Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : September 05, 2006 1. Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001 Sarabjit Singh versus State of Punjab 2. Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh versus State of Punjab 3. Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 Jaspal Singh versus Sarabjit Singh and others Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S.Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bipin Ghai, Advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001 Mr. VS Rana, Advocate for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab assisted by Mr. H.S.Bhullar, Advocate for the complainant Virender Singh, J. Vide this judgment we are disposing Criminal Appeal No. 438- Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -2- DB of 2001, filed by Sarabjit Singh son of Makhan Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001, filed by Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh sons of aforesaid Makhan Singh and Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002, filed by Jaspal Singh, the complainant, as all are arising out of one and the same judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 14.7.2001. The record reveals that Jaspal Kaur wife of Makhan Singh who was also booked in the present case was declared as a proclaimed offender. Appellant Sarabjit Singh stands convicted under sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 314 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year under section 302 IPC; to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs 2000/-, in default of fine to further undergo RI for one year under section 304-B; to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months under section 498-A IPC and to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year under section 314 IPC. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Appellants Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh have been convicted only under section 498-A IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. These two Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -3- appellants are the brothers-in-law (Jeth) of Jasbir Kaur who was married to Sarabjit Singh appellant. They will be referred to as 'accused' herein-after. The case set up by the prosecution is that all the three appellants along with their mother had administered poisonous substance to her sharing their common intention. The allegation further goes that Jasbir Kaur was also subjected to cruelty by all the accused within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death in order to meet un-lawful demand of dowry. The allegation against Sarabjit Singh appellant was also to the effect that he had caused the mis-carriage of his wife Jasbir Kaur who was carrying foetus of 6/7 months old male child. The charge sheet reveals that the present three appellants were charged under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC whereas Sarabjit Singh appellant was charged under section 302 substantively. The trial court has acquitted Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh of the charges punishable under sections 302 & 304-B IPC and convicted them under sections 498-A IPC only observing that they had not shared the common intention with the principal accused Sarabjit Singh in causing murder of Jasbir Kaur. The State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh. However, in Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 filed by the complainant, he has shown his grouse against acquittal of the aforesaid two accused. The said revision was ordered to be Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -4- heard with the main appeal filed by Sarabjit Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001). The present case was registered on the statement (Ex. PF) of Jaspal Singh PW3 father of deceased Jasbir Kaur recorded by SI Prem Singh PW10 at Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (for short DMC Ludhiana) on 25.9.1997 at 9.45 AM, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PF/2 was recorded at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana on the same day at 10.10 AM under sections 304-B/34 IPC. Special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate (Judicial Magistrate Ist Class), Ludhiana on the same day at 3.45 PM through Constable Amarjit Singh. Jaspal Singh alleged in his complaint that his daughter Jasbir Kaur was married to Sarabjit Singh on 20.7.1997 at Ludhiana and that he had gifted sufficient dowry articles by spending Rs 7.5 lacs in the marriage in the form of Maruti car, television, refrigerator, gold ornaments, furniture and other articles etc. Sarabjit Singh and his daughter after marriage started staying at village Sekhewal. However after two months of the marriage her husband Sarabjit Singh, his brothers (Jeth) and his mother Jaspal Kaur started harassing his daughter for bringing more dowry articles. She along with her husband Sarabjit Singh came to village Bagrian (village of the complainant) and her daughter disclosed him (his father) that she was being harassed at her matrimonial home. It is then alleged that on the next day, Jasbir Kaur was left at her in- Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -5- laws house by her father and he made the accused side understand that he being father of three daughters could not fulfill their demands. It is then alleged that on 23.4.1997, Amrik Singh had contested some election and they had asked for some financial help through Jasbir Kaur. He arranged Rs 20,000/- through Commission Agent although demand of Rs 50,000/- was made from in-laws side. The said amount was paid to Sarabjit Singh appellant. It is then alleged that on 24.9.1997, wife of Jaspal Singh received a telephone call from her daughter calling her immediately at Ludhiana for some important talk. Consequently she went and after returning disclosed to her husband that the accused side was demanding Rs 5 lacs more and Sarabjit Singh appellant had given her beatings. It is then alleged that on the night intervening 23/24-9-1997 at about 11/12 O'clock, he received another call to the effect that Jasbir Kaur was in a serious condition. They reached the house of the accused and learnt from there that Jasbir Kaur was got admitted in DMC Ludhiana. He along with his wife and five-six other persons reached the said hospital at 6/7 AM and received the news that his daughter had expired. Jaspal Singh alleged that he was sure that his daughter Jasbir Kaur was killed by Sarabjit Singh, his two brothers Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh and mother-in-law Jaspal Kaur as some poisonous substance/medicine was administered to her. On these allegations, the case was initially registered under sections 304-B/34 IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -6- After sending the ruqa for the registration of the formal FIR, Inspector Prem Singh PW10 who had reached DMC after receiving a telephone call from the said hospital with regard to admission of a case of poisoning, started his investigation and prepared the inquest report Ex. PE in the mortuary where dead body of Jasbir Kaur was lying. He also recorded statement of witnesses present there and made a request for post mortem examination on the dead body of Jasbir Kaur which was conducted on the same day by Dr. RK Sharma PW1. He noticed that blood was coming out of the mouth and nostrils. However, no external marks of injury were there. Lips and tongue were blue. Viscera was sent for chemical examination which contained stomach, segmetic, small and large intestines, pieces of lever, spleen and kidneys, some blood and saturated solution. The uterus was also opened which contained foetus of 6/7 months male child which was dead. The cause of death, according to doctor of autopsy, was due to aluminium phosphide of pesticides as detected in the viscera sent. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within two hours and between death and postmortem was about fifteen hours. Clothes of deceased were also handed over to the police by the doctor. Sarabjit Singh was arrested on 27.9.1997 whereas Amrik Singh and Ranjit Singh were arrested on 6.11.1997. On 8.11.1997 during interrogation, Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh brought the police to their Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -7- house and produced certain dowry articles which were 60/65 in number and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PH. After completion of the investigation, the present three accused were challaned. As stated above, their mother Jaspal Kaur was declared as a proclaimed offender. All the three accused were charged accordingly as stated above. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined Dr. R.K.Sharma (PW1), Jaswinder Kaur mother of the deceased as PW2, Jaspal Singh father of deceased as PW3, PW4 SI Harbans Singh who partly investigated the case, PW5 RS Pandey Record Supervisor, DMC Hospital, Dr. Naveen Mittal PW6, ASI Sangramvir PW7, Constable Tarsem Singh PW8, PW9 Harminder Singh Draftsman, PW10 Inspector Prem singh, PW11 Devi Dayal, PW12 Harbhajan Singh, PW13 HC Varinder Pal. We shall be discussing the evidence of material witnesses at the relevant stage. The plea taken by Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh accused as emerges from their statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that they have been falsely implicated in this case and had never harassed Jasbir Kaur on account of any dowry demand. They were living separately from their parents and other brothers and have got separate ration cards also. The other plea taken is that their real brother Palwinder Singh aged about 27/28 years was in America and was bachelor at the time of occurrence. The parents of the deceased were pressurising her Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -8- to arrange marriage alliance with her younger sister with aforesaid Palwinder Singh to which they were not agreeing to. For this reason, Jasbir Kaur used to remain under depression on account of continuous pressure from her parents side. The parents of the deceased were feeling sore against them due to the impression that they were creating hindrance in the proposal. The other plea set up by them is that Sarabjit Singh appellant was only seventh class pass whereas Jasbir Kaur was graduate and he was not to her liking because he was not of good looking and used to take liquor quite often. On account of all these disparities the deceased had become irritant during her pregnancy. She had become short tampered as well. She, therefor, consumed some substance and started vomiting. Ranjit Singh informed the parents of the deceased through telephone who reached the hospital. Jasbir Kaur ultimately died in the hospital. The defence plea of Sarabjit Singh appellant is that he is innocent and he never maltreated his wife Jasbir Kaur over any demand of dowry. He has also taken the same plea with regard to the pressure mounted upon Jasbir Kaur for arranging the marriage alliance between her sister and his brother (Sarabjit Singh) who was staying in America. The other plea taken by Sarabjit Singh is that on the fateful night, he had reached home a little late. An altercation had ensued between them and he had slapped her and after some time she started vomiting. He then pleaded that she was Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -9- immediately removed to DMC Hospital because she had presumably consumed some poisonous substance by mistake which was kept for preserving wheat in the house. It was also possible that she might had committed suicide since she had become hypersensitive due to pregnancy and used to get irritated on trivial matters. He, thus, pleaded his false implication in this case by the complainant side in connivance with the police. In defence, DW1 Manglesh Kumar, Billing Clerk, DMC Hospital, DW2 Jarnail Singh, DW3 Tehal Singh, Clerk, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and DW4 Darshan Singh have been produced. After appreciating the entire evidence, all the three accused now stand convicted and sentenced as stated above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present two appeals. A revision has also been filed by the complainant. We have heard Mr. R.S.Ghai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bipin Ghai, Advocate and Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate, learned counsel for all the three appellants, Mr. M.S. Sidhu, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab assisted by Mr. H.S.Bhullar, learned counsel for the complainant. Taking up the appeal of Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001), Mr. Ghai states that both these Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -10- accused were Jeth (brothers-in-law) of Jasbir Kaur deceased and were staying separately from Sarabjit Singh. By no stretch of imagination they can be connected with the demand of dowry so as to bring their case within the mischief of section 498-A IPC for which they now stand convicted. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Ghai submits that the present case provides us a typical illustration of the break-down of marriage for various other reasons which are wholly unconnected with the dowry and, therefore, the trial court should have made every effort to find the cause of marital discord. In the case in hand, the father of the deceased had knitted a wider net, implicating even the brothers-in-law (Jeth) by putting forth frivolous allegations of dowry demand. He then submits that even the factum of their joint living is brought on record for the first time before the trial court with an ulterior motive to secure their conviction whereas courts have time and again warned regarding over developing tendency of of implicating all the members of family of in-laws' in dowry cases. There is no cogent evidence to connect them even with the willful conduct, rather they have been booked on general allegations after taking undue advantage of so-called un- natrual death of Jasbir Kaur within a short span of her marriage. Mr. Ghai submits that the complainant side was informed immediately of the occurrence as soon as Jasbir Kaur was removed to DMC Hospital as is clear from the statement of Jaspal Singh, the first informant, Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -11- the father of the deceased. The specific plea of Ranjit Singh is that he had informed Jaspal Singh about this all. Therefore, there cannot be any reason to disbelieve at least this part of the story. Had Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh appellants actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence, an information to the parents would not have been flashed by them. This mitigating circumstance is indicative of the fact that the moment they came to know that Jasbir Kaur had consumed some substance, may be poisonous which was initially not known to them and was vomiting, the information was sent to the parents without wasting any time. Mr. Ghai then submits that statement of Darshan Singh son of Darbara Singh DW4 who is brother-in-law of Amrik Singh accused when stepped into witness box, categorically stated that Amrik Singh was initially living in joint family after the marriage of his sister with him i.e. in October 1981 but they had started living separately since 1997. He further stated that his sister Harwinder Kaur was staying very happily in her in-laws house and he had also married his other sister with Ranjit Singh accused in the year 1993 finding family environment to be good. She too was happy in her in-laws house as there was no demand of dowry. From this, Mr. Ghai wants to develop that since two sisters of Darshan Singh (DW4) who were married to Amrik Singh and Ranjit Singh were staying happily, there could not be any reason or occasion for them to harass Jasbir Kaur wife of their Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -12- brother Sarabjit Singh that too for demand of dowry. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ghai prays for acquittal of Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh accused. Adverting to the case of Sarabjit Singh accused (Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001) who is husband of the deceased, Mr. Ghai submits that the learned trial court has not struck a fair balance in this case and rather adopted an emotional approach in convicting him. He submits that the prosecution case is hinging primarily on the evidence of Jaswinder Kaur and Jaspal Singh, the parents of the deceased who are not consistent in their statements with regard to the demand of dowry. In this regard our attention has been drawn to the statements of these two witnesses. The learned counsel submits that these two witnesses have been duly confronted with their previous statements as they had made material improvements almost on each vital aspect of the case. The main attack of the learned counsel is that Jaspal Singh had in fact discredited himself by departing from his earlier statement where he in his substantive statement, had stated that after two months of her marriage, she along with Sarabjit Singh had come to her house and disclosed her parents of being harassed by accused on account of bringing more dowry. He also stated that he did not tell the police about another date i.e. 23.4.1997 regarding demand of money for financing the elections of Amrik Singh or any demand made by him after Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -13- borrowing it from the Commission Agent or the demand of Rs 50,000/- made from the in-laws side. From this, the learned counsel wants to contend that the FIR which is a sketchy document has been prepared with deliberations so as to bring the case within the purview of section 304-B IPC for which ultimately Sarabjit Singh stands convicted. Mr. Ghai then submits that the prosecution has projected the present case qua Sarabjit Singh as a case of a homicide and a very heavy reliance has been placed on the statement of Dr. Naveen Mittal, PW6 who had initially attended upon Jasbir Kaur when she was brought to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana by Sarabjit Singh himself. This doctor had stated that the deceased had disclosed that some tablets were given to her by her husband. He was, however, confronted with his first note where he had admitted that he recorded the word 'medicine' and not tablets. Mr. Ghai wants to submit that, in fact, the doctor had himself interpreted the words of the deceased in Punjabi which read “ Mere Ghar Wale Ne Mainu Maarya Hai” (my husband gave me beatings). According to the learned counsel, expression 'Maarya' (beatings) in Punjabi parlance can also be used for the purpose of beating and therefore, the statement of aforesaid Dr. Mittal cannot be said to be sufficient to conclude that it is positively proved that the husband had administered the tablet (poisonous substance) to the deceased. Mr. Ghai then submits that aluminium phosphide cannot be Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -14- administered comfortably by any one. Various studies conducted on this aspect are unanimous on the point that homicidal administration of the poison though not impossible but is nearly ruled out. In the case in hand, the same is the situation and the learned trial court just over-looked this aspect and held accused Sarabjit Singh, the husband of the deceased guilty under section 302 IPC. The learned counsel in the same strain submits that for the sake of arguments, even if it is said that Jasbir Kaur had consumed some poisonous material that too on account of the harassment meted out to her by her husband in connection with demand of dowry although the said fact is vehemently denied, still the present case would at the most fall within the mischief of section 304-B IPC and not section 302 IPC. Mr. Ghai then contends that in the case of alleged dowry death, it is expected of the trial court to touch the core of the case so as to enable it to come to a definite conclusion that the deceased was in fact subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before the death on account of demand of dowry. In the case in hand, altogether a different shape with the allegation that a particular demand was made from the in-laws side at two different stages one to the tune of Rs 50,000/- at the time of contesting the Municipal elections for which a sum of Rs 20,000/- was given and thereafter another demand of Rs 5 lacs which was not met. According to the learned counsel, the complainant has miserably failed on this aspect and therefore, the Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -15- conviction of Sarabjit Singh accused even for section 304-B IPC is not sustainable. Mr. Ghai lastly submits that once the main two charges fall on account of paucity of evidence, the conviction as recorded under section 498-A and also under section 314 IPC would also be unsustainable. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ghai prays for acquittal of all the three accused. Mr. Sidhu, learned State counsel who is assisted by Mr. Bhullar submits that Jasbir Kaur has died an un-natural death within just nine months of her marriage in her matrimonial home and there is also cogent evidence on the file that her husband Sarabjit Singh who along with his two brothers and mother-in-law (since declared as a proclaimed offender) were harassing her for bringing more dowry. Ultimately poison was administered to her by her husband. He then submits that simply that Jasbir Kaur was removed to the hospital by her husband, it cannot be a ground to give him a clean chit of acquittal when there is other cogent evidence to prove all the charges against him. In the same breath, Mr. Sidhu submits that the may be the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh accused with regard to sections 304-B IPC but in the present set of circumstances, they have, at least no escape from their liability so far as charge of section 498-A IPC is Criminal Appeal No. 438-DB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 825-SB of 2001 & Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2002 -16- concerned. He thus prays for conviction of all the three accused as already recorded by the trial court on different counts. Mr. Bhullar adopts the arguments advanced by Mr. Sidhu. Firstly, we are taking up the case of Ranjit Singh and Amrik Singh who stands convicted under section 498-A IPC. The impugned judgment indicates that these two accused have