Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of decision: 29.4.2011 (I) Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 Rupinder Singh and others … Appellants Versus State of Punjab … Respondent (II) Crl.Revision No.1408 of 2000 Balwinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus Rupinder Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Addl.AG, Punjab. … JORA SINGH, J. This criminal appeal was preferred by Rupinder Singh, his mother Hardeep Kaur and father Lachhman Singh to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.12.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2.7.1998, arising out of FIR No.31 dated 2.3.1998 under Section 304-B IPC, PS Jagraon. By the said judgment, they were convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years each under Section 304-B IPC and to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 2 Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months each under Section 498-A IPC. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Balwinder Singh, complainant, preferred Crl.Revision No.1408 of 2000 for enhancement of sentence from ten years' RI to life imprisonment. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 2.3.1998, Balwinder Singh, complainant, made statement before ASI Rajinder Singh, PS Jagraon, to the effect that his sister Navjit Kaur was married with Rupinder Singh son of Lachhman Singh, resident of Village Rasulpur, for about one year ago. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per their status. For about 2-3 months, there was no dispute but after 2-3 months, husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Navjit Kaur started taunting her for having brought inadequate dowry. Navjit Kaur was pressurized to bring Maruti Car from her parents. She told the complainant on many occasions that her in-laws are pressurizing to bring Maruti Car. Once/twice, he along with his uncle Achhra had gone to the house of Rupinder Singh and requested him and his parents that they are not in a position to give Maruti Car because already they have spent much on the marriage. As per custom prevalent in their community, amount collected as shagan at the time of marriage is deposited in the bank in the name of girl by her parents. But Lachhman Singh demanded the said amount. Navjit Kaur came to her parental house 2-3 times and told the complainant that her in-laws used to misbehave and maltreat her for want to dowry. They were pressurizing to bring Maruti Car and she was very much tired of them. On 26.2.1998, Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 3 Navjit Kaur came to her parental house and told the complainant that her in- laws were harassing her and directed to return to her in-laws house only if Maruti Car was given by her parents. On the next day, complainant along with his sister Navjit Kaur had gone to the house of the accused and requested them not to harass Navjit Kaur and keep her in her matrimonial home. He had promised to give Maruti Car after rabi crop. On 2.3.1998 at about 1.30 PM, cousin brother of the complainant, namely, Jaswinder Singh came on a scooter and told the complainant that he had gone to Jagraon in connection with domestic work, then had seen Rupinder Singh and his mother Hardeep Kaur with Navjit Kaur in a vehicle going towards Civil Hospital, Jagraon. He was suspecting some foul play. Then complainant along with Achhra Singh and Saudagar Singh had gone to Civil Hospital, Jagraon. Dead body of Navjit Kaur was found lying in the hospital. Complainant suspected that death of Navjit Kaur was after consumption of poisonous substance. Navjit Kaur had either consumed some poisonous substance or some poisonous substance was administered to her. Statement (Ex.PA) was signed by the complainant in token of its correctness. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. IO had gone to Civil Hospital, Jagraon. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was handed over to police officials for postmortem examination. IO had raided the house of the accused but house was found locked. After postmortem examination, clothes worn by the deceased were produced before the IO. Clothes were made into sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 4 witnesses. Accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court against Rupinder Singh and Hardeep Kaur. Application to discharge Lachhman Singh was dismissed. Accused were charged under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses. PW1 Balwinder Singh is the complainant. He has reiterated his stand before the police. PW2 Jaswinder Singh is the cousin brother of the complainant and stated that on 2.3.1998, he had gone to Jagraon in connection with some domestic work, then had seen Rupinder Singh and his mother Hardeep Kaur with Navjit Kaur in Car No.3600. They were going towards Civil Hospital, Jagraon. His father was also with him. They had followed the accused to Civil Hospital, Jagraon, where dead body of Navjit Kaur was found lying. By leaving his father in the hospital, he had gone to inform the complainant. PW3 Saudagar Singh is the maternal uncle of the complainant and stated that at the time of marriage of Navjit Kaur with Rupinder Singh, Rs.5-6 lacs was spent. Fridge, TV, Washing Machine, Motorcycle and jewellery weighing 35 tolas were given in that marriage. 3 months after the marriage, his sister told him that in-laws of Navjit Kaur used to misbehave and maltreat her (Navjit Kaur) and forced her to bring a car and half share of landed property from her parents. There was a Panchayat. Accused were requested not to demand car or property. Then, in-laws of Navjit Kaur replied that they will not raise any demand. On 2.3.1998, he came to know about the death of Navjit Kaur. They had gone to Civil Hospital, Jagraon, Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 5 where dead body of Navjit Kaur was lying. PW4 Dr. Hari Krishan Singla stated that on 3.3.1998 at 11.00 AM, he was member of the Board. Board of Doctors had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Navjit Kaur. Probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem was between 6 to 24 hours. Death was due to poisoning by choloro compound, a group of insecticides. Poisoning was ante mortem in nature. PW5 Gurmail Singh stated that sister of the complainant was married with Rupinder Singh. He was present at the time of marriage but at the time of marriage, no dowry was given. Dowry was given at the time of engagement. Complainant had told him that in-laws of Navjit Kaur were harassing Navjit Kaur for want of dowry. They were forcing her to get her share out of the landed property of her father. They were also demanding a Maruti Car. There was a Panchayat. Accused were requested not to misbehave and maltreat Navjit Kaur for want of dowry but accused were saying that they wanted Maruti Car and share in the property. After that, they told the accused that they will launch complaint against them. Then accused replied that they will not demand anything. PW6 Jagseer Singh, Photographer, stated that he had taken photographs at the time of marriage of Navjit Kaur with Rupinder Singh and same are Mark PE1 to Mark PE6. PW7 ASI Rajinder Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW8 Constable Nirmal Singh had delivered special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 6.15 PM on 2.3.1998. PW9 Sukhwinder Singh, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PH). Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 6 PW10 ASI Jagjit Singh stated that he had arrested Hardeep Kaur. PW11 Constable Avtar Singh stated that dead body of Navjit Kaur was handed over to him for postmortem examination. After postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. Parcels handed over to him by the doctor were produced before the IO, which were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On 5.3.1998, one sealed parcel was handed over to him by HC Devinder Singh and the same was deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations. Defence version of the appellants was that deceased used to demand her share in the property of her father. Parents of deceased had agreed to give her share. There was no demand of dowry. Deceased was not pressurized to demand her share but complainant was suspecting that demand by the deceased was at their instigation. Due to this reason, they were falsely implicated in this case. Parents of the deceased used to give her gifts of huge amount off and on, on their own accord because deceased was the only daughter. Complainant was not happy with his parents for giving gifts to the deceased. They tried to save life of the deceased by providing immediate medical treatment. Intimation was given to the parents of the deceased. False case was registered by the police with the connivance of Balwinder Singh, complainant. Opportunity was given to lead defence but no defence was led. Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 7 After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellants and going through the evidence on the file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file. Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that deceased was the only daughter of her parents. Parents of the deceased had agreed to give her share in the property. Deceased used to demand her share in the property from her father. Father of the deceased also used to give her gifts of huge amount because she was the only daughter. Complainant was not agreeing to give share in the property to the deceased. An effort was made by the appellants to provide immediate medical treatment. Intimation was also sent to the parents of the deceased. There was no demand of dowry at any stage. Deceased was not harassed for want of dowry because Rupinder Singh was owning a car. Brother of Rupinder Singh was in America. Appellants were owning tractor and kothi. According to the complainant, his father is a simple man but statement of father of the deceased was not recorded as to whether appellants ever harassed the deceased for want of dowry. Mother of the deceased told the complainant that appellants used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry and in case dowry, i.e., car and share in the property, is not given, then deceased was to be eliminated but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, mother of the deceased was not produced in Court. Ex.PA is the statement of Balwinder Singh but in the statement, there is not a word regarding demand of half share in the property but Balwinder Singh when appeared in Court, then stated that till death, deceased was demanding her Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 8 share in the property. Marriage of the deceased with Rupinder Singh was solemnized on 16.2.1997 but at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry and this fact is clear from the statement of PW5 Gurmail Singh. When unnatural death at the in-laws house, then effort of the complainant party is to rope in all the relations of the husband. When appellants were already owning car, tractor and kothi and brother of Rupinder Singh was in America, then there was no reason to demand car or half share in the property. In fact, parents of the deceased were intending to give her share in the property, but complainant was not agreeing. On account of this reason, deceased seems to have consumed some poisonous substance. Then immediately, she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jagraon, but unnatural death at about 2.00 PM. Learned State counsel argued that marriage of the deceased with Rupinder Singh was on 16.2.1997. Unnatural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage. According to defence version, deceased was demanding her share in the property owned by her father but Balwinder Singh was not agreeing to give her share and if Balwinder Singh was not agreeing to give share of the deceased, then there was no idea to consume poisonous substance. Deceased could easily file civil suit. As per suggestion to the complainant, appellants were owning car, tractor and kothi. Brother of Rupinder Singh is in America and if deceased was happy while staying in her in-laws house and Balwinder Singh was not agreeing to give her share, then there was no reason to commit suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. In fact, deceased was forced to bring car and half share in the property. When complainant was not ready to give share in the property to the deceased, then poisonous Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 9 substance was administered to the deceased. According to the story, marriage of the deceased with Rupinder Singh was on 16.2.1997. Unnatural death at the in-laws house on 2.3.1998. Appellants used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Deceased was pressurized to bring car and half share in the property. Deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Harassment or cruelty was soon before death, whereas defence version of the appellants was that parents of deceased were intending to give her share in the property but Balwinder Singh, complainant, was not ready to give her share. Till death, deceased was demanding her share and when complainant did not agree, then she had consumed some poisonous substance. An effort was made by the appellants to save her. Now the question is whether prosecution story inspires confidence or defence version seems to be more probable. To convict the appellants under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution was required to establish that unnatural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage. Balwinder Singh, complainant, stated that deceased was married with Rupinder Singh on 16.2.1997. No suggestion to the complainant that marriage was not solemnized in the month of February, 1997. As per story, some poisonous substance was administered to the deceased, whereas defence version of the appellants was that deceased had consumed some poisonous substance when complainant refused to give her share. After deceased had consumed some poisonous substance or poisonous substance was administered to her, then she was shifted to Civil Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 10 Hospital, Jagraon. PW2 Jaswinder Singh stated that he along with his father had gone to Jagraon, then had seen Rupinder Singh and Hardeep Kaur with the deceased in a car while going towards Civil Hospital, Jagraon. After that, they had gone to Civil Hospital, Jagraon. Dead body of Navjit Kaur was seen in the hospital. After deputing his father to remain in the hospital, he had gone to inform the complainant. Complainant also stated that on receipt of information regarding death of his sister from Jaswinder Singh, he along with his relatives had gone to Civil Hospital, Jagraon, where dead body of Navjit Kaur was found lying. PW4 Dr. Hari Krishan Singla stated that on 3.3.1998, Board of Doctors had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Navjit Kaur. Death was due to poisoning by choloro compound a group of insecticides and poisoning was ante mortem in nature. No suggestion to the doctor that death was natural. No case of the appellants that death was natural. Dispute is whether poisonous substance was administered to the deceased or deceased had committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. All this shows unnatural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage. Next ingredient to convict the appellants under Section 304-B IPC was that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Harassment or cruelty was soon before the death. As discussed earlier, unnatural death within 7 years from the date of marriage. Balwinder Singh, complainant, is the brother of the deceased. Deceased was the only daughter of her parents. Balwinder Singh stated that 3 months after the marriage, appellants started demanding car. Then he Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 11 along with his uncle Achhra and deceased had gone to the house of the appellants. On 26.2.1998, deceased came and told to Jaswinder Singh, his cousin, regarding demand of dowry. At the time of marriage, number of articles were given. Rs.6-7 lacs was spent. But this fact was not disclosed to the police in his statement (Ex.PA). PW3 Saudagar Singh is the maternal uncle of the deceased and stated that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given but 3 months after the marriage, his sister told him that appellants are harassing the deceased for want of dowry. They are demanding car and half share in the property. After that, he along with complainant, Achhra and some other persons had gone to the house of the appellants. Then appellants assured that they will not raise any demand. PW5 Gurmail Singh stated that at the time of marriage, dowry was not given but dowry was given at the time of engagement. Complainant told him that appellants used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. They are demanding share in the property and one car. After that, he had gone with the Panchayat. No doubt, as per PW3 Saudagar Singh, mother of the deceased told him regarding demand of dowry but mother of the deceased was not examined by the prosecution. If parents of the deceased failed to appear in Court, then story is not to be ignored because suggestion was given to the complainant that he was quarrelling with his mother as to why she was making payment to the appellants. Complainant in cross-examination also stated that till death, deceased was demanding her share. 3 months after the marriage, deceased for the first time, had demanded her share in the property. Defence version of the appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 12 deceased used to demand her share in the property of her father because her parents had agreed to give her due share but complainant was not agreeing to give her share. Second allegation of the appellants was that parents of the deceased used to give her gifts of huge amount off and on, on their own accord because deceased was their only daughter. But with the action of the parents of deceased, complainant was not happy. Appellants had made an effort to save the deceased by providing immediate medical treatment. That means, till death, deceased was demanding her share. No doubt, as per complainant, appellants were owning car, tractor and kothi. Brother of Rupinder Singh is in America. If the appellants are owning car, tractor, kothi and landed property and deceased was happy while staying in her in- laws house, then there was no idea to consume poisonous substance by the deceased. Deceased could easily file civil suit to get her share. As discussed earlier, if deceased was leading married life happily and appellants were financially sound and there was no demand of dowry, then question is how poisonous substance was brought in the house and by whom and for what purpose. If the deceased was happy while living in her in-laws house and complainant was not ready to give her share, then suit for partition or declaration could easily be filed. About one year after marriage, if married daughter was living happily in her in-laws house, particularly when her parents were giving gifts of huge amount off and on, on their own accord, then deceased was not expected to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance. Common experience shows that sulphas tablets are used to preserve wheat etc. but no allegation of appellants that tablets were brought to preserve wheat etc. and due to mistake, poisonous substance was consumed by the deceased. When choloro compound a group of Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 13 insecticides was not required by the appellants to preserve wheat etc. or for spray in the fields, then appellants were to explain why poisonous substance was brought and kept in the house. When deceased was hale and hearty and enjoying married life, then what was the reason to consume poisonous substance. Appellants were owning movable and immovable properties, then they should request the deceased to leave her claim in property. They seems to be financially sound, but if in-laws are financially sound, then no bar to demand dowry etc. Till death, deceased was demanding her share as per complainant but he was not agreeing. That means, appellants were pressurizing the deceased to bring her share in the landed property and when complainant was not agreeing to give her share in the property, then poisonous substance was administered to the deceased. To create defence, deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jagraon. As per defence version, if deceased was demanding her share in the landed property of her father but complainant was not agreeing to give her share, then appellants could easily convene a Panchayat or file civil suit but no Panchayat or civil suit. On the other hand, when deceased was harassed for want of dowry, then there was a Panchayat. Before Panchayat, appellants had assured not to raise any demand in future. Deceased was demanding her share as per defence version but complainant was not agreeing, then after the death of the deceased, there was no reason for the complainant to name the appellants because by naming the appellants, complainant was not expected to get anything. Share was being demanded by the deceased and after her unnatural death, complainant was expected to be very happy. When he was not to get anything by getting a case registered, then there was no reason to disbelieve Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 14 the complainant on the allegation that when he refused to give share of the deceased, then deceased out of frustration had consumed some poisonous substance. Explanation by the appellants regarding consumption of poisonous substance by the deceased seems to be not correct one. In fact, deceased was forced to bring car and her share in the landed property of her father. When she failed to get her share, then some poisonous substance was administered to her. Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, unnatural death is dowry death. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld. Under Section 304-B IPC, appellants were directed to undergo RI for ten years. At the time of occurrence, Rupinder Singh was 23 years' old, Hardeep Kaur was 48 years' old, whereas Lachhman Singh was 50 years' old. Except the appellants, no other member was in the house. Brother of Rupinder Singh is in America. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, adequate punishment was given. No ground to enhance the sentence of imprisonment. For the reasons recorded above, Crl.Appeal No.39-SB of 2000 and Crl.Revision No.1408 of 2000 are rejected. Appellants are on bail. They are directed to surrender before the concerned authority to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, failing which, concerned authority/CJM, Ludhiana, to issue re-arrest warrants to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 29.4.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE