ajit Singh does not disentitle him from having accompanied panchayat to the appellant. In the context, it would require particular notice that it was Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -8- **** second marriage for deceased lady as her first marriage had gone sour. She separated from her first husband in terms of a documented panchayati compromise and that there was no legal divorce otherwise dissolving that marriage. It cannot, thus, be expected that parental family of deceased lady would have solemnised the marriage of deceased lady with the appellant with pomp and show. The dissolution, through Court or otherwise, of a marriage is not viewed in the society with favour, Whosoever is placed in those circumstances would like to enter into second alliance without any pomp and show and that is what the complainant side appears to have done in the present case. Likewise, there is nothing significant in the inability on the part of PW-5 Gurdas Singh being able to indicate the particulars about the date and timing etc. of the visit by the Panchayat. When a witness is examined after long duration, he is not expected to remember all details. Even otherwise, this witness had clarified that he was not in a position to indicate the particulars about the location of house of the appellant as he visited that house only once. There is yet another circumstance which outweighs minor discrepancies in the prosecution presentation. The appellant did not intimate the death of deceased lady to her natal family. This single circumstance, by itself is supportive of the view advocated on behalf the prosecution that the appellant wanted to ensure that members of natal family of his deceased wife did not turn up at cremation. That would indicate us uneasy relationship between the appellant and his Criminal Appeal No.71-SB of 1998 -9- **** in-laws. Learned Amicus Curiae and also learned counsel for the appellant argue that the prosecution plea deserves to be discarded because PW-4 Swaranjit Singh had conceded that the complainant party felt aggrieved because the accused party did not inform them regarding the impugned occurrence. Learned counsel appear to be reading into the above quoted statement what is actually not available in it. That witness, who is real brother of deceased lady, no where conceded that the appellant had been complained against because of grievance that they were not informed of the death of the deceased lady. All that he conceded was that they have a grievance in that behalf. It is one thing to have a grievance about a particular refrain on the part of the affected person and quite another thing to aver that the party having a grievance has decided to falsely prosecute the other party. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution had been able to prove the charge against appellant Ajit Singh beyond shadow of doubt. The appeal filed by Ajit Singh shall stand dismissed. However, the appeal filed by Chint Kaur and Sham Singh shall stand allowed. They shall stand acquitted of the charge. August 19, 2008 (S.D.ANAND) Pka JUDGE