Harjit Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

By this order, I dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 66SB of 1998 (Harjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab) and Crl. Revision 296 of 1998 (Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab), as both these cases have arisen from the judgment and order dated 20.1.1998, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

The criminal appeal No. 66SB of 1998 has been filed by Harjit Kaur (Singh ?) and his mother Mohinder Kaur and it has been directed against the judgment and order dated 20.1.1998, passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who convicted the appellants under Section 304B, IPC, and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years each. It may be mentioned at the very outset that along with the present appellants, Jaspal Singh alias Kaka, younger brother of Harjit Singh was also tried for the offence under Section 304B, IPC, but the trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to Jaspal Singh and acquitted him.

Crl. Revision No 296 of 1998 has been filed by Raghibir Singh, son of the complainant, for enhancing the sentence of the appellants Harjit Singh and Mohinder Kaur.

The case was registered on the statement of Gurlal Singh, father of Jasbir Kaur, deceased, wherein he stated that Jasnbir Kaur was married to Harjit Singh according to Sikh rites at Maur Khurd about one year ten months prior to 27.7.1998. After about one year of the marriage of Sarabjit Singh (younger brother of appellant Harjit Singh), accused Harjit Singh, his mother Mohinder Kaur and his younger brother Jaspal Singh alias Kaka started taunting and harassing Jasbir Kaur for bringing less dowry, as the wife of Sarabjit Singh had brought a Refrigerator, Television and Cooler in the marriage. To fulfil this demand of the accused, the complainant Gurlal Singh paid Rs. 3,000/ on one occasion, Rs. 1,000/ on the other occasion and again Rs. 1,000/ on the third occasion to Mohinder Kaur, appellant. In the month of March, 1988, Gurlal Singh went to the inlaws'' house of his daughter Jasbir Kaur to take her when she was in the family way but the accused refused to send her with Gurlal Singh. Thereafter, his son Raghbir Singh reached Bathinda and Jasbir Kasur told her brother that he should send her father to take her otherwise, the accused would kill her at the time of the delivery. At this, Gurlal Singh reached Bathinda and took Jashbir Kaur, his daughter, with him. On 23.4.1988, a male child was born to Jasbir Kaur and unfortunately that child died on 25.4.1988. On 25.7.1988, Gurlal Singh again came to Bathinda and at that time Jasbir Kaur was normal. Gurlal Singh returned to his village. On the next day, at about 1.00 P.M. i.e. on 26.7.1988, Gurcharan Singh approached Gurlal Singh and informed him that Jasbir Kaur was ill. Thereafter, Gurlal Singh, his wife Mukhtiar Kaur, brother Santokh Singh and his son Ajaib Singh came to Bathinda to see their daughter and they saw Jasbir Kaur lying dead on a cot, which was lying in the courtyard of the house of the accused. Her clothes were stained with feacle matter and urine was lying in the baithak of the house of the accused and the other clothes were already put on her body. All the accused were present in the house and due to fear, they slipped away from the house one by one. Gurlal Singh sent his brother Santokh Singh to the village to bring the relations and he sat near the dead body of Jasbir Kaur. Thereafter, Gurlal Singh proceeded towards the Police Station to report the matter and the police party headed by Inspector Dharam Singh met him on the way. Resultantly, Gurlal Singh gave the statement, Ex.PE.

Inspector Dharam Singh made endorsement, Ex.PE/1 underneath the statement, Ex.PE and sent the same to the police station for the registration of the case, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PD, was recorded. Inspector Dharam Singh reached the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report, Ex.PC. On 27.7.1998, Inspector Dharam Singh again visited the place of occurrence and took into possession the vomit material lying covered with ash and the same was put into a tin container. One Chaddar and one underwear which were smeared with feacle matter and another piece of cloth were also taken into possession. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded and vide request, Ex.PB, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination under the care of Constable Karam Singh. The postmortem on the dead body of Jasbir Kaur was conducted by Dr. Balbir Singh on 27.7.1988. The cause of death was deferred at the first instance. The viscera was preserved for examination by the Chemical Examiner. Finally after receiving the report, Ex.PF, of the Chemical Examiner, the cause of death was declared as a result of poisoning by aluminium phosphide, a poison group of pesticides and this poison was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between the death and the postmortem was 24 hours as stated by Dr. S.K. Gupta. The appellants and their coaccused were arrested and on the completion of the investigation of the case, the appellants along with their coaccused were challanged in the court of the Illqa Magistrate who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused according to law free of cost and committed all the three accused to the court of Sessions to face trial. Vide order dated 5.11.1990, the appellants and their companion Jaspal Singh were chargesheeted under Section 304B, IPC. The charge was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Balbir Singh, PW1, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Jasbir Kaur. As I have stated earlier, the case of death in this case was deferred but on the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, it was declared to be due to poisoning, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Gurlal Singh, PW2, father of the deceased, corroborated the allegations of the prosecution and I will deal with his statement in the subsequent portion of this judgment in depth so as to examine the probabilities of his statement. Mukhtiar Kaur, PW3, is the mother of the deceased. She also tried to corroborate the statement of her husband Gurlal Singh. Ajaib Singh, PW4, is the real brother of the deceased. ASI Manjit Singh appeared as PW5 while ASI All Singh appeared as PW6 Therm Singh, I.P., appeared as PW7.

The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. Accused denied those circumstances. The plea of Harjit Singh was as follows :

"I am innocent. During the days of occurrence, I was working as Clerk in the Military Cantonment and I was on my duty till 12.30 P.M. on the day of occurrence. My parents were residing at Ferozepur during the days of occurrence. My father was serving at Ferozepur in the days of occurrence in Punjab Police. My brother Jaspal Singh had been getting training of Mechanical at Ludhiana, in the days of occurrence."

The stand of Mohinder Kaur was as follows :

"I am innocent. During the days of occurrence, my son Harjit Singh was working as Clerk in the Military Cantonment and he was on duty till 12.30. I along with my husband was residing at Ferozepur, as my husband was serving there during those days in Punjab Police. My son Jaspal Singh had been getting training of Mechanical at Ludhiana, in the days of occurrence."

When called upon to enter into their defence, the accused examined one Jawala Singh, DW1, HC Baljit Singh, DW1/A, Gurdev Singh, DW3 and Dalbar Singh, DW4.

The learned trial Court believed the prosecution story in part and convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 304B, IPC and gave the benefit of doubt of Jaspal Singh alias Kaka. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

I have heard Mr. T.P.S. Mann, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Randhir Singh on behalf of the State and Mr. T.S. Sangha, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner in the revision petition, and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

Mr. Mann made an effort for securing acquittal of the appellants but he could convince this court only with regard to Mohinder Kaur by submitting that there is a direct contradiction in the averments of the FIR and that of the substantive statement made by Gurlal Singh and his wife Mukhtiar Kaur.

I find merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants. The case set up by Gurlal Singh in his statement, Ex.PE, made before the police was that he paid Rs. 3,000/ on one occasion; Rs. 1,000/ on the other occasion and, again, Rs. 1,000/ on the third occasion to Mohinder Kaur, appellant. Meaning thereby that Gurlal Singh wanted to lay much stress with mother Mohinder Kaur. There can be a mistake on the part of Gurlal Singh when he made the substantive statement in the court but even in the substantive statement of Mukhtiar Kaur, she has repeated the same allegations by stating as follows :

"My husband gave Rs. 3,000/ in one time, then Rs. 1000/ and then Rs. 1000/ to the accused in order to their demand of dowry."

This would strengthen my reason that, in fact, the money, if any paid, must have been paid to Harjit Singh, husband of Jasbir Kaur. I have already stated above that with the death of Jasbir Kaur, there was no love lost between the two families and Gurlal Singh will try to implicate all the persons in the family of Harjit Singh. There is one more strong reason which establishes that Mohinder Kaur could not be present in the house on the day of occurrence or that she would be the last person to cause harassment or mental cruelty to the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry. It is proved on the record that the husband of Mohinder Kaur was in police service during the days of occurrence and he was serving at Ferozepur, which is at a distance of about 150 KMs. from Bathinda. The husband of Mohinder Kaur must be residing in Govt. quarter or private accommodation and, in these circumstances, there should be somebody who may look after Gulzar Singh, husband of Mohinder Singh (Kaur ?). It is very probable that Mohinder Kaur must be living with her husband Gulzar Singh at Ferozepur and there was hardly any occasion on her part to make demand of dowry etc. or to treat Jasbir Kaur with cruelty etc. It is the admitted case of the prosecution as well as the accused that during the days of occurrence Harjit Singh was employed at Bathinda itself in the Cantonment Area. In these circumstances, he could be the only person who must have treated the deceased with cruelty soon before her death and that too in relation to the demand of dowry. In order to attract the ingredients of section 304B, IPC, the prosecution is obliged to prove the following circumstances :

"(1) That the death of the woman took place due to burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) That such death had occurred within 7 years of her marriage;

(3) That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

(4) That such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry."

To prove such an offence, the relations are the best witnesses because the lady will always confide with the relations, if she is subjected to cruelty either at the hands of her husband or his relations. The case of Mohinder Kaur has already been distinguished above. Jaspal Singh has already been acquitted. It is proved on the record that Jasbir Kaur died within 7 years of her marriage on account of unnatural circumstances. She was hail and hearty one day prior to the occurrence. The father of the deceased visited the house of his daughter and he must have been insulted or hurt on coming to know that his daughter is not happy in the house of her inlaws. A girl will not be able to tolerate the insult and agonies of her parents and, in these circumstances, Jasbir Kaur might have consumed the poison to finish herself for all times to come as she was not feeling comfortable in the house of her husband who must have asked for more costly articles because the wife of his younger brother had brought Refrigerator, Cooler and Television. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, the death of Jasbir Kaur has taken place due to poisoning under unnatural circumstances.

In the light of the above, I partly allow this appeal and acquit Mohinder Kaur of the charge framed against her by setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.1.1998 against her. The appeal of Harjit Singh, however, stands dismissed as the offence under Section 304B, IPC, has been proved by the prosecution against him beyond any reasonable doubt. Mohinder Kaur is already on bail and she stands discharged from the bail bond/surety bond.

The revision of Raghbir Singh son of Gurlal Singh also stands dismissed as I do not see any ground for enhancing the sentence of Harjit Singh.