Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 Date of Decision : March 03, 2009 Ranjit Singh .... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Gursharn K. Mann, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. S. Gill, Addl. A. G., Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. : By way of instant appeal, Ranjit Singh has assailed judgment and order dated 06.01.2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – the IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas appellant's parents Swaran Singh and Harjinder Kaur, who were also tried along with the appellant, were acquitted of the said charge. Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 2 Prosecution case, in brief, may be narrated as under :- Harjit Singh complainant, resident of Village Bal Kalan made statement Ex.P-B to SI Harbhajan Singh on 06.02.2001 at 07:30 P.M. in the area of Village Udhonangal. It was stated that complainant's youngest sister Manjit Kaur aged 18-19 years was married with Ranjit Singh appellant about five months before the occurrence. Customary dowry was given in the marriage, but her in-laws used to taunt her for bringing less dowry and used to remark that they would allow her to settle in the matrimonial home only when she would bring more dowry from her parents. On 06.02.001, at about 06:00 P.M., complainant Harjit Singh and his mother Dharam Kaur went to the house of the appellant situated in the fields in Village Udhonangal to meet Manjit Kaur. They saw that the appellant and his parents were beating Manjit Kaur and were repeating that she had brought less dowry from her parents and that she would be allowed to settle only if she would bring more dowry. The appellant strangulated Manjit Kaur by pressing her throat. Resultantly, Manjit Kaur died. The complainant and his mother Dharam Kaur witnessed the occurrence. Leaving Dharam Kaur at the spot, the complainant left for Police Station for lodging report. On the way, police party headed by SI Harbhajan Singh of Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar met the complainant, who thereupon made statement Ex.P-B to SI Harbhajan Singh, who made his endorsement Ex.P- B/1 on it and sent it to Police Station, where FIR Ex.P-B/2 was registered on its basis. SI Harbhajan Singh went to the spot, where dead body of Manjit Kaur was lying in a room. Harbhajan Singh prepared inquest report Ex.P-C and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination with request Ex.PW-7/A. On 07.02.2001, Dr. Amarjjit Singh and Dr. R. K. Nadda conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manjit Kaur and Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 3 found the following ligature mark :- “A reddish brown colour, hard with parchment like consistency, encircling, ligature mark sparing 5 cm on left side of neck 7.5 cm below left ear lobule was present around the neck at the level of thyroid on front and just below posterior hair line on the back of neck. Ecchymosis was found present at the margins of ligature mark.” On dissection, brain and its membranes, pleurae, both lungs, liver, spleen and both kidneys were found congested along with other consequences of strangulation. Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable duration between injury and death was within few minutes. SI Harbhajan Singh inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW-7/B. On 07.02.2001, clothes of the deceased given by the doctor in sealed parcel were seized vide memo Ex.PW-7/C. Appellant Ranjit Singh was arrested on 28.03.2001, whereas his parents Swaran Singh and Harjinder Kaur were found innocent during investigation. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, only Ranjit Singh was sent for trial. However, on prosecution application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – the Cr.P.C.) during trial, Swaran Singh and Harjinder Kaur, parents of the appellant, were also summoned as additional accused. Charge under Section 304-B IPC against Ranjit Singh and under Section 304-B/34 IPC against his parents and in the alternative, charge under Section 302 IPC against Ranjit Singh and under Section 302/34 IPC against his parents was framed. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 4 In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Rishi Ram Draftsman (PW-1) stated that he prepared scaled site plan Ex.P-A after inspecting the spot. Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) (brother of the deceased) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) (mother of the deceased) have broadly stated according to the prosecution version narrated above. They also added that eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had been sent to her parental house by the accused telling her that she should bring more dowry and thereafter, these witnesses had taken the deceased to her matrimonial home and left her there and even at that time, the accused demanded more dowry. Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-4) stated about post-mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Manjit Kaur. Constable Mohinderpal (PW-5) and HC Manjit Singh (PW-6) tendered their respective affidavits Ex.P-G and Ex.P-H in evidence being formal witnesses. Retired SI Harbhajan Singh (PW-7) stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. His parents alleged that they were residing with family of their other son, separately from the appellant and his wife, who were residing in the fields. No evidence was led by the accused in their defence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) brother and mother respectively of the deceased have fully supported the prosecution case. Their statements could not be shaken in their lengthy cross-examination. They did make improvement regarding the version that the deceased had come to the parental family eight days prior to the occurrence. However, even if this improvement in their statements is Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 5 ignored altogether, guilt of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased died in the matrimonial home just about five months after her marriage. It is admitted case of the appellant that he was residing with the deceased, as suggested to Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) in their cross-examination. Death of Manjit Kaur by strangulation is proved from the testimony of Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-4). In cross-examination, he stated that there was no possibility of hanging in this case. Thus, it was homicidal death and not suicidal one. FIR was also lodged very promptly. The occurrence took place at about 06:00 P.M. and statement Ex.P-B of Harjit Singh along with police endorsement Ex.P-B/1 concluded at 07:30 P.M. and registration of FIR commenced at 07:45 P.M. and concluded at 08:30 P.M. Special Report reached the Magistrate at 02:30 A.M. It is thus manifest that the FIR was lodged very promptly and Special Report also reached the Magistrate without delay. It has been specifically mentioned in the FIR that the accused were demanding more dowry from the deceased, who was also beaten by the accused. All ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fully established. Appellant is husband of the deceased. Parents of the appellant have been acquitted and appellant only has been convicted. The appellant has not come out with any explanation regarding homicidal death of the deceased or even regarding her alleged suicidal death. The appellant has not explained as to why Manjit Kaur died within five months of her marriage with the appellant and who strangulated her. It thus becomes amply clear that conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 304-B is well-founded. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) cannot be said to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence because according to them, all the three accused were beating the deceased, but Dr. Amarjit Singh found no injury caused by any such beating, except the ligature mark. It was also Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 6 contended that Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) made improvement in the witness-box by stating that the deceased was strangulated with rope, although there is no mention of rope in the FIR. It was also submitted that Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) were only chance witnesses and had no occasion to be present at the spot at the time of occurrence. It was also contended that it was suicidal death and not homicidal one. Although there is no merit in these contentions, yet even if these contentions are accepted at their face value, even then there is no escape for the appellant from conviction under Section 304-B IPC. Even if it was suicidal death and there was no strangulation with rope and there was no beating and Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) had not witnessed the occurrence, even then all ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fully proved against the appellant. It is undisputed that death of Manjit Kaur occurred about five months after her marriage with the appellant i.e. within seven years of the marriage. The death was by strangulation/asphyxia i.e. unnatural death. There was demand of dowry by the appellant soon before the death of his wife, who was harassed for the same. Death occurred within five months of the marriage and therefore, the demand of dowry was obviously soon before the death. Thus, even accepting the contentions of appellant's counsel at face value, there is no escape from the conclusion that guilt of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, even aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. As noticed herein before, the occurrence took place at 06:00 P.M. and FIR was lodged by Harjit Singh by making statement to the police at 07:30 P.M. and the FIR was registered at 07:45 P.M. Name of Dharam Kaur was also mentioned as eye-witness in the FIR. If Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) had not witnessed the occurrence, the FIR could not have been lodged so promptly. In this Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 7 context, it may be added that Village of Harjit Singh is 30-35 kilometers from the place of occurrence, as stated by him in the opening line of his cross-examination. Had the complainant not been present at the spot, and had he been in his own village at that time, he could not have reached the spot so soon and would not have been able to lodge the FIR so promptly. It is thus apparent that Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) were eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The fact that no visible injury caused by beating was found on the dead body, would not make the version of the eye-witnesses doubtful in any manner because the beating might not have resulted in any visible injury. As regards non-mentioning of rope in the FIR, the same is immaterial when it was specifically mentioned in the FIR that the deceased was strangulated. Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) also cannot be said to be chance witnesses because they had come to see the deceased since she was facing troubles in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. It was natural for the brother and mother of the deceased to come to her matrimonial home to inquire about her well being. Death by suicide is also ruled out by Dr. Amarjit Singh, who stated in cross-examination that there was no possibility of hanging in this case. His statement clearly establishes that it was homicidal death by strangulation. The ligature mark also shows that it was strangulation by rope. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find that guilt of the appellant Ranjit Singh is proved beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction is, therefore, affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for reduction in sentence. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel submitting that death of Manjit Kaur occurred within five months of her marriage with the appellant. We have carefully considered the matter. Sentence of life imprisonment for offence under Section 304-B IPC appears to be excessive. Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 8 The occurrence had also taken place about eight years ago. Keeping in view all the circumstances, we reduce the sentence of appellant Ranjit Singh from life imprisonment to imprisonment for 12 years. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE March 03, 2009 ( MEHTAB SINGH GILL ) monika JUDGE