Jaspal Singh vs The State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by Jaspal Singh son of Gurdial Singh against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. On the former charge, the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for four years. On the latter charge, he was ordered to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Two co-accused of the Appellant, namely his brother Sukhbir Singh and mother Tejinder Kaur were, however, acquitted.

The deceased Surinder Kaur was the wife of Jaspal Singh Appellant. The case rests on circumstantial evidence and the various links which constitute the chain of circumstance are these. The deceased was married to the Appellant about three years prior to the occurrence. After the marriage the Appellant had been making a grievance against the deceased for having brought insufficient dowry in their marriage. He was maltreating the deceased and was coercing her to bring a motor cycle for his use. from her parents. About a week before her death, the deceased visited her parents and told them about the ill-treatment by her husband. Rajinder Singh Sarpanch of Village Santokhpura went to the house of the Appellant and enquired from him as to why he had been maltreating the deceased on account of her inability to get a motor cycle for him from her poor father. The Appellant, however, did not admit his fault. Rajinder Singh left the house advising the Appellant to improve his behavior towards the deceased failing which he would collect the Panchayats of both the villages for considering the matter. The Appellant retorted that the Panchayats could not interfere in his personal affairs and that he would get rid of his wife by taking action through the Court. It is alleged that after Rajinder Singh left the place the Appellant strangulated Surinder Kaur to death and set her body on fire in a pyre made of cow-dung cakes and firewood in a room At about 2 or 3 p. m. on the same day, Jagpal Singh and Harpal Singh came to enquire about Surinder Kaur and found her lying dead inhalf-burnt condition. It transpires that the Appellant also made an extra-judicial confession regarding his guilt On the basis of this material, the Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced as already noticed.

Mr. H.L. Sibal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to impugn the conviction of his client by making a reference to certain circumstances with a view to cast a doubt in regard to the prosecution version. In so far as the death of Surinder Kaur is concerned, the medical evidence, i. e., the testimony of Dr Sudarshan Jindal (P W. 1) leaves no room for doubt that she had died as a result of violence i. e. by strangulation and her body was subsequently burnt. This aspect of the matter has not been challenged by the Learned Counsel nor is it possible to do so in view of the clear testimony of the medical witness who noted prominent mark of legation all around the neck transversely placed at the level of thyroid cartilage. On dissection, the underlying muscles of the neck were found lacerated and the cricoids cartilage had been fractured. The body of the deceased was naked and was charged all over excepting the neck and the face The left leg was missing and so was the right foot The medical witness opined that the legaturs mark around the neck was ante-mortem and the burns were post-mortem in nature. It was also concluded that death was due to asphyxia as a consequence of strangulation. In these circumstances, all that requires to be determined is as to whether the deceased met her end at the hands of the Appellant, or not.

In so far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution has placed on the record sufficient material in the shape of testimony of various witnesses to show that the Appellant was not happy with the dowry received by him and had made grievance about the same. On that score, he was also maltreating the deceased Amar Kaur (P. W 5) is the aunt of the deceased. According to her, five or six days before her death, she had gone to see the deceased at Dhindsa where she found the Appellant present along with the deceased. The Appellant addressed the witness as Masi Ji and complained to her that she had played a fraud on him and his family He made a particular reference to the short stature of the deceased who was not presentable in their house. He also made a grievance that in view of no dowry having been given, his family could not show their faces in the village. The Appellant further threatened that he would get rid of the deceased. The witness, however, tried to soften down the Appellant by telling him that it was all pre-ordained and nothing could be done by her. The mere fact that the witness is the aunt of the deceased, would not make her testimony in any way unreliable. She has stood well the test of lengthy cross-examination. Apart from the above witness, there is the statement of Rijinder Singh (P.W. 7) who is a Member Panchayat of Village Suntokhpura The witness knew the father of the deceased and about this marriage of the deceased with the Appellant. According to him about a week prior to the death, the deceased bad come to their village and the witness had been called at the house of Jagpal Singh father of the deceased. In the presence of everybody the deceased told that her husband i. e., the Appellant, his younger brother Sukhbir Singh and their mother Tejinder Kaur had been torturing her for having brought insufficient dowry. She also mentioned about the demand of the Appellant for a motor cycle at the cost of her parents, and that she had been maltreated by the Appellant. Jagpal Singh father of the deceased requested that a Panchayat should be constituted which should go to the house of the Appellant to advise him not to maltreat the deceased. Nirbhai Singh Sarpanch who was also present at that time, however, suggested that as he was busy for about five or seven days, he would join the Panchayat thereafter. The deceased then returned to the house of the Appellant. On March 9, 1981, the witness went to see bis daughter in another village and on way back he came to Village Dandrala in order to meet the deceased. He reached the village at about 9 or 10 a. m. where he found the Appellant and the deceased present in their house. On enquiry from the Appellant as to why he had been maltreating the deceased if she was unable to arrange for a motor cycle from her parents, the Appellant denied having made this demand the deceased then burst out weeping and stated that every day the Appellant had been torturing her for bringing a motor cycle. The witness then told the Appellant that it was not proper for him to misbehave and that a Panchayat of respectable of both the villages would come and meet him. To this the Appellant retorted that he would obtain a decree of divorce from the Court. When the witness returned to his village, Jagpal Singh father of the deceased met and told him that he had gone to see his daughter and had found her dead body in half-burnt condition in kacho room of the house of the Appellant. He further informed that he had left Harpal Singh at the house of her in-laws as he suspected foul play. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police. Rajinder Singh P.W. was cross-examined in respect of his above testimony which remained untainted.

Another strong piece of evidence which the prosecution has relied upon is the testimony of Bachan Singh (P.W. 8) Sarpanch of Village Rohati Basta Singh. The witness is also a President of the Block Committee of Thuhi Block According to him, he was present at his house along with Sajjan Singh at about 9 or 10 a.m, when the Appellant came and met them. He was nervous and sad. The witness enquired from the Appellant about the cause of his depression to which the Appellant replied that Rajinder Singh Member Panchayat had visited him at his house and before the said witness his wife had made a complaint about his maltreatment to her. He also admitted that Rajinder Singh had told him that he would gather a Panchayat of both the villages and expose the Appellant. Thereafter the Appellant confessed mat in a fit of anger he strangulated his wife to death and after collecting fire wood and cow dung cakes he set fire to the body with the aid of kerosene oil and had left the house. Later on he learnt that the police was after him and hence he came to the witness to seek his help that the police may not beat him. Bachan Singh along with Sajjan Singh brought the Appellant to Bus Stand Nabha in order to produce him before the police of Bhadson Police Station The Police Officer, however, met them at the Bus Stand, Nabha, where the Appellant was handed over to him. This witness again is an independent person and a man of status. There is not even a suggestion against him of any animosity against the Appellant or nexus with the complainants. We have no hesitation in believing the testimony of this witness in the matter of extra-judicial confession made by the Appellant. The father of the deceased, namely, Jagpal Singh (P W. 9) also appeared in the witness-box and stated that on reaching the village of his daughter at about 2 or 3 p. m, he found several persons of the village collected at the house of the Appellant The body of his daughter was lying half-burnt and dead in a room of the house Some cow dung cakes were half burnt and the roof of the room had also fallen. The Appellant, hit brother and mother were not present there.

On the basis of the above material, the trial Court was quite justified in coming to the conclusion that the deceased met her end at the hands of the Appellant in whose house the dead body had been, found. The medical evidence regarding the mode of death coupled with the conduct of the Appellant as disclosed by the various -witnesses leave no room for doubt in regard to his complicity.

Before parting with the judgment, we find that while imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life upon the Appellant u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, the trial Court has directed the payment of Rs. 10,000/- only as fine which in the circumstances of the case, is quite inadequate and not commensurate with the heinous nature of the crime. The Appellant has put an end to an innocent life merely on account of his grade for obtaining a motor cycle at the cost of his in-laws- In such a situation, a heavier sentence of fine was required to be imposed Accordingly we enhance the fine from Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). In default of payment of this fine, the Appellant shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. The fine, if recovered shall be paid in equal shares to the parents of the deceased or in case of the death of either of them, to the survivor of the two.

Subject to the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- M.R. Sharma, J.