CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1108-SB of 2002 Date of Decision: July 19, 2010 Harchet Singh and another .......Appellants Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate/Amicus Curiae, for the appellants. Mr. J S Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Harchet Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur, challenging the judgment and order dated 5.6.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa (hereinafter as 'trial Court'), convicting the accused (herein appellants) for committing offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. 2. The prosecution story, as recorded in paras 1 to 4 of the impugned judgment, is reproduced as under:- “1. The facts, in brief, of the prosecution case are that on 2nd July, 1999, Bhola Singh son of Dhana Singh, Jat resident of Village Mahinangal made statement Ex.PF before CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -2- Balwinder Singh, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station Jhunir, stating that he is residing in village Mahinangal. His two sisters, namely Surjit Kaur and Sukhpal Kaur, since deceased, were married to both the real brother by the names of Gurcharan Singh and Harchet Singh sons of Jaswant Singh of Village Sahniwali about 15/16 years ago. His eldest sister's husband, Ghrcharan Singh breathed his last about three years back. Sukhpal Kaur, his sister could not conceive a child for a sufficient long time after her marriage. Harchet Singh (accused) his brother-in-law and Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh (Accused), the mother-in-law of Sukhpal Kaur, used to taunt Sukhpal Kaur that she is an ominous lady bearing no child. They (Bhola Singh and others) made Harchet Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur, accused to understand the things by pleading that a child is to be blessed by the God and it is beyond control of a human being. About three years ago, Sukhpal Kuar gave birth to a female child, who dies. Thereafter, Harchet Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur again started creating uneasyness for Sukhpal Kaur, who about one month prior to her death, when to their village being fed up with harchet Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur and she started residing at Village Mahinangal. About ten days later, he (Bhola Singh) accompanied by Baldev Singh son of Isher Singh, Babu Singh Namberdar son of Piara Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Ex- Panch son of Amar Singh residents of Mahinangal, left Sukhpal, Kaur, in the house of Harchet Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur, after making them to understand the things. Yesterday (referring to 1st CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -3- July, 1999), he (Bhola Singh), Baldev Singh and Babu Singh, Namberdar visited Sukhpal Kaur to enquire about her. Sukhpal Kaur told them that Harchet Singh, her husband and Mukhtiar Kaur, her mother-in-law have again started harassing her and were asking her to put an end to her life or she should leave them, as she was not giving birth to a child and that if she die, then they will be in a position to contract remarriage. Sukhpal Kaur further told them that better to die than to live a miserable life and that they after making them to understand the things again went back to village to Village Mahinangal. Today (referring to 2nd July, 1999), Surjit Kaur, his sister, came to them at Village Mahinangal around 4.00 PM and told them that today in the morning, she visited the house of Sukhpal Kaur to enquire about her well being and at that time, Harchet Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur were quarreling with Sukhpal Kaur and that she had also made them to understand the things and thereafter had returned her home and again she went to the house of Sukhpal Kaur for the same purpose and found Sukhpal Kaur lying dead on a cot in the room containing wheat chaff, when Harchet Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur were not present in the house. He (Bhola Singh) Baldev Singh, Babu Singh, Nambardar, Nachhattar Singh, Ex. Panch accompanied Surjit Kaur to Village Sahniawali and on reaching there found Sukhpal Kaur lying dead. Sukhpal Kaur, his sister has died by consuming some poisonous substance being fed up with the maltreatment by Harchet Singh, her husband and Mukhtiar Kaur, her mother-in-law. He after leaving Babu Singh, CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -4- Namberdar, Nachhattar Singh, Ex. Panch and Surjit Kaur, his sister near the dead body, was going to inform about this occurrence, when Balwinder Singh, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer met him. 2. The aforesaid Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer made his endorsement Ex.PE/1 thereunder and sent the statement to the police station, where on its basis formal first information report Ex.PE/2 came into being. Thereafter, he accompanied by Bhola Singh went to the spot, prepared the inquest report Ex.PB, request Ex.PC for post mortem examination and handed over the dead body to Gurtej Singh, Asstt. Sub-Inspector and Harbans singh, Head Constable for post mortem examination, prepared rought site plan Ex.DH, showing the place of occurrence, lifted some earth, which was smelling of some poisonous substance from the court yard of the house of the accused and turned the same into a parcel, sealed with his seal bearing letter BS, which was seized vide memo Ex.PJ and recorded the statements of witnesses. On return to the police station, he deposited the case property with seals intact with Amarjit Singh, Moharrir Head Constable. 3. On 3rd July, 1999, Amarjit Singh, Moharrir Head Constable, delivered a parcel said to cantain viscera and another parcel containing clothes, removed from the dead body to the above mentioned Station House Officer, who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PK and deposited the same with the said Moharrir Head Constable on the same day. On 9th July, CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -5- 1999, Teja Singh, Lumberdar, produced Harchet Singh, accused before the aforesaid station house officer, who arrested him in this case and prepared memo Ex.PL regarding his personal search. Mukhtiar Kaur, accused was found innocent during investigation and she was got discharged. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid against Harchet Singh, accused in the Court of Mr. Gurmeet Kaur, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mansa. who committed this case to Sessions on 19th November, 1999 for trial of Harchet Singh, accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.” 3. On commitment, Harchet Singh, accused was charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. An application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Proceduce was filed by the State and in pursuance of the order thereon, Mukhtiar Kaur, accused was summoned to face trial under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith her co-accused.” 4. Charges under Section 306 IPC, were re-framed against the accused-appellants to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. R K Kaushal as PW1; Surjit Kaur as PW-2; Bhola Singh as PW3; Baldev Singh as PW4; Harbans Singh, Head Constable as PW5; Amarjit Singh, Head Constable as PW6 and Balwinder Singh, Sub- Inspector as PW7 and also tendered Chemical Examiner's reports Ex.PD and Ex.PN into evidence. PWs, namely, Lal Singh, Constable; Gurbachan Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Nachhattar Singh son of Dhan Singh were given up being unnecessary and other PWs, named, Mithu Singh, Babu Singh, Nachhattar Singh son of Amar Singh, Sukhdev Singh and CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -6- Ravinder Kumar Goyal were given up as having been won over by the accused. 6. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused- appellants denied all the allegations of the prosecution case and pleaded false implication in the case. However, they did not examine any witness in defence. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, discharged the accused-appellants of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC but convicted the accused-appellants under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them for the term as indicated in para 1 of this judgment, vide judgment and order dated 5.6.2002, which is under challenge in present criminal appeal. 7. The present appeal was admitted on 3.10.2002. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the marriage, in the instant case, took place more than 15-16 years ago. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was not respected in the family and was considered ominous women for not bearing child. He has further argued that because the incident had taken place after 15-16 years of married life of the deceased, therefore, the present case does not fall within the purview of Section 498 IPC. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has next argued that it is proved on record that the deceased was not a barren or infertile woman because she gave birth to a child 2 ½ years before the occurrence. In this situation, there was no occasion for anybody to taunt or harass the deceased for not bearing a child. He has further argued that because of the loss of child, the deceased was under depression which gripped and over-powered her and in such a depressed mental stature, she took her life after consuming some poisonous substance. CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -7- 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the fact that elder sister of the deceased Surjit Kaur, PW2, visited the house of the appellants in the morning when some quarrel was going on. She has not stated anything whether the quarrel was with regard to the deceased being a barren, infertile or ominous woman, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness. 11. Learned counsel has further argued that Surjit Kaur, PW2, who was married to the late elder brother of the accused-appellant No.1, has never made any complaint regarding any maltreatment meted out to herself during the life-time of her husband and even thereafter. 12. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that appellant No.2- Mukhtiar Kaur, was found innocent during the investigation. Charge-sheet was initially served upon appellant-Harchet Singh only and that presently Mukhtiar Kaur is more than 81 years age. 13. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the case against the appellants is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased has died on account of harassment and maltreatment at the hands of the appellants. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. The main thrust of the prosecution case is that the appellants maltreated and harassed the deceased for being incapable to give birth to a child by calling her barren. However, from the perusal of the record, it is made out that the deceased gave birth to a child 2 ½ years ago but unfortunately, the child did not survive. So, the stigma of being barren and infertile no longer prevailed, if any was there, on the date of occurrence. I CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -8- find substance in the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was under depression on account of death of her child, which was born to her at a belated stage. 16. As per the case of the prosecution, Surjit Kaur, PW2, sister of the deceased visited the house of the deceased and at that time, a quarrel was going on between the appellant-husband and the deceased-wife. However, nothing has come on record as to what was the reason of dispute between them. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the quarrel was in context with the deceased being barren or ominous woman. In the circumstances, there is no conclusive proof of cause of quarrel, except the statement of PW2, who allegedly visited the house of the deceased. Surjit Kaur left the house of the deceased suggests that there was no serious dispute and in case it had been a serious matter, either she would have stayed back at the house of the deceased or would have taken her along and informed her parents. In this given situation, the statement of Surjit Kaur cannot to taken as sufficient to convict the appellants. 17. There is no specific allegation against appellant No.2. She is more than 81 years of age. She had been convicted simply for the reason that she was residing with appellant No.1. 18. The marriage was more than 15-16 years old. This is not a case where the allegation is that the accused administered poison or provoked her to take the extreme step immediately before the occurrence. As per the case of the prosecution, there is no history of harassment, maltreatment or cruelty to the deceased by the accused-appellants. 19. In the absence of anything on record to show that the conduct of the appellants was either wilful or of such a nature which is likely to drive CRA No.1108-SB of 2002 -9- the deceased to commit suicide, the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. 20. In the circumstances, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa is set aside. The appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 19.07.2010 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No