Jaswant Singh vs State of Punjab

Harbans Lal, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 23.1.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Jaswant Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s 306 of IPC.

Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 2.2.1997, Gurmit Singh complainant made statement before Mohinder Singh, SI, Incharge Police Post Shimlapuri, Ludhiana in the terms that his sister Balbir Kaur alias Biro aged about 25 years was married to Jaswant Singh accused on 7.12.1996 whereafter the latter did not allow her to meet them. After sometime, he went to fetch his sister to his house. She told him that the accused used to give beatings to her. He made the accused to understand and told him that he had come to take his sister along, but he did not agree. Instead, he humiliated him by saying that she cannot go outside the gate of his house without his consent. On 26.1.1997, his father Pal Singh and his mother Shanti went to the house of the accused in order to bring Balbir Kaur to their house. The accused did not allow them to meet her rather sent them back after insulting them. The accused gave slaps to Balbir Kaur in the presence of her father Pal Singh and mother Shanti. On 2.2.1997, he (Gurmit Singh) and his friend Ranjit Singh went to the house of accused in Jammu Colony, Ludhiana in order to see Balbir Kaur at about 2:00 P.M., when they reached the house, seven persons were found to have amassed there. They came to know that Balbir Kaur had committed suicide by hanging herself on the night intervening 1/ 2.2.1997. They went inside and found her dead body lying on a bed. There were ligature marks around her neck. By leaving Ranjit Singh to guard the dead body, he came to his parents and relatives and made them aware of the occurrence. She had committed suicide being fed up with the behaviour of her husband. On the basis of his (Gurmit Singh) statement, the FIR was registered. The investigation was conducted by SI Mohinder Singh. He inspected the spot and prepared the inquest report. The autopsy was got performed on the dead body. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.

On commitment, the accused was charged u/s 306 of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution has examined PW1 Dr. Ashok Raswant, PW2 Gurmit Singh, PW3 Pal Singh, father of the deceased, PW4 Mohinder Singh, Sub-Inspector and PW5 Ranjit Singh, friend of Gurmit Singh and closed its evidence.

When examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication. He has put forth that Gurmit Singh PW was inimically disposed towards him as he had not paid the desired money to him. He had cordial relations with his wife. In his defence, he examined Hoshiar Singh DW1.

After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/ sentence, he has preferred this appeal.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate representing the Appellant urged with great eloquence that it is in the evidence of Gurmit Singh PW2 complainant - author of the FIR that "I was told by my sister that the accused Jaswant Singh was maltreating her and demanding Rs. 50,000/- for starting some work. I made the accused to understand that we are not in a position to pay Rs. 50,000/- to him. Accused insulted me and also told me that your sister cannot go out without his permission." But a close examination of the FIR would reveal that this fact regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/- does not figure therein. Thus palpably, this witness has left no stone unturned in introducing improvements in material particulars. It is further argued that Pal Singh PW3 too has testified that "he (referring to his son Gurmit Singh PW) had told me that accused was demanding Rs. 50,000." Furthermore, this witness Pal Singh was declared hostile. So, it would be risky to rely on such evidence.

To controvert these submissions, Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab argued on behalf of the State that the entire evidence tendered by these witnesses could not be discredited merely because of the fact that FIR is silent about the demand of Rs. 50,000/-.

I have well considered the rival contentions. There is no gainsaying the fact that the FIR is absolutely cryptic about the aforesaid demand. Of course, an FIR is not an encyclopedia of the prosecution case, but at the same time, it is not to be lost sight of the fact that if such a demand had verily been made by the accused-Appellant, it being a stark fact, Gurmit Singh PW being real brother of the deceased would have not become oblivious about it while making statement before the police. It is in his cross-examination that "I had stated before Mohinder Singh SI that accused was demanding Rs. 50,000/-." When he was confronted with his statement Ex.PD, it was not found so recorded therein. As is borne out from Pal Singh''s evidence, he, on the basis of hearsay evidence stated about the alleged demand. Of course, there is no allergy to the hearsay evidence, provided it has a reasonable nexus with credibility. The hearsay evidence trickled from the mouth of Pal Singh PW hardly fulfil this requirement. It is in his cross-examination that "I did not state before the police that the accused was demanding Rs. 50,000/- through Balbir Kaur." Thus, it is for the first time that he introduced this improvement. When Pal Singh was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, he stated that "My statement was got recorded by the police. I had stated that my son-in-law Jaswant Singh was not allowing Balbir Kaur to meet us, and that he was not allowing her to come to our house. I had stated that after marriage, my son had gone to bring Balbir Kaur to our house and the accused did not send her with him and that rather he insulted him. I had stated that on 26.1.1997 I and my wife had gone to the house of the accused and the accused did not allow us to meet Balbir Kaur and that accused gave slaps to Balbir Kaur in our presence and that we were sent back after insulting. It is correct that accused was maltreating Balbir Kaur." This evidence leave no speck of doubt that this witness has fully supported the prosecution case. True that Ranjit Singh PW5 was declared hostile, but under the stress of cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, he stated that "My statement was recorded by the police." The possibility of his having been won over by the accused later on, cannot be ruled out. As held in re: State of Punjab v. Hari Singh and Anr. AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1168, "In appraising evidence, the Courts in India do not act on the Maxim `Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus''. In considering the effect of each allegation proved to be incorrect or the likelihood of its being true or untrue, the Court have to view it in the light of a whole setting or concatenation of facts in each particular case." In view of these observations, the entire evidence given by Gumit Singh as well as Pal Singh P Ws cannot be discarded. The sum and substance of the evidence of Pal Singh (sic.) is that on 26.1.1997, he and his wife were insulted by the accused, when they had gone to meet the deceased. It further emanates that the accused had given slaps to Balbir Kaur (deceased) in their presence and the accused used to maltreat her. Further, the tenor of Gurmit Singh''s evidence is that after a few days of the marriage, when he went to see his sister, he was told by her that the accused was maltreating her. This nugget or core of truth cannot be given a go by, merely because of the fact that an improvement with regards to the demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the accused, has been introduced by these witnesses. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is a celebrated dictum of law that the part of statement of a witness which contains falsehood has to be ignored whereas the remaining part is to be taken into account. His statement as a whole, if it contains some improvements cannot be brushed aside. One thing which is clear from their evidence is that the accused used to give beatings to the deceased. In other words, he used to treat her with cruelty. The deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. It clearly indicates that the accused-Appellant had brought about the situation to such a boil, which forced her to commit suicide. The concept of cruelty changes with change in time. What may be mental cruelty now may not be mental cruelty after passage of time. There cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of "mental cruelty" within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No Court should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. What is cruelty in one case, may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. The concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static. It is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. As ruled by the Apex Court in re: Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 2007(2) RCR 515, the sustained reprehensive conduct, studied neglect, actions aimed to derive sadistic pleasure, abuse and humiliation, sustained unjustified conduct affecting physical and mental health of spouse, frequent rudeness, indifference and neglect amounts to cruelty. In the case at hand, the deceased put an end to her life by resorting to hanging. This act of her ipso facto speaks volumes of the cruelty, which was being meted out to her by the accused-Appellant. The record is quite barren to show that the deceased was petulant or was suffering from some mental disorder. Normally, a woman does not take such a drastic step in her life unless she is impelled by the circumstances created by the accused. Needless to say, she lost her life within the four walls of the house of the accused-Appellant. So, it is only within his special knowledge as to what compelled the deceased to go to this extent. It is in the evidence of Dr. Ashok Raswant PW1 that "the cause of death in the opinion of the board was asphyxia caused by hanging, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and was ante-mortem." This medical opinion affirms the act of suicide. The accused-Appellant has come up with the plea that "Gurmit Singh has enmity with me as I had not paid him the money, he desired. I had cordial relations with my wife." For a little while, if it is assumed to be so, by no stretch of speculation, the deceased would have taken her life, if cordial relations were subsisting between her and the accused. The tenor of the evidence of Hoshiar Singh DW1 is that the deceased was suffering from mental disorder. Under the stress of cross-examination, he stated that "I am not a medical Practitioner. Balbir Kaur was not medically examined by any doctor in my presence. The fact disclosed by me today in the Court, was not disclosed to any person till today. I did not move to the higher authorities that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case." This defence evidence requires rejection on two counts.

In view of the preceding discussion, the conviction is maintained. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the accused-Appellant has undergone 1 year, 1 month and 13 days of the total sentence and this incidence being pretty old, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to this submission. The accused-Appellant has been facing the agony of trial since February, 1997, meaning thereby, this incident is more than 11 years old.

Taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone (1 year 1 month and 13 days), while maintaining the fine as well as its default clause.

With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed.