Nachhatar Singh and others vs State of Punjab

J.B. Garg J.

Nachhatar Singh the husband, Sulakhan Singh a brother of aforesaid Nachhatar Singh and Savitri a widowed sister have been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code by Shri Beant Singh Bedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 23.10.1992 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

Briefly, Nachhatar Singh, a Naik in the Army was married to Narinderjit Kaur about 31/2 years prior to this occurrence. Besides Nachhatar Singh his brother Sulakhan Singh and a widowed sister Savitri had also been residing at the premises and they all were dissatisfied with the dowry and Nachhatar Singh and his brother had been maltreating and coercing Narinderjit Kaur. About three weeks prior to the occurrence Mohinder Singh the fatherinlaw stressed upon Nachhatar Singh not to harass his daughter. On 20th of September, 1990 on the assurance of a couple of respectables including Rattan Singh the complainant father alongwith his son Gurnam Singh went to the premises of the appellants and left Narinderjit Kaur at the house of her inlaws at village Tanda Kalia. Nachhatar Singh Sepoy was on long leave during this period. Scarcely after four days Gurnam Singh brother of Narinderjit Kaur went to the premises of her inlaws to enquire about the wellbeing of the sister and came back with the report that his sister has been subjected to burns and she has been carried away in a tractor trolley. Mohinder Singh the father rushed out of his house and first proceeded to the nearby Government hospital at Machhiwara and when his daughter was not found there he proceeded to Ludhiana but on the way near village Iraq they noticed the burnt body of Narinderjit Kaur in a van and the father noticed that his daughter Narinderjit Kaur was dead on account of burns. Sulakhan Singh and his sister Savitri made good their escape from the aforesaid van. Mohinder Singh the father thereafter proceeded to Police Station Machhiwara where his statement was recorded by Shri Ashok Puri Sub Inspector at 1.50 p.m. and the ''special report'' reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Samrala at 6.00 p.m. on 24.9.1990 itself. However, Sulakhan Singh and Savitri could be arrested on 5.10.1990 and Nachhatar Singh was handed over by the army authorities on 17.10.1990 to Shri Avtar Singh ASI (PW12) because according to their communication dated 11.3.1991 they had declined to try him through Court Martial and it was in these circumstances that all the three accused were tried at Ludhiana.

PW3 Dr. Amarjit Singh, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Samrala, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Narinderjit Kaur, aged 25/26 on 25.9.1990. The body contained second and third degree burns present all over except left hand. Scalp showed burns. The walls, ribs and cartilages of thorax had second and third degree burns. Similarly walls of abdomen had second and third degree burns. The cause of death was burn injuries. There was no smell of kerosene on the dead body. The Medical Officer did not concur that the smell invariably persisted in burn injuries if it resulted after pouring of kerosene.

PW1 Mohinder Singh, complainantfather of the deceased, told that Narinderjit Kaur was married about 31/2 years prior to the occurrence. Besides, Sulakhan Singh, the younger brother of the husband, and Savitri, a widowed sister had also been residing in the same premises. He specially told that the younger brother of the husband and also the sister of the husband had been making demand for more dowry as complained by Narinderjit Kaur, his daughter. He specially deposed that there was a demand for more dowry even on 12.9.1990 when Narinderjit Kaur came to his house inasmuch as she was turned out by the accused after she was beaten by Nachhatar Singh and Savitri.

PW2 Gurnam Singh brother told in the trial Court that Nachhatar Singh started harassing his sister and even her fatherinlaw Milkha Singh started demanding dowry. He specifically named Nachhatar Singh and Savitri who had been making the demands. He told in the trial Court that his sister described that Sulakhan Singh, husband''s brother also maltreated her.

PW4 Piara Singh Member Panchayat, deposed in the trial Court that on 4.10.1990 Sulakhan Singh made extrajudicial confession before him that there was a quarrel regarding the dowry and the reply of Narinderjit Kaur was that her father could not afford more and at the instance of his brother Nachhatar Singh the aforesaid brother Sulakhan Singh handed over a container of kerosene to Savitri who poured it on Narinderjit Kaur and Nachhatar Singh, the husband, set her on fire with a match stick. Sulakhan Singh threw a gunny bag or taat on her.

PW5 Jit Singh, a pensioner of the Army, was a witness to the extra judicial confession made on 4.10 1990 by Savitri to the effect that there was a dispute regarding dowry and oil which was supplied by Sulakhan Singh was poured by her on Narinderjit Kaur in the presence of her two brothers and Nachhatar Singh had set Savitri on fire.

PW6 Ashok Kumar draftsman prepared the site plan Exhibit PL of the place outside the Police Station, Machhiwara, where the dead body was noticed by him.

PW7 Rajnish Kumar took photographs Exhibits PP/1 to 3 of the deceased in front of the premises of Police Station, Machhiwara.

PW8 Ranjit Singh, Assistant Moharrir Head Constable of Police Station, Machhiwara, told that on 24.9.1990 Shri Ashok Puri, Sub Inspector, deposited with him a peepi of kerosene which was empty but smelt of kerosene, one bag and one matchbox which were Exhibits P1 to P3.

PW9 Gurcharan Singh Constable delivered a ''special report'' to Ilaqa Magistrate at 6.00 p.m. on 24.9.1990.

PW10 Manjit Singh, Head Constable and P.W.11 Ram Dyal, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station, Machhiwara were formal witnesses.

PW12 Shri Avtar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector told that Mohinder Singh brought the dead body of his daughter Narinderjit Kaur in a car in front of the Police Station, Machhiwara and thereafter Shri Ashok Puri Sub Inspector recorded the statement of Mohinder Singhcomplainant and prepared the inquest proceedings and then they proceeded to the place of occurrence. An empty cane smelling of kerosene and empty bags were lying in a room of residential house of accused which were taken into possession by Shri Ashok Puri Sub Inspector vide Memo Exhibit PRR. None of the three accused was found there. Only the paralytic father of Nachhatar Singh was seen there. The dead body was despatched to the Civil Hospital, Samrala and after the postmortem, it was delivered to Mohinder Singh, the father, on 25.9.1990.

PW14 Shri Ashok Puri, the then Station House Officer of Police Station Machhiwara told in the trial Court that the First Information Report was recorded by him on the statement of Mohinder Singh the father. He prepared the inquest report Exhibit PU. A Photographer was also sent for and photographs of the dead body were also taken. Ultimately, the dead body was despatched for the purpose of postmortem examination. Only the paralytic old fatherinlaw was found at the premises of the accused. On 5.10.1990 Piara Singh PW4 produced Sulakhan Singh and Jit Singh PW5 produced Savitri the accused. There was no assemblage of persons outside the house of the accused when the police party reached there. He did not record the name of the van driver. Nachhatar Singh was secured from the army authorities with the help of PW12 Avtar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector.

The relevant part of the statement of Nachhatar Singh son of Milkha Singh, aged 26, recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial Court is reproduced as under :

"I am innocent. I am at a loss to know as to why this false case has been made out against me by my fatherinlaw. On 24.9.90 I was on leave from my Army Unit. I had come to M.A. branch of S.S.P., Office, Ludhiana for some work on that date. I had to get the character of Paramjit Singh son of Shri Gurmel Singh of my village verified from S.S.P. Ludhiana because Paramjit Singh had joined the Army. In my absence the stove brust, Narinderjit Kaur caught fire sustained injuries and succumbed to them. I or my coaccused did not sprinkle the kerosene on her and I did not set her on fire. When I returned home, I learnt that she had died. I told the villagers and I would go to the police and report the matter. The villagers told me that there was no use for telling the matter to the police. Under the normal course my annual leave was to expire on 6.10.1990. On the night of 24.9.1990 I have met my fatherinlaw in their village and enquired from them as to what my fault was. They told me that only the court would decide the matter."

The relevant part of the statement of Sulakhan Singh son of Milkha Singh, aged 20, recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial Court is as under :

"I am innocent. At the time when Narinderjit Kaur caught fire, I had gone away to my fields. She caught fire all of a sudden by bursting of stove. When I returned home I found that she had sustained burn injuries on account of the bursting of stove. Many persons were present there. On the advice of the villagers, I and Waryam Singh, my first cousin took her to Civil Hospital, Machhiwara in a tractor trolley.The doctor in Civil Hospital, Machhiwara advised us to take her to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Then in Maruti van we took her to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. The van was owned and driven by one Kuldip Singh. On the way she succumbed to her injuries. We were coming back to our house, in the same van with the dead body of Narinderjit Kaur. We took the dead body in the van to P.S. Machhiwara. But the police detained Nachhatar Singh and Savitri Devi in the police station. Savitri Devi had also gone in the van with the injured Narinderjit Kaur to Ludhiana. After this, the police falsely implicated us in the present case. I am innocent.

The relevant part of the statement of Savitri widowed sister recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial Court is as under :

"I am innocent. On 24.9.1990, I was not present in my house. I had gone to bara in my village. Only some small children told me that Narinderjit Kaur had caught fire and sustained injuries. I do not know how Narinderjit Kaur caught fire."

DW1 Prem Singh, a resident of village Tanda Kalia, told that on his enquiry Narinderjit Kaur told him that the stove brust and she caught fire and that in his presence Sulakhan Singh and Savitri carried Narinderjit Kaur in a van to Civil Hospital, Machhiwara but when he himself reached the aforesaid hospital none of them was found there and later on, he came to know that Narinderjit Kaur was lying near the premises of the police station. In cross examination, he told that the distance between his house and that of the accused was 30 karams and in between there were houses of Sita Ram and Naurata and another adjoining house was that of Sulakhan Singh.

DW2 Chint Singh told that his house was at a distance of 20 or 25 yards from the house of the accused.

Sulakhan Singh met him and told that on account of burst of stove, Narinderjit Kaur caught fire and at the instance of Sulakhan Singh, he proceeded to the village of Mohinder Singh for conveying this information. He denied that his grandfather and that of Nachhatar Singh were brothers. However, he has not denied that he is a collateral but a distant one. He did not hear any hue and cry from the premises of the accused.

DW3 Gurnam Singh has proved an old photograph where the mother of the deceased Narinderjit Kaur was serving sweets to Nachhatar Singh, her sonin law.

DW4 Paramjit Photographer told that the old negatives of the photographs could not be brought on record by DW3 Gurnam Singh as the same were no longer available.

We have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 Mohinder Singh, the father, and it very well established that Narinderjit Kaur was married about 31/2 years prior to the occurrence with Nachhatar Singh who was a kind of Naik in the Army. Though the marriage was performed according to the means of the father yet as pointed out by the father and also P.W.2 Gurnam Singh, a brother, it is very well established that neither Nachhatar Singh, the husband nor Sulakhan Singh, a brother, nor Savitri, the widowed sister, who had been residing there, were satisfied. Even earlier Narinderjit Kaur had been complaining to her parents and the brother regarding the maltreatment meted out to her by the appellants especially on or about 12.9.1990.

It was on 20.9.1990 that Narinderjit Kaur was left at the premises of the husband and this ultimately resulted into extensive burns on the person of Narinderjit Kaur at the premises of her own husband which took place in the early hours of 24.9.1990. The plea that Nachhatar Singh, the husband had gone to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana for getting the papers pertaining to the character verification of another person who had recently joined the Army and that in his absence there was a burst of stove. Narinderjit Kaur had come to the premises of the husband scarcely about four days earlier. This plea, as if the stove at the premises of the husband was waiting the burst on the fourth day of the arrival of Narinderjit Kaur at the time when neither the widowed sister of the husband nor a brother of the husband nor the husband who had come on leave from Army was present, does not appear to be plausible.

The learned counsel for the appellants has raised a plea that there was no specific demand regarding any particular valuable such as a refrigerator or a conveyance etc. and it should not be presumed that there were demands in this case where the marriage took place about 31/2 years ago. This contention is not acceptable. Narinderjit Kaur was left at the premises of inlaws on 20.9.1990 and the husband though in the army was on leave and his leave was to expire on 6.10.1990. Soon after the occurrence the husband was first to abscond and took shelter in his army unit which he considered to be the safest place. The other two accused Sulakhan Singh and Savitri were arrested on 5.10.1990. Their greed and participation in achieving the goal which was to eliminate Narinderjit Kaur was very well established in the circumstances of the case.

Milkha Singh, the fatherinlaw of the deceased Narinderjit Kaur was an old sarpanch of the village but now he is a patient of paralysis and it was not difficult for him to secure a couple of witnesses examined in the trial Court in defence and their version that it was a case of stove burst was wholly unconvincing in this case.

It may be mentioned here that the accused were acquired in respect of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which was framed by the trial Court and they were convicted only for the alternative charge under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 Mohinder Singh the complainantfather, P.W.2 Gurnam Singh, the brother and the fact that the husband who had come on long leave from the Army, Sulakhan Singh, the brother and Savitri the widow sister who had, otherwise, been residing in the same premises together with the extra judicial confession made by the two through P.W.4 Piara Singh and P.W.5 Jit Singh and other circumstantial evidence referred to above, the guilt under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was very well established and the conviction of the three appellants recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed.

As regards quantum of sentence, Shri R.S. Ghai, the learned counsel has referred to Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 625 wherein it was observed that the punishment for life may not be awarded in every case. Here also the quantum of sentence is reduced and it is ordered that the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and with this modification regarding quantum of sentence, the appeal attempted by the three appellants is hereby dismissed.