Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Crl. Appeal No.1101-SB of 2000 Date of Decision:25.11.2010 -.- Simarjit Singh ...Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MJEYAPAUL Present: Mr.T.S.Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.T.S.Salana, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State M.Jeyapaul, J. (Oral) The first accused Simarjit Singh, who is none other than the husband of deceased Paramjit Kaur, was convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with usual default sentence. The first accused has, thus, preferred the present appeal. 2. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution spoken to by the witness examined on its side is as follows:- a) PW 1 Rajinder Singh, is the brother and PW 2 Sampuran Singh, is the cousin brother of deceased Paramjit Kaur. The marriage between Simarjit Singh and Paramjit Kaur took place about 1½ years Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -2- prior to the occurrence. Having spent huge amount for the celebration of the marriage, Paramjit Kaur was given in marriage to Simarjit Singh. Accused Simarjit Singh sold the car, given in marriage, after about six months of the marriage. Having spent the cash amount given at the time of marriage, he compelled Paramjit Kaur to sell the gold ornaments, but Paramjit Kaur refused to accede to the request of the accused. On such refusal, accused Simarjit Singh and his parents started harassing Paramjit Kaur. They demanded a new car from the parents of Paramjit Kaur. They demanded a new car from the parents of Paramjit Kaur. She disclosed to PW 1 and PW 2 about the demand made by the accused and the harassment meted out to her for not fulfilling the demand of new car. b) About 20 days prior to the occurrence, PW 1 went to the house of Simarjit Singh along with his uncle and the Sarpanch. They advised the accused not to ill-treat Paramjit Kaur demanding dowry. About a week prior to the occurrence, the accused came along with Paramjit Kaur and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to pay the installment of the truck he had purchased. The father of Paramjit kaur mobilized a sum of Rs.7000/- from a Commission. Agent at Abohar and paid the same to the accused. A day prior to the occurrence PW 1 and PW 2 received a telephonic message from Paramjit Kaur that the accused was harassing her demanding more money from her. The next day morning PW 1 and PW 2 proceeded to the house of Simarjit Singh at Kala Tibba. They found Paramjit Kaur was vomiting in the outer room of the house. Paramjit Kaur informed them that due to the harassment of her husband and her in-laws, she had consumed a sulphas insecticide. Thereafter she became unconscious. c) PW 1 and PW 2 took Paramjit Kaur in an unconscious state Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -3- to the clinic of Dr. Mann, who was examined as DW 1. DW 1 had declared that Paramjit Kaur was brought dead. d) PW 1 proceeded to the police station at Abohar and lodged the report Ex.P1 to PW 5 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case and took up the matter for investigation. e) PW 7 Dr. Sandeep Kumar conducted Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur on 02.10.1998. He found the blood was present in both the nostrils. He preserved the viscera for chemical examination. After the report was received from the Chemical Examiner, he opined that Paramjit Kaur had died due to Aluminium Phosphide poisoning. f) The accused was arrested. PW 6 having completed investigation, filed report against the accused under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 3. On the side of the defence, three witnesses were examined. DW 1 Dr. Harmeet Singh Mann has spoken to the fact that the victim was brought dead. DW 2 is a Notary Public who has deposed that Balbir Singh, father of decease Paramjit Kaur, swore to an affidavit before him. DW 3 is the Manager of a Gas Agency. He has spoken to the fact that a gas connection was given in the name of the accused Simarjit Singh to the address at Abohar. 4. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, who are the brother and cousin brother of the deceased, in the background of the medical evidence and the Chemical Examiner's report returned a finding that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -4- doubt that the first accused Simarjit Singh, who is the husband of Paramjit Kaur, committed dowry death and thereupon the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the first accused-appellant would submit that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that a Zen Car was given to the appellant by his father-in-law at the time of marriage. The factum of mobilising Rs.7000/- from a Commission Agent for the purpose of giving the same to the accused to meet part of the demand was also not established . It is his further submission that the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution that the occurrence took place at Kala Tibba. It is held that the occurrence in fact took place at Abohar. The trial Court was also pleased to disbelieve the oral dying declaration given by the deceased to PW 1 and PW 2. It is also observed that it was only the husband who took the injured-wife to the clinic of DW 1 for treatment. As there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage or before the marriage, there would not have been any occasion for the accused to demand dowry at a later point of time. It is his further submission that PW1 has admitted that both the families were well to do families. Even one of the Panchayatars, who allegedly counselled the appellant, was not examined by the prosecution. It is his further submission that if at all there had been a demand, the demand had been made only by the deceased as well as her husband inasmuch as both of them had come to the house of the father of the deceased. It is his last submission that if at all the Court finds that there was only harassment at the hands of the husband, which has no connection with the demand of dowry ,as per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -5- appellant will have to be convicted only for the offence under Section 498- A of Indian Penal Code and not under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 6. The Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State, referring to the evidence of PW1 and PW 2 would submit that the harassment given by the accused to the deceased was established by the prosecution by examining PW1 and PW 2. He would further submit that there is enough material to show that the harassment at the hands of the accused demanding dowry continued till her death and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code 7. PW1 and PW 2 are the star witnesses in this case. Of course, PW1 and PW 2 are closely related to the deceased Paramjit Kaur. No one else except the close relatives of the deceased, would been confided by the deceased as to the ill treatment and the demand of dowry. No wonder they have come to the Court to speak about the consistent demand made by the accused-appellant and the harassment given by the appellant. 8. PW1 has categorically spoken to the fact that about six months after the marriage, there was harassment at the hands of the appellant, demanding a new car in place of the old car which he had sold away 20 days prior to the occurrence PW1 had gone along with other Panchayatars with a view to appease the appellant as there was a demand of dowry. PW 1 would state that he along with other Panchayatars had to advise the appellant not to advise the appellant not to harass and demand dowry, as handsome dowry had already been given to the accused at the time of marriage. About a week prior to the occurrence, the appellant as well as the deceased Paramjit Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -6- Kaur had paid a visit to the house of PW 1. It is the specific version of PW 1 that it was only the appellant who demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of payment of installment due to the purchase of the truck. The unfortunate father of the victim lady had to moblise a sum of Rs.7,000/- to accede to the demand of dowry made by the accused. It is his further deposition that one day prior to the occurrence, PW 1 and PW 2 received a telephonic message from Paramjit Kaur who complained that the appellant herein was harassing her demanding more money. PW 1 and PW 2 had to proceed to the house of Simarjit Singh, where they found to their surprise that Paramjit Kaur was vomiting in the outer room of the house of appellant. On enquiry, she informed PW 1 and PW 2 that on account of the harassment she having desired to end her life, consumed some insecticide. It is his evidence that he along with PW 2 had to take Paramjit Kaur to DW 1 for treatment, but in the meantime, she had passed away. 9. PW 2, who is none else other than the cousin brother of the deceased, has deposed corroborating the evidence of PW 1. Of course, there is some variation with respect to the period during which the demand was made by the accused for purchasing a car. As to the period during which some amount was demanded for payment towards the installment due to the purchase of truck, PW 1 would state that about a week prior to the occurrence such a demand emanated from the appellant, but PW 2 would state that about six months prior to the occurrence such a demand emanated from the first accused-appellant. In other respects, the evidence of PW 2 lends corroboration to the evidence of PW 1. 10. The trial Court having held that the accused and Paramjit Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -7- Kaur had set up a separate establishment, chose to acquit the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Paramjit Kaur of the charge under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 11. The prosecution is bound to establish to rope in the first accused for offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, that there was a demand of dowry in connection with the marriage; the victim was also subjected to cruelty and harassment when such demand was made by the accused; such harassment or cruelty has been committed soon before the date of the victim. If the prosecution could establish those aspects beyond reasonable doubt, then the accused cannot escape conviction under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 12. The evidence of PW 1, which has received material corroboration from the evidence of PW 2, would demonstrate that the demand of dowry continued within a short time of the marriage. Of course, as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the first accused-appellant, the prosecution could not establish by producing necessary materials that a Zen car was purchased by the father-in-law of Simarjit Singh and was handed over to Simarjit Singh as a dowry at the time of marriage. But the material point to be decided is as to whether there was any demand of dowry subjecting the victim to cruelty soon before her death as alleged by the prosecution. Simply because the prosecution failed to establish that dowry was given at the time of marriage, the whole case of the prosecution cannot be thrown over board. The prosecution has come out with cogent evidence to establish that there was a consistent demand of dowry ever since the time of marriage. The unfortunate Paramjit Kaur had complained to PW 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -8- PW 2 that there was a pressing demand of dowry from the accused. About 20 days prior to the occurrence, the unfortunate father had to mobilise Rs.7,000/- to meet out the installment due for purchasing a truck. 13.There is material evidence to show that a day prior to the occurrence, PW 1 and PW 2 had received telephonic message that Paramjit kaur was beaten up as she had not brought more dowry. 14. The trial Court chose to disbelieve the dying declaration given by the deceased to PW 1 and PW 2 on the ground that DW 1 has come out with the version that it was only the first accused who brought Paramjit kaur for treatment. The second reason assigned by the trial Court is that there is a delay in lodging the first information report. Had PW 1 and PW 2 descended on the scene of occurrence,they would have promptly lodged the first information report with the police,it is observed by the trial Court. 15. I fail to understand the reasoning given by the trial Court for rejecting the version of PW 1 and PW 2 as regards the oral dying declaration given by the deceased to PW 1 and PW 2. Much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of DW 1 as to his version that it was only the first accused who brought Paramjit kaur for treatment, more especially when no record maintained by him was produced in the Court to show that it was only the first accused who brought Paramjit kaur for treatment. Furthera calamity had taken place in the house of PW 1. The normal life would have been thrown out of gear on account of such unfortunate occurrence. 16. Paramjit kaur had died at 11.00 A.M on 01.10.1998 and the Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -9- first information report was lodged at 8.00 P.M on 01.10.1998 itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the above, I do not concur with the finding recorded by the trial Court that PW 1 and PW 2 were not present on the day when the occurrence took place. The victim had to unfold her heart to PW 1 and PW 2 just before her death the reason behind ending her life by taking poison. 17. Just because both the families were well-to-do families,it cannot be construed that one would not have demanded dowry from the other family. True it is that both the accused and the deceased were present at the time when a demand was made for payment towards the installment due to the purchase of truck. The deceased was consistently complaining that she had been subjected to cruelty demanding more money. Even if both had been actuated by the harassment of the accused-appellant. The non- examination of Panchayators does not have an adverse impact on the case of the prosecution. 18. The medical evidence would go to establish that Paramjit kaur had consumed poison and ended her life. Her death had taken place within seven years from the data of marriage. The prosecution has established that Paramjit Kaur was subjected to cruelty by the accused by making a demand of dowry soon before her death. 19. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendran and another Versus State Asstt. Commissioner of police Law & Order, 2009(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 213, would apply only in a case where demand of dowry Criminal Appeal No. 1101-SB of 2000 -10- coupled with cruelty was not establish. In a case where cruelty alone is established and demand of dowry was not established, of course, an accused could be convicted for the lesser offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid decision would not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as there is evidence to establish that there had been a demand of dowry coupled with cruelty soon before the death of the victim. 20. The trial Court has rightly convicted the first accused-appellant under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated supra. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference with the judgment of the trial Court with respect to the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed on the first accused-appellant. 21. In the result confirming the judgment of the Trial Court, the appeal stands dismissed. (M.Jeyapaul) (Judge) November 25, 2010 Saini