-1- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. Date of Decision: March 17, 2010. Gurmel Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal has been filed by appellant Gurmel Singh against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 11.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, -2- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. Sangrur, whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code). Under Section 304-B of the Code, appellant Gurmel Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and under Section 498-A of the Code he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Tej Kaur (co-accused of the appellant) was, however, acquitted of the charge framed against her by the trial Court. The instant case was registered at the instance of complainant Chanan Singh. As per facts of the prosecution case, Raj Kaur, daughter of complainant Chanan Singh, was married with accused-appellant Gurmel Singh in the year 1990. Tej Kaur (acquitted accused) is the sister of the mother of appellant Gurmel Singh. The complainant alleged that appellant Gurmel Singh and Tej Kaur used to harass Raj Kaur on account of insufficiency of dowry. On 25.11.1991, complainant Chanan Singh along with his nephew Pal Singh went to village Naimatpur where appellant Gurmel Singh and Tej Kaur (acquitted accused) were residing, to give certain dowry articles to them. The accused, on hat day, demanded more dowry. The complainant showed his inability to fulfil any further demand of the accused. On 26.11.1991, Gurmail Singh son of complainant Chanan Singh also -3- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. went to Village Naimatpur and after returning from there he told the complainant that the in-laws of Raj Kaur were harassing her to compel her to bring more dowry. On 29.11.1991, the complainant, Gurdev Singh son of Jang Singh, Pal Singh and Gurmail Singh son of complainant Chanan Singh went to see Raj Kaur at Village Naimatpur. At about 4.30 P.M on hat day, the complainant came to know that Raj Kaur had burnt herself by pouring kerosene oil on her after having fed up with the maltreatment at the hands of the accused and died at the spot. The complainant then got lodged the instant case against the accused. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session. Charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Code was framed against the accused, who did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Gurmel Singh denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He stated that Raj Kaur had a love-affair with him. However, parents of Raj Kaur married her with Hari Singh of Village Badanpur against her wishes. After the marriage, Raj Kaur left the house of her husband and started living with appellant Gurmel Singh. One day prior to the -4- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. occurrence, appellant Gurmel Singh and Raj Kaur had gone to Village Niamatpur to see Tej Kaur (acquitted accused). However, during that visit clothes of Raj Kaur caught fire when she was preparing meal. Information about the incident had been sent to the parents of Raj Kaur. Pritam Singh (D.W.1) and Bant Singh (D.W.2) were examined by the accused in defence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The question arises as to whether accused-appellant Gurmel Singh is liable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Code for which offences he has been found guilty by the learned trial Judge. Section 304-B of the Code, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:- “ 304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to -5- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. have caused her death”. As per the provisions of Section 304-B of the Code, the offence of “dowry death” consists of three ingredients i.e death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; that the death occurs within seven years of her marriage; and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for or in connection with any demand for dowry. If these three ingredients are there, the offence of “dowry death” can be said to be complete and proved. Dr.Parveen Jindal (P.W.1), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Raj Kaur, vide Exhibit P.D opined that the death in this case was due to asphyxia and hypobolumic shocks caused by burns and that these burns were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In this case, the stand taken by appellant Gurmel Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that he was having a love affair with deceased Raj Kaur. Her marriage with Hari Singh had been performed by her parents against her wishes. After living with Hari Singh for some time, Raj Kaur had started living with appellant Gurmel Singh. No marriage took place between appellant Gurmel -6- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. Singh and Raj Kaur. Paul Singh (P.W.6), a cousin of Raj Kaur (deceased) in his examination-in-chief stated that it may be that Raj Kaur had burnt herself to death due to cruelty meted out by the accused. In his cross-examination Paul Singh (P.W.6) stated that Raj Kaur was previously married at Badanpur with Hari Singh. Marriage of Raj Kaur with appellant Gurmel Singh was performed without any Anand Karaj ceremony. No marriage ceremony with Gurmel Singh took place in his (Paul Singh's) village. He further stated that he did not know as to how Raj Kaur had started living with Gurmel Singh(appellant). He further stated that they came to know about a year prior to the occurrence that Raj Kaur was residing with appellant Gurmel Singh. Gurmail Singh (P.W.10), who is real brother of Raj Kaur (deceased) stated that Raj Kaur had married appellant Gurmel Singh about one year prior to the occurrence. At the time of marriage, they could not give any dowry being very poor. Gurmel Singh and Tej Kaur (acquitted accused) were pressing Raj Kaur (deceased) to bring dowry. He further stated that his sister Raj Kaur was not married with accused Gurmel Singh through the ceremony of Anand Karaj. Previously, his sister Raj Kaur was married at village Badanpur with Hari Singh. She remained with Hari Singh only for a few months. No child was born out of their wedlock. He further stated that Raj Kaur did not get any decree of divorce from Hari Singh from any Court. She left the company of Hari Singh only with the intervention of Panchayat -7- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. and after 10/15 days thereafter, Raj Kaur started living with Gurmel Singh (appellant). Gurmail Singh (P.W.10) further stated that when his sister Raj Kaur started living with appellant Gurmel Singh, no dowry articles were given to the accused. He further stated that Raj Kaur used to tell about the dowry demands to his mother and his mother used to tell him. No complaint was lodged with the police. No complaint regarding dowry was lodged with the Panchayat. He further stated that he visited the village of the accused only once before the death of Raj Kaur. He met Raj Kaur for the last time about one month prior to her death. The evidence, discussed above, shows that appellant Gurmel Singh and Raj Kaur were having a live-in relationship. No marriage between them had taken place. So is the case of the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he stated that Raj Kaur had been married with Hari Singh by her parents against her wishes. She left Hari Singh and started living with appellant Hari Singh. It has also come in the evidence of brother of Raj Kaur, namely, Gurmail Singh (P.W.10) that they being poor could not give any dowry to Raj Kaur. No complaint was ever made by the complainant party with the police or with the Panchayat regarding the demand of dowry by the accused. Gurmail Singh (P.W.10) had met his sister Raj Kaur (deceased) about a month prior to her death. Besides, complainant Chanan Singh (P.W.5) had stated that at the time of engagement ceremony, no demand was raised by the -8- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. appellant and only Rs.200/- were spent. Chanan Singh (P.W.5) had stated that decree of divorce had been granted to Raj Kaur by the Court at Samana dissolving her marriage with Hari Singh, but no decree of divorce has been placed on record. As such, the evidence, mentioned above, does not disclose that the deceased, soon before her death, was subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellant Gurmel Singh (appellant) for or in connection with any demand for dowry. Thus, ingredients of the offence of “dowry death” cannot be said to be complete and proved in this case. The evidence, discussed above, also suggests that ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of the Code i.e husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security etc. are also not complete in this case. However, the facts and circumstances of the case, disclose that appellant Gurmel Singh has committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Code. Section 306 of the Code, for facility of reference, is reproduced as under:- “ 306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to -9- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Admittedly, Raj Kaur (deceased), on account of her love-affair with appellant Gurmel Singh, had abandoned her married life with Hari Singh without taking divorce from him (Hari Singh) and had started living with appellant Gurmel Singh. Thus, both appellant Gurmel Singh and Raj Kaur had a live-in relationship with each other. This relationship was of trust. Since marriage of Raj Kaur with Hari Singh had not been dissolved by any Court of law nor any divorce in a customary manner had been obtained, obviously, Raj Kaur was living with the appellant by throwing all societal norms to wind. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that Raj Kaur caught fire accidentally while she was cooking food. Raj Kaur had died while living with the appellant under suspicious circumstances. The appellant has not been able to explain satisfactorily as to how Raj Kaur had caught fire. The facts and circumstances, discussed above, suggest that there was no harmony in the `live in' relationship of appellant Gurmel Singh with Raj Kaur (deceased), which led the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. For reaching this conclusion, I am influenced by the fact that it was the appellant who had compelled Raj Kaur to abandon her married life with Hari Singh on account of his (appellant's) love affair with Raj Kaur (deceased) and thereafter he started -10- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. maintaining a `live in' relationship with Raj Kaur. However, he (appellant) failed to maintain such a relationship with Raj Kaur (deceased) which ultimately led her to the brink of ending her life, which she ultimately did. The appellant, certainly, is liable under Section 306 of the Code for abetting the suicide of Raj Kaur. In view of the above, the offence committed by appellant Gurmel Singh would fall under Sections 306 of the Code and not under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Code, as has been held by the trial Court. The conviction of appellant Gurmel Singh is, accordingly, converted from Section 304-B to Section 306 of the Code while he is held entitled to acquittal under Section 498-A of the Code. The impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order, insofar as convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Code are accordingly set aside and, instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 306 of the Code. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of the Code. Insofar as the sentence to be awarded to the appellant Om Parkash under Section 306 of the Code, he is stated to have already undergone more than two years of actual sentence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be adequately met with if appellant Gurmel Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period he -11- Criminal Appeal No.1394-SB of 2001. has already undergone. I order accordingly. This appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. March 17, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE