Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 1 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 Dated of Decision: September 29, 2008 Harmesh Singh, s/o Angrej Singh, r/o Village Kauni, P.S. Kot Bhai, District Faridkot. ... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 Lal Singh, s/o Harnam Singh, r/o Village Lambwali, District Faridkot. ... Revision Petitioner Versus Harmesh Singh, s/o Angrej Singh, r/o Village Kauni, District Faridkot. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioner, in Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 2 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 SHAM SUNDER, J. This judgment shall dispose of criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993, filed by Harmesh Singh, s/o Angrej Singh, accused (now appellant) against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 19.5.1993, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304- B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993, filed by the complainant- Revision Petitioner, for enhancement of substantive sentence, awarded to the accused. The trial Court, however, acquitted accused Angrej Singh and Kartar Kaur of the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, vide the same judgment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Lal Singh, father of Chhinder Pal Kaur, now deceased, made a statement exhibit PL, on 14.09.1990 before ASI Jagtar Singh, on the basis of which FIR PL/2 was registered, containing the allegations, that the deceased was married to Harmesh Singh, s/o Angrej Singh about six months earlier, at Village Kauni. At the time of marriage, he gave dowry, according to his capacity. Sometime after the marriage, the father-in-law of Chhinder Pal Kaur, namely Angrej Singh, mother-in-law Kartar Kaur, and her husband Harmesh Singh, accused, demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, in cash, in the shape of dowry, because, they were of the view that the dowry given was insufficient. Chhinder Pal Kaur, was sent to her parents house. She narrated the aforesaid demand of her in-laws, to her father. Lal Singh, thereafter, narrated, as to what was told to him, by his daughter, to Malkiat Singh, mediator. On 12.9.1990, he sent his daughter, Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 3 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 to her in-laws house with mediator, Malkiat Singh. His daughter, however, told him, before leaving his house, that if the amount, aforesaid, was not given to her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband, she would be killed by them. Lal Singh, however, told his daughter Chhinder Pal Kaur that he would arrange the money soon, and, thereafter come to her in-laws house, for payment of the same. 3. On 13.9.1990, in the evening, Lal Singh alongwith his son Jasbir Singh and mediator Malkiat Singh, went to village Kauni, to inquire about the welfare of Chhinder Pal Kaur. When they reached the house of her in-laws at about 8.00/9.00 P.M., Chhinder Pal Kaur, was seen lying on a cot. He inquired of her, as to what was the matter. Chhinder Pal Kaur, while weeping, told him that her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, jointly, in connivance with each other, had administered her something. She also told that she was feeling upset. It was further stated that immediately, thereafter, she died. Lal Singh, thus alleged that his daughter Chhinder Pal Kaur had been killed by Harmesh Singh, her husband, Angrej Singh, her father-in-law and Kartar Kaur, her mother-in-law on account of non- fulfilling the demand of Rs. 20,000/-, made by them, from his daughter. They stayed at night, at village Kauni. On 14.9.1990, as stated above, he made a statement, resulting in the recording of FIR. Inquest report of the dead body of Chhinder Pal Kaur, was prepared, by ASI Jagtar Singh. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The accused were arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The site plan was prepared. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 4 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 4. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused were supplied copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against them. It was read over and explained to them, in simple Punjabi language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. M.M. Singla, (PW-1), who conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead body of Chhinder Pal Kaur, Ajit Singh (PW-2), who prepared the scaled map exhibit PG of the place of occurrence, Jagmail Singh (PW-3), who tendered his affidavit, Lal Singh (PW-4), complainant, Malkiat Singh (PW-5), mediator, who arranged the marriage, between Harmesh Singh, accused, and Chhinder Pal Kaur, ASI, Jagtar Singh (PW-6) who partly investigated the case, and Kashmir Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-7), who too partly investigated the case. 6. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 7. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Angrej Singh and Kartar Kaur, accused (since acquitted) stated that their son had eloped with Chhinder Pal Kaur, and since then they were residing separately from them. 8. Harmesh Singh, accused, stated that his two sisters had been married at village Madhak, for the last several years. He used to go to see Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 5 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 them at village Madhak, where Chhinder Pal Kaur, used to come to see Chand Singh, father of Malkiat Singh, her maternal uncle. It was further stated by him that he developed intimacy with her. It was further stated by him that no marriage was performed by him, with Chhinder Pal Kaur. He further stated that he belongs to a poor family. He further stated that, on account of this reason, his uncles remained unmarried, because nobody, gave their daughters to his uncles, being poor. It was further stated by him that on account of this reason, he eloped with Chhinder Pal Kaur. It was further stated by him, that she started residing after elopement with him. Thereafter, she developed contacts with her parents. It was further stated that her parents were considering her elopement, as their insult, and she was very much upset over their behaviour. He further stated that they sent messages to village Lambwali through Bant Singh and Narain Singh to inform Lal Singh, father of Chhinder Pal Kaur, about her death. It was further stated by him, that they came to village Kauni, on the next morning. It was further stated by him, that on account of ill-will, the father of the deceased fabricated a false story, with regard to the demand of Rs. 20,000/-. It was further stated by him, that the deceased did not make any dying declaration. He further stated that he alongwith Chhinder Pal Kaur, was living separately, in a separate house, from his parents. The accused also examined Nand Singh, DW-1, and Tota Singh, DW-2. Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence. 9. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Harmesh Singh, accused, whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 6 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 acquitted Angrej Singh and Kartar Kaur, accused. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid appeal, was filed by Harmesh Singh, appellant, whereas, the revision-petition, was filed by the complainant. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. For constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that a married lady died, within seven years of her marriage; otherwise than under normal circumstances; and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, by her husband, or his relatives. Once, these ingredients are proved, then the statutory presumption, under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, operates that the accused committed the dowry death. No doubt, such a presumption, is rebuttable. Now, let us see, as to whether, these ingredients, are proved, in this case, or not. In the first instance, dispute has been raised, with regard to the marriage of Chhinder Pal Kaur, with Harmesh Singh. However, it may be stated here, that there is categorical statement of Lal Singh, PW-4, to the effect, that Chhinder Pal Kaur was married to Harmesh Singh, about two years, before 10.3.1992. He, in clear-cut terms, stated that Malkiat Singh was the mediator. Malkiat Singh, PW5, the mediator also deposed, in unambiguous terms, that Chhinder Pal Kaur was married to Harmesh Singh, accused, about two years, before his statement dated 10.3.1992. The evidence of these witnesses, during the course of cross-examination, could not be shaken. Not only this, even Harmesh Singh, accused, in his statement, under Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 7 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 Section 313 Cr.P.C., in clear-cut terms, stated that Chhinder Pal Kaur eloped with him, and they started living together, in a house, at Kauni, after such elopement. When Chhinder Pal Kaur and Harmesh Singh were residing together, after elopement at Village Kauni, they were living as husband and wife. Co-habitation between a man and woman, for a considerable period, could be said to be sufficient, to treat them as husband and wife. Chhinder Pal Kaur, died in the house of her in-laws. The approximate time, when the marriage of Chhinder Pal Kaur, was performed with Harmesh Singh, was also stated by Lal Singh, PW-4, and Malkiat Singh, mediator, PW-5. The mere fact that they were unable to state in clear-cut terms, the ceremonies, which were performed, at the time of the marriage of both of them, did not go to prove that they were not married. The legality or otherwise, of the marriage, in these proceedings, is not to be gone into. There was no reason on the part of Lal Singh and Malkiat Singh to depose falsely, on the aforesaid point. No doubt, the accused, tried to prove through defence evidence, that he was not married to Chhinder Pal Kaur, yet his attempt, in this regard, is proved to be abortive. Nand Singh, DW-1, is the brother-in- law of Harmesh Singh. He in clear-cut terms, stated that Malkiat Singh, s/o Charan Singh, was the mediator, in the marriage of Chhinder Pal Kaur. He also stated that Harmesh Singh eloped with Chhinder Pal Kaur, about three years before 22.12.1992. Tota Singh, DW-2, also stated that Chhinder Pal Kaur was not the legally wedded wife of Harmesh Singh, and she eloped with him, and they started living in a separate house. From there evidence also, it is proved that Chhinder Pal Kaur and Harmesh Singh were living together, in a house, as husband and wife. It is, thus, proved from the Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 8 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 evidence, on record, that the marriage between Chhinder Pal Kaur and Harmesh Singh was performed. Even if, it is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that there was no formal marriage, between the two, but, since they were cohabiting together, living in a separate house, before the death of Chhinder Pal Kaur, it could be said that they were husband and wife. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, Chhinder Pal Kaur died within seven years of her marriage, with Harmesh Singh, otherwise, than under normal circumstances. It is proved, from the evidence, on record, that Chhinder Pal Kaur, was married to Harmesh Singh, about six months, before the incident. Admittedly, she died in the house of her in-laws. The death of Chhinder Pal Kaur was also otherwise than under normal circumstances. Dr. M.M. Singla, SMO, Civil Hospital, Gidderbahad, PW-1, conducted post-mortem examination, on the dead body of Chhinder Pal Kaur. He found two injuries, on her person. He further stated that both the lungs of Chhinder Pal Kaur were congested. Her liver was congested. Her spleen was congested. Pancreas were congested. After the receipt of report exhibit PE, of the Chemical Examiner, he opined that the cause of death, in this case, was the result of consumption of choloro-compound group of insecticides. From his statement, it was proved that Chhinder Pal Kaur, died, on account of consumption of the poison aforesaid. It means that she died, otherwise, than under normal circumstances. This ingredient, for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, was also proved. Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 9 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 14. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that since Chhinder Pal Kaur was a poorly built lady, as per the statement of Dr. M.M. Singla, SMO, PW-1, she on account of over-inhalation of choloro compound group of insecticide, died. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could not be said that she was poisoned. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The mere fact that Chhinder Pal Kaur was a poorly built lady, did not mean that she died, on account of over-inhalation of choloro-compound, a type of poison, in the fields. Until and unless, a fatal dose of such a poison is either consumed or given, death possibly cannot occur. In the instant case, Chhinder Pal Kaur, consumed or given poison of the type referred to above, as she was tortured in connection with the demand of dowry, in the shape of money. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 15. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, soon before her death, Chhinder Pal Kaur, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, or not. Lal Singh, father of Chhinder Pal Kaur, when appeared as, PW-4, stated that the accused was not happy with the dowry given by him, at the time of her marriage. He further stated that after sometime of the marriage, a demand of Rs. 20,000/- was raised by the accused, from her, and she was compelled to bring the same from him. He further stated that his daughter told him that, in case, the demand was not met, she would be killed. He further stated that he went to Malkiat Singh, mediator, and told him about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- raised by the accused. It was further stated by him, that Malkiat Singh, went Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 10 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 to the accused and requested them not to demand the money and maltreat Chhinder Pal Kaur. Chhinder Pal Kaur was also taken to her in-laws house. He also told Chhinder Pal Kaur, when she was leaving his house, on 12.09.1990, that he would arrange money soon. Chhinder Pal Kaur, however, told him that, in case, the amount was not paid, she would be killed by her in-laws. It means that a day before her death, Chhinder Pal Kaur, came to her parents house, with the said demand, and, thereafter, she was taken to the house of her in-laws, by Malkiat Singh, mediator. On the next day, when Lal Singh, alongwith the mediator went to inquire about the welfare of his daughter, he found her lying, on a cot, and immediately, thereafter, she died. Chhinder Pal Kaur died within about six months of her marriage. There is nothing, on the record, that she was under deep depression. In these circumstances, there was no reason, on the part of Chhinder Pal Kaur, to end her life, until and unless, she had been tortured by her in-laws, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death. It was proved that Chhinder Pal Kaur was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death, by the accused. This ingredient also stood proved. 16. The trial Court, after due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that Harmesh Singh, husband of Chhinder Pal Kaur, subjected her to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, continuously until her death, as a result whereof, she died, otherwise, than under normal circumstances, in the house of her in- laws, within six months of her marriage. The conclusion, arrived at, by the trial Court, does not warrant any interference and the same is affirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993 11 Criminal Revision No. 462 of 1993 17. Coming to the revision petition, it may be stated here, that the same is liable to be dismissed. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion, that the ends of justice would be met, if the minimum prescribed sentence was awarded to Harmesh Singh, accused. The Counsel for the revision- petitioner, could not point out any circumstance, which may persuade the Court, to come to the conclusion, that the sentence awarded to the accused, by the trial Court, was shockingly on the lower side. No ground, for enhancement of sentence, therefore, is made out. The revision petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed. 18. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 19. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same warrant no interference. The same are liable to be upheld. 20. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Appeal No. 173-SB of 1993, filed by Harmesh Singh, appellant, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude. 21. Criminal revision No. 462 of 1993, filed by the complainant/revision petitioner is also dismissed. September 29, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE