Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab

R.K. Nehru, J.—Accused Swaran Singh alongwith his wife Smt. Manjit Kaur,his son Makhan Singh, his daughter Prabhijit Kaur and his son-in-law JarnailSingh, husband of another daughter name Manjit Kaur were tried for offencesUnder Sections 120B, 302 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code for the death ofSmt. Kulwinder Kaur wife of Makhan Singh.

Mrs. Bakhshish Kaur, learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgmentof conviction dated 2.12.1992 acquitted all the accused of all the charges exceptMakhan Singh appellant who was convicted for an offence u/s 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to paya fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergorigorous imprisonment for two years. It was further directed that the amountof fine, if realised, would be paid to Bachan Singh P. W. 4, father of Smt. KulwinderKaur deceased, as compensation.

The occurrence leading to the death of Smt. Kulwinder Kaur deceased in this case is stated to have happened sometime of 11.7.1989 in the area of villageSahowal which is at a distance of about 8 Kms. from Police Station, Sadar,Gurdaspur where the case was registered under formal First Information ReportEx. PG/2 at 5.30/6 p.m. vide report No. 15/16 of the same date on the statement ofBachan Singh P.W. 4 (father of the deceased) recorded by Beant Ram InspectorP.W. 11 at Bus Stand Rambagh at 5 p.m.

The prosecution story as contained in the First Information Report may besummed up thus :

Smt. Kulwinder Kaur deceased in this case was the daughter of BachanSingh P.W. 4. She was married to Makhan Singh appellant about 1� yearsprior to her death. Bachan Singh P.W. 4 had given sufficient dowry in hermarriage. But her in-laws were not happy over the dowry given to her andon that acore, she was being ill-treated by the accused regarding whichshe had even informed her father about three months after marriage.When she visited her parents'' village and that time, Dewan SinghSarpanch, Avtar Singh Mahal, Kulwant Kaur (daughter-in-law) and otherfamily members were also present. Bachan Singh P.W. 4 had then told thedeceased that he could not afford to pay more money and that he wouldtalk her father-in-law. Thereafter, on the following day, she left for her in-laws house. Baljit Singh P.W. 7, brother of the deceased, and his wife Smt.Kulwant Kaur used to visit the deceased at her in-laws house and thedeceased used to tell them about the ill-treatment suffered by her at thehands of the family members of her in-laws. For the last time, they visitedthe deceased at her in-laws house 3/4 days prior to her death and on thatoccasion also they were informed by the deceased of her having been givenbeating by her husband, Makhan Singh, her mother-in-law, Manjit Kaurand her sister-in-law, Prabhjit Kaur. Baljit Singh P.W. 7 had then askedthe deceased to accompany them but accused Prabhjit Kaur had declaredthat if the decased left the matrimonial home, she would not be allowed toenter there. The deceased apprehended that her dead body would moveout of her matrimonial house. Baljit Singh P.W. 7 and his wife Smt.Kulwant Kaur returned to their village and informed about the aboveincident to Bachan Singh P.W. 4. Makhan Singh, the husband wanted thatKulwinder Kaur should bring from her parents money enough topurchase a motor car because her father had sold agricultural land andat a considerable good price but the father could not fulfil the demandinasmuch as he had four sons and he wanted to purchase agricultural landin lieu of the one sold by him.

On 11.7.1989 Bachan Singh P.W. 4 was present in village Mattwan whenat about 10.30/11 a.m. one Sher Singh came there and informed him that Smt.Kulwinder Kaur was sitting on the pillion of the scooter, which was being drivenby Makhan Singh accused and that she had fallen into the canal alongwith thescooter in the area of village Sahowal. On being so informed, Bachan Singh P.W.4 visited the spot where he found the scooter of Makhan Singh accused-appellantlying by the side of the canal bank. However, he did not find any traces of Smt.Kulwinder Kaur deceased. He became suspicious that the deceased had been madeto fall in the canal by the accused. At that time, he also found the daughter of thedeceased aged about 8 months lying by the side of the canal bank. He wentimmediately to village Jagatpur and informed about the incident to Dewan SinghSarpanch and other family members. Thereafter, he alongwith Dewan SinghSarpanch proceeded to go to the Police Station to lodge the report. On the way, hemet Inspector Beant Ram P.W. 11 to whom he then made his statement, Ex. P.G.naming all the accused having thrown the deceased in the canal with the intention to kill her by hatching a conspiracy. The Police then took up the investigation ofthe case.

Inspector Beant Ram P.W. 11 accompanied Bachan Singh P.W. 4 andDewan Singh Sarpanch to the spot, where he found 20/25 persons already presentthere. At that time, he also found scootor No. PAC-3956 lying there. He inspectedthe spot, prepared its visual plan Ex. PN and seized the scooter under memo Ex.PM alongwith its registration certificate which was found lying. He also recordedthe statements of the witnesses. He searched for the dead body with the help ofmembers of the Police Party but it could not be located. He deputed some personof the public to guard the spot.

On 17.7.1989 on being informed by Bachan Singh P.W. 4, S.I. Amar SinghP.W. 8 went to the canal at the spot and recovered the dead body of Smt. KulwinderKaur deceased, which was then found floating. He held inquest proceedings on thedead body, which was found inflated with water and was in a decomposed statebut could be identified. He also sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.

Dr. Vijay Laxmi P.W. 1 conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Smt.Kulwinder Kaur on 17.7.1989 at 12.30 p.m. vide post-mortem report, copy provedas Ex. P.A., and observed as under :

"Young girl wearing printed Salwar, Kamiz, underwear, one Karra, twohair pins, one small gatra, one Payal on left leg, mouth open, insects inmouth, tongue was swollen. In between the teeth, no protruding. Skinbleached, corrugated appearance. Sudden apidrims pealed off at manyplaces. Body was putrified. No froth from mouth or nose. Few CC of watercoming from mouth and nose. No object grasped by hand. Face wasswollen. Eyes were closed covered with mud. No external injury overbody.

On opening the skull, left parietal haematoma was present. Base of theskull was fractured on left side.

All organs were healthy and congested. Lungs no distended. Stomachwas healthy and congested. Only few CC of fluid present. Sent forchemical analysis. Bladder contained 5 CC of urine and sent for chemicalanalysis."

In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death could be either due to headinjury or on account of cause not known and as such viscera collected by the Doctorwas sent for chemical examination. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Theprobable time that elapsed between injuries and death could not be ascertainedbut the probable time between injuries and death was 4 to 6 days. On receipt of thereport of Chemical Examiner, Ex. PC, this Doctor vide his opinion Ex. PD, dated26.9.1989 declared that the cause of death was due to head injury (fracture of thebase of skull) and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The Doctor further declared that the death was not due to drowning.

At the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses namely Dr. VijayLaxmi P.W. 1, Sohan Singh Grewal, SHO, Tibri Sub-Division, Tibri, P.W. 2, OmPrakash Patwari P.W. 3, Bachan Singh P.W. 4, Mohinder Singh P.W. 5, Chain Singh P.W.6,Baljit Singh P.W. 7, SI Amar Singh P.W. 8, Beant Singh Inspector P.W. 11,besides tendering affidavits of two police officials as P.W. 9 and P.W. 10.

In their statements u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded their falseinvolvement. Their plea is of alibi. Accused-appellant Makhan Singh took upthe plea, which is reproduced as under :

"It had accompanied my mother to village Mahadev Khurd to attend themarriage of Ajit Singh, a cousin of my Mother manjit Kaur on 9.7.1989.Iaccompanied the marriage party to village Sheikhupur on 10.7.1989. Ireturned to my village Khichian on the morning of 11.7.1989 alongwith myschool going brothers Sulakhan Singh and Surjit Singh who had alsogone with us to attend the marriage. My mother Manjit Kaur stayed backat Mahadev Khurd as she was to attend the Muklava ceremony and Milniat village Sheikhupur on 11.7.1989 at the house of the parents of the bride.On return to my village, I acompanied by my wife Kulwinder Kaur left forvillage of my in-laws to pay a visit. I and my wife Kulwinder Kaur wasgoing on the scooter. I was driving the scooter and Kulwinder Kaur wassitting on the pillion of the scooter. We were going by the side of bankof the Upper Bari Boab, when we reached in the area of Sahowal, a dogwhile running struck against my scooter, resulting in the loss of the controlof the scooter and fell. My wife Kulwinder Kaur who was riding on thepillion fell into the canal on account of this accident. The scooter also fellin the canal alongwith me. There were boulders on the side of the canal.I tried to rescue my wife. I also raised alarm which attracted many otherpeople who also joined me in her search. On learning about the accident,my father and other people also reached the place of accident. Inspite ofour best efforts, we could not locate Kulwinder Kaur. My father left forPolice Post, Sahowal to lodge the information with the police and beforehe left, we deputed Sher Singh of Dhariwal to inform Bachan Singh, myfather-in-law and other relations at Malook Mattoan about this accident.My father brought the police from P.S. Sadar, Gurdaspur. The fall ofKulwinder Kaur into the canal was as a result of accident. Subsequently,my father-in-law in consultation with Dewan Singh Sarpanch of villageShaila and the police converted an accident into an incident and falselyinvolved us in this case. My relations with my wife were most cordial andloving. I or my relations have at no time made any demand for any money from my in-laws through my wife."

In defence, the appellant Makhan Singh examined six witnesses namelySh. S.S. Bhullar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur D.W. 1, Hans Raj D.W.2, Paramjit Singh D.W. 3, Joginder Singh D.W. 4, Ravel Singh D.W. 5 and SatnamSingh D.W. 6.

On evaluating the evidence led by the prosecution during the trial,learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment dated 2.12.1992 acquittedaccused Swaran Singh, Manjit Kaur, Prabhjit Kaur and Jarnail Singh but foundprima facie case proved against appellant Makhan Singh for an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as such convicted and sentenced him inthe terms, as stated above.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have scanned theevidence and other material on record.

On analytically examining the evidence and other circumstances onrecord in the light of the background in which the F.I.R. was lodged by the fatherof the deceased and the investigation was started, we are of the view that theconviction recorded by the Trial Court is unassailable though on different grounds.

No doubt, the material witnesses including the complainant in this case,who is no other person than the father of the deceased, have deposed in Courtby making some improvements over their version before the police but one thingwhich is evident from the circumstances on record is that as per the defenceversion, the dead body of the deceased was recovered and taken out of the canalafter about 7/8 days of the alleged occurrence and Dr. Vijay Laxmi P.W. 1 whoconducted the post-mortem examination found that her death was not on accountof drawning but it was on account of the head injury which was a fracture on thebase of the skull and this injury was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause deathin the ordinary course of nature. This opinion of the Doctor has gone unchallenged.In the above background, the Court is not concerned much about theimprovements made by the prosecution witnesses in their testimony over theirversion, as contained in their police statements. Rather, the task before the Courtis to assess the credibility of otherwise of the prosecution case by taking intoaccount the totality of the circumstances appearing in evidence including the pleaof the accused about the manner leading to the death of the deceased and for thatthe circumstances have to be examined thoroughly.

It may be recapitulated that Makhan Singh was married to Smt. KulwinderKaur about 1� years prior to the occurrence. Out of this wedlock, they wereblessed with a daughter who was about 8 months old at the time of occurrence. Thehusband remained dissatisfied with the dowry and recently Bachan Singh, thefather-in-law, had sold about 10 Bighas of land and he wanted that the deceasedshould bring her share which could enable him to purchase a motor car. On9.7.1989, Makhan Singh accused and his wife Smt. Kulwinder Kaur deceasedalongwith their infant daughter went to village Sheikhpura to attend to marriageof Ajit Singh, a cousin of the mother of Makhan Singh and they were returning fromthe aforesaid marriage. The husband bore a grudge against the wife inasmuch asshe could not press for her claim in the sale proceeds of the agricultural land soldby her father because that alone could be sufficient for the purchase of a motorcar and with that motive, the story of the prosecution is that Smt. Kulwinder Kaurdeceased was thrown by her husband, Makhan Singh, in the Upper Bari DoabCanal with the object of putting to an end to her life. The strong motive has beenbrought on record by Bachan Singh P.W. 4 who has deposed about the repeateddemands and the dissatisfaction in respect of dowry which the husband and othermembers of the family had been expressing. Smt. Kulwinder Kaur had studiedupto 6th class and it was scarcely expected that she could have written letters to her parents regarding the dissatisfaction of her husband. Baljit Singh P.W. 7, thebrother has corroborated the continued demand of the husband for money forpurchasing a car. He also deposed in the Trial Court that he had noticedmaltreatment meted out to his sister when he alongwith his wife Smt. KulwantKaur had gone to the house of the in-laws of his sister.

The plea of the husband in his statement u/s 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure recorded in the Trial Court that on the Bank of Upper BariDoab Canal a dog struck against his scooter resulting in the loss of the control ofthe scooter and fall of his wife Smt. Kulwinder Kaur from the pillion, does notappear to be plausible. It is not at all convincing that the husband too had falleninto the canal came out unhurt and the infant daughter also remained unhurt onthe canal bank where the depth of the water was 9.25 feet in Upper Bari DoabCanal on 11.7.1989 as stated by P.W. 2 Sohan Singh Grewal, S.D.O. (Irrigation).

The learned Counsel for the appellant has at the fag end put forward aplea that even according to the story of the prosecution, it appears to be a case of dowry death within less than 2 years of the marriage, where the allegationagainst the husband had been that he pressurised his wife to bring money fromher father in order to purchase a motor car and as such the offence would fallunder Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and a sentence of comparativelylesser term may meet the ends of justice. This contention is not acceptable in the circumstances of the case inasmuch as the husband put an end to the life of his wifeat or near the Upper Bari Doab Canal and she received a head injury at the handsof the husband, who threw her in the running water of the canal which had a depthof more than 9� feet at the time of the occurrence. The depth and that force of theflow of the water brought on record by Sohan Singh Grewal P.W. 2 was nevercontroverted during the trial. D.W. 1 Shri S.S. Bhullar, then AdditionalSuperintendent of Police, Gurdaspur who also investigated this case verifiedthe facts and it was after the verification of facts by him that the challenge waspresented. It is immaterial that the accused could examine in his defence somepersons such as D.W. 2 Hans Raj, D.W. 3 Paramjit Singh, D.W. 4 Joginder Singhand D.W. 5 Ravail Singh that it was a case of accident. As seen above, it isincredible and difficult to reach a conclusion that the husband came out of suchdeep water unhurt and the infant also remained unhurt.

In view of the evidence and reasons discussed above, we do not find anymerit in this appeal and the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned SessionsJudge, Gurdaspur and the sentence awarded is hereby affirmed and appeal dismissed.