Dalip Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Dalip Singh, his wife Sahib Kaur, daughter Gurwant Kaur, and his two sons, namely, Gurwant Singh and Narinder Singh were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Dalip Singh, Gurwant Singh and Narinder Singh were sentenced of five years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ each, or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months. Gurwant Kaur and Sahib Kaur were sentenced to two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ each; or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months vide his order dated 5.9.1985. Feeling aggrieved thereby they have filed this appeal.

Gurwant Singh was married to Sarbjit Kaur daughter of Gulzar Singh P.W. in the month of Phagun, 1984. After one month of the marriage, the appellants started demanding a T.V. set and a buffalo from Gulzar Singh. They started illtreating Sarbjit Kaur and threatened that she would be killed unless a T.V. set and a buffalo are brought by her. Sarbjit Kaur narrated all this to her father and the latter assured her that he would give these articles after the paddy crop was harvested.

Gulzar Singh visited the village of the appellants 15/16 days prior to the occurrence. The appellants misbehaved with him and demanded a T.V. set and a she buffalo, saying that such articles are even given by labourers to their daughters these days. Sarbjit Kaur told her father at that time that if she was to be kept alive in the house of the appellants, the articles demanded by them must be provided, otherwise they will kill her. Gulzar Singh tried to satisfy the appellants by saying that he will give these articles after selling the paddy crop.

A day prior to the death of Sarbjit Kaur, her brother Rajwant Singh visited her inlaws'' village. He came back in the evening and informed his father Gulzar Singh that Sarbjit Kaur was being tortured by the appellants. Gulzar Singh, on getting information from Rajwant Singh, about the illtreatment to her daughter Sarbjit Kaur, went to the village of the appellants along with Mohan Singh, Virsa Singh and Manohar Singh. They all reached the house of the appellants at about 11.30 A.M. The appellants were sitting outside their house on cots. Gulzar Singh found that Sarbjit Kaur was hanging with a turban around her neck being tied with the hook of the ceiling fan. On seeing all this Gulzar Singh rushed towards the police station to inform the police. A police party met him near Aliwal bridge and his statement Exhibit PD was recorded by Sub Inspector Parkash Singh. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Exhibit PD/2 was registered in the police station by M.H.C. Satwant Singh.

Sub Inspector Parkash Singh went to the spot. There he found Sarbjit Kaur hanging with a turban around her neck which was tied with the ceiling fan. Her dead body was brought down and inquest report Exhibit PB was prepared. The dead body of Sarbjit Kaur was sent for post mortem examination to the hospital. Post mortem examination was performed by Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW1). A ligature mark measuring 20 cms x 2 cms situated above the thyroid cartilage between larynx and chin was found.

Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared by Sub Inspector Parkash Singh. Turban Exhibit P1 was taken into possession. The appellants were arrested and after completion of the investigation a challan under Section 306 IPC was presented. The appellants were tried and convicted as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW1), who had performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Sarbjit Kaur wife of Gurwant Singh, on 14.10.1984 at 8.45 A.M. He found the aforesaid ligature mark between larynx and chin of the deceased. The cause of death, according to him, was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The ligature mark on the neck was antemortem and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate.

Gulzar Singh (PW2) is the father of the deceased Sarbjit Kaur. He stated that she was married to Gurwant Singh appellant in the month of Phagun 1984. He had given dowry to his daughter at the time of her marriage. After some time of the marriage, the appellants started demanding a T.V. set and a she buffalo from him. Sarbjit Kaur was illtreated and a threat was given to her that she would be killed unless a T.V. set and a she buffalo were given. Sarbjit Kaur had told all this to him. He further stated that he will give all these articles after paddy crop was harvested. He had gone to the village of the appellants 15/16 days prior to Sarbjit Kaur''s death, where he was insulted by the appellants and the demand of T.V. set and a she buffalo was repeated and a taunt was given to him that even labourers gave such articles those days. Sarbjit Kaur had told him there that if he wanted her daughter to remain alive and to live in the house of the appellants, he should supply these articles, otherwise she would be killed. He was further stated that a day prior to Sarbjit Kaur''s death his son Rajwant Singh had gone to the village of the appellants and on return had told him that Sarbjit Kaur was being tortured. On the next day, he (Gulzar Singh) along with Mohan Singh, Virsa Singh and Manohar Singh had gone to the village of the appellants and reached their house at about 11.30 A.M. They found the appellants sitting on the cots out side the house and they were all very cheerful. He saw Sarbjit Kaur hanging with a turban and she was dead. He then started towards the police station. A police party met him near Aliwal Bridge and he made statement Exhibit PD.

Rajwant Singh (P.W. 3) has stated that Sarbjit Kaur was his elder sister, he has supported the version given by his father as to the demand of a T.V. set and she buffalo. He has further stated that the appellants used to maltreat his sister and she was kept hungry. He had gone to see his sister on 12.10.1984. She was weeping and conveyed to him that she was being tortured and harassed by the appellants. It was all on account of demand of a T.V. set and she buffalo. She told him to take her along with him otherwise she would be killed. Then he came back and narrated the whole occurrence to his father.

Virsa Singh (PW4) has also supported the version of Gulzar Singh, P.W. and has stated that on 13.10.1984, in the morning he had accompanied Gulzar Singh to village Kastiwal as there was some dispute between daughter of Gulzar Singh and her inlaws. He along with Gulzar Singh, Manohar Singh and Mohan Singh reached the house of the appellants and saw that Sarbjit Kaur was hanging with a ceiling fan with a turban tied around her neck. Gulzar Singh went and brought Police with him.

Sub Inspector Parkash Singh (PW5) is the Investigating Officer.

The appellants were examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, to enable them to explain circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They admitted their relationship and also admitted that Sarbjit Kaur was married to Gurwant Singh appellant. They denied all other allegations and pleaded their innocence.

Gurwant Singh appellant took the plea that Bittufirst cousin of Sarbjit Kaur used to come to their house. They did not like his visit nor they relished his meeting Sarbjit Kaur. A day prior to the occurrence, his wife Sarbjit Kaur wanted to go to her parents'' village to celebrate the betrothal of Bittu, but he restrained her and did not allow her to go. On an earlier occasion his wife has left the house for her parental village but when he followed her, he did not find her in her parental village and she had gone to the village of Bittu. He went there and there was a quarrel between him and Bittu. He pleaded his absence from the village on the day of occurrence.

The appellants examined Amrik Singh (DW1) in their defence. He stated that he is Sarpanch of the village. Gurwant Singh appellant was married to the daughter of Smt. Mohinder Kaur. He and Mohinder Kaur belonged to the same village in Pakistan before 1947. Mohinder Kaur, is married to Gulzar Singh. He was further stated hat he was intermediator in the marriage of Gurwant Singh with Sarbjit Kaur. Sarbjit Kaur never complained to him that she was ever harassed by the appellants or treated with cruelty, nor parents of Sarbjit Kaur ever complained to him in this regard. After the death of Sarbjit Kaur a message had been sent to her parents. He had gone to lodge a report with the police about the death of Sarbjit Kaur, but it was not recorded and he was told by the police that they will come to the village. The police came to the village and at that time Gulzar Singh, P.W. was also there and after 3/4 hours, statement of Gulzar Singh was recorded. Amrik Singh has further stated that Dalip Singh appellant has a pacca house and owns 15 acres of land.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records.

Mr. M.S. Rakkar, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Gulzar Singh and Rajwant Singh are relation witnesses and they have made improvements in their statements and the same have been made with a purpose i.e. to make out a case that the appellants used to harass and maltreat Sarbjit Kaur deceased, and this cruelty led to the commission of suicide by her. He has further argued that evidence of Gulzar Singh and Rajwant Singh is not sufficient to prove that Sarbjit Kaur was actually treated with cruelty or was harassed by the appellants.

I have considered the arguments. It is correct that the prosecution, depends upon the statements of these two witnesses who are father and brother respectively of the deceased Sarbjit Kaur to prove the maltreatment and harassment meted out to the deceased. It is also correct to some extent that there are certain improvements in their statements from the statements made by them before the police but to my mind the fact that they are relations and have made minor improvements is not sufficient to brush aside their evidence. Their evidence is natural and in the circumstances of the case, only relations could be the witnesses. Virsa Singh (PW1)''s testimony lends assurance to the version given by Gulzar Singh and Rajwant Singh and there is no reason to discard the same. Sarbjit Kaur was married in Phagun 1984, and she died in October, 1984 and it is not disputed that she died by hanging. If she was maltreated, then there was no reason why a young newly married girl would commit suicide. The circumstance that the appellants were sitting outside the house on cots while she was hanging inside, is also suggestive of the fact that they were indifferent as to what she does and they did not feel unhappy on her committing suicide.

The demand of dowry is established by the statements of Gulzar Singh and Rajwant Singh and the evidence is consistent that all the appellants were party to the demand of dowry and maltreatment of the deceased. They created a situation by treating the deceased so cruelty that she was compelled to commit suicide. In his situation, I am of the view that the trial Court has taken a correct view and has rightly convicted the appellants. I do not find any force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court is affirmed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the sentence awarded is excessive. He has also stated that the entire family of the appellants has been convicted, and there being nobody to look after the house for the agricultural pursuits of the family, he had prayed for reduction in the sentence. I have considered the submission and I find some substance in the same. The sentence awarded is slightly excessive. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, I reduce the sentence of Dalip Singh and Gurwant Singh to three years and that of Smt. Sahib Kaur to one year. Gurwant Kaur is unmarried daughter of Dalip Singh and Narinder Singh is the brother of the husband of the deceased and is stated to living separately. Taking these facts into consideration. I reduce the sentence of Gurwant Kaur and Narinder Singh appellants to one already undergone by them. With this modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed. Sentence of fine of all the appellants is maintained.