IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 Date of Decision : July 29, 2010 Kuljit Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. T.S.Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. T.P.S. MANN, J. The appellant, alongwith his father Gurmel Singh and mother Manjit Kaur, was tried for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 6.8.1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, acquitted Gurmel Singh and Manjit Kaur, co-accused of the appellant of the charge framed against them whereas the appellant was convicted under Section 304-B IPC instead of Section 302 IPC as death of his wife Jaskirat Kaur was caused within seven years of the marriage due to ill treatment meted out to her and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ Crl. Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 -2- years. According to the prosecution, on 24.10.1995, complainant Jasbir Singh made statement before SI Talwinderjit Singh that he had two brothers and one sister Jaskirat Kaur, who was married to appellant Kuljit Singh 4½ years back. She had a son, aged about 2/2½ years. The complainant had given Chhuchhak (customary gift) according to his capacity at the time of birth of son but his sister's father-in-law Gurmel Singh, mother-in-law Manjit Kaur and husband Kuljit Singh used to maltreat his sister by stating that she had brought insufficient dowry during marriage and even, thereafter, the Chhuchhak(customary gifts) was also not given adequately. His sister had told him about this fact and, thereafter, he gave Rs.10,000/- but in-laws of his sister kept on maltreating and beating her. They raised a demand of Rs.50,000/- for flooring of their house. This fact was told to him by his sister when he went to inform about the death of his cousin Jagdev Singh but the accused did not attend the 'Bhog Ceremony' of his cousin. On the occasion of Diwali at about 6.00 p.m., the complainant and his brother Balkaran Singh went to the matrimonial home of his sister in village Danewala where he saw her lying on the platform and struggling for life. On his enquiry, she told them that her father-in-law Gurmel Singh and husband Kuljit Singh had caught hold of her from arms and her mother-in-law Manjit Kaur put insecticide in her mouth forcibly. The complainant informed his uncle Gurjant Singh. Thereafter, the Crl. Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 -3- complainant and his uncle arranged tractor trolley and took Jaskirat Kaur to Abohar for treatment but on the way she died. The complainant alongwith his uncle came back to village Danewala and after leaving Balkaran Singh with the dead body, the complainant and his uncle Gurjant Singh went to lodge report with the police. Further case of the prosecution was that SI Talwinderjit Singh after recording statement Ex.P4 made endorsement Ex.P4/A on it, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P4/B was registered at Police Station, Khuiyan Sarwar by ASI Baldev Singh. During the course of investigation, SI Talwinderjit Singh visited the spot, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body of Jaskirat Kaur to Civil Hospital, Abohar for conducting post mortem. He inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.P12. One can of silver containing small amount of insecticide and one steel glass were recovered which were turned into parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'TS' and took into possession vide memo. Ex.P13. HC Pawan Kumar produced the copy of post mortem report and the clothes worn by deceased Jaskirat Kaur which were turned into parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'TS' and taken into possession vide memo. Ex.P14. SI Talwinderjit Singh deposited the case property with the MHC and arrested the accused on 23.11.1995. Upon completion of investigation, presentation of challan, followed by commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge Crl. Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 -4- under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant and his co-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Nagin Chand, Draftsman, PW2 HC Angrej Raj, PW3 Constable Jaspal Singh, PW4 Jasbir Singh, PW5 Balkaran Singh, PW6 Dr. R.S.Atwal, PW7 Constable Gurjant Singh, PW8 ASI Darshan Singh and PW9 SI Talwinderjit Singh. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant and his co-accused denied the allegations levelled against them. The appellant in his statement stated that he was living separately from his parents in the same compound. His wife had trouble in her left lung and used to get severe pain. Inspite of treatment, she could not recover and she committed suicide due to pain. He informed Gurjant Singh, who was husband of the sister of father of Jasbir Singh and also informed Balbir Singh Sarpanch of the village and sent message to the complainant and both brothers of Jaskirat Kaur, namely, Balkaran Singh and Jasbir Singh, who came and got registered a false case against him and his parents. Gurmel Singh and Manjit Kaur, co-accused of the appellant, stated that Kuljit Singh was living separately from them. His wife was having trouble in her left lung and used to get severe pain. Inspite of treatment, she could not recover and committed suicide due to pain. In their defence, they examined DW1 Gurjant Singh and DW2 Crl. Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 -5- Balbir Singh. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the trial Court by observing as under came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was not made out:- “Now the question arises if Jasbir Singh PW4 and Balkaran Singh PW5, who are real brothers of the deceased assert that they had taken the deceased to Abohar in the tractor trolley, question arises after the death of the deceased why they would bring her dead body to village Danewala, when they were suspecting her in-laws has committed the murder of their sister. It means there is substance in the statement of Gurjant Singh DW1, who is relation of Jasbir Singh PW4 that they both the brothers were summoned after Jaskirat Kaur had consumed insecticides and the deceased was taken to Abohar for treatment, but she died in the way and subsequently her dead body was brought to village Danewala Satkosi. One fact further emerges from their statements that they had two police stations, i.e. Police Station Khuiyan Sarwar and Police Station Sadar, Abohar, while bringing dead body back to village Danewala Satkosi no report was lodged by them with the police. Had they suspected foul play at the instance of the accused they would have lodged report with the police at that time when they were bringing the dead body back. xx xx xx Crl. Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 -6- xx xx xx Jasbir Singh PW4 has deposed that the hands of the deceased were caught hold by Gurmel Singh and Kuljit Singh and poison was poured by Manjit Kaur in her mouth. In case the accused had tried to pour insecticides into the mouth of the deceased she might have resisted and in that event there would have been scuffle and injury marks on her body, but there is no injury mark on the body of the deceased as is evident from the post mortem report of the deceased except the above defect in the lungs. There were number of houses located in the close proximity where house of the accused is situated yet no body was attracted at the spot. The Investigating Officer, SI Talwinderjit Singh stated that the case was investigated by DSP Kanwarjit Singh. He found that the case under Sections 306/34 IPC was made out and later on this offence was changed to 302/304-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He also admitted that in front of the house of the accused, there is Jand tree where Mela is celebrated. In case that Jand tree was revered by the villagers, it being Diwali day would have attracted the other villagers also to that place. In such a situation, when no injury nor even an abrasion or contusion has been found on any part of the body of the deceased which if the occurrence had taken place in the way and manner as suggested by the prosecution, was likely to be there. So much so poison administered had not fallen on any part of the body nor even on the clothes of the deceased and that in my view, it is not possible if the occurrence had actually taken place in the way and manner as deposed to by Jasbir Singh PW4 and Balkaran Singh PW5. In this Crl. Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 -7- situation accused Gurmel Singh and Manjit Kaur cannot be suspected having any hand in causing the death of Jaskirat Kaur.” In view of the above, the appellant and his co-accused Gurmel Singh and Manjit Kaur were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the appellant was held guilty under Section 304-B IPC for the following reasons:- “So far accused Kuljit Singh is concerned, the deceased was living with him. She died by consuming choloro compound group of insecticides and the post mortem report also suggests that she was having cavity in the left lung. It means he did not get the deceased properly treated and neglected her. She died within seven years of the marriage in her matrimonial home. If she was not being maltreated by her husband then there was no reason for a young lady to commit suicide. It means the present accused Kuljit Singh created such circumstances by treating the deceased with cruelty that she was compelled to commit suicide. In these circumstances I am of the view that he cannot be escaped from his criminal liability.” Leaned counsel for the parties have been heard and the evidence perused with their able assistance. There is no material or evidence available on the record that any dowry was demanded or the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by PW4 Jasbir Singh to the appellant. In his statement before SI Crl. Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 -8- Talwinderjit Singh, PW4 Jasbir Singh did not state that any dowry was given. However, while deposing before the trial Court, he did state that dowry was given according to his capacity and after his sister gave birth to a son, he had given Chhuchhak. He was duly confronted with his statement made before the police wherein it was not so stated. Even as regards the giving of Chhuchhak, PW4 Jasbir Singh claimed that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was obtained from the commission agent and the said amount duly entered in the account books by the commission agent but he could not state the name of the commission agent. Similarly, PW5 Balkaran Singh deposed that he did not know the name of the commission agent from whom Rs. 10,000/- was obtained and delivered by Jasbir Singh to the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that any Chhuchhak was ever given by PW4 Jasbir Singh. If there was neither any demand for dowry nor any amount given by way of Chhuchhak, it cannot be said that the appellant had ever demanded any dowry or treated his wife with cruelty and harassment in connection with the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 304-B IPC. At the same time, from the medical evidence, it is made out that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming choloro compound group of insecticides and the post mortem report also suggests that she was having cavity in the left lung. The said medical ailment required providing of proper assistance to her by the appellant. Crl. Appeal No. 715-SB of 1998 -9- By not getting his wife treated from the doctor in regard to the problem she was suffering, the appellant did create circumstances in which she had no other option but to end her life by consuming insecticide which is generally available in the house of an agriculturist. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC has to be set-aside and, instead, he has to be convicted under Section 306 IPC. In view of the above, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. His sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial Court for the aforementioned offence are set- aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ year. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 29, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1 Kumar-I Ajay 2013.08.22 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh