Nahar Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal filed by Nahar Singh, Bhola Singh and Amar Kaur, and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 19.9.1997, passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who convicted the appellants u/s 304B IPC, and sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ each; in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo R.I. for one year each.

The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Balbir Kaur w/o Gurjit Singh, deceased was married with Gurjit Singh within 7 months of her death on 11.8.1994 and the matter was reported to the police by Avtar Singh, father of the deceased, vide statement, Ex. PE, recorded by ASI Nirmal Singh, Incharge, Police Post, Kalyan, on the same day. It was alleged by the complainant that he was the resident of Village Lehal and worked as an agriculturist. His daughter Balbir Kaur was married with Gurjit Singh s/o Nahar Singh r/o Dulwankalan, about 7 months prior to the date of making the statement. The engagement of his daughter was settled with the intervention of Lal Singh s/o Mangal Singh r/o Nathe Hari. The complainant further alleged that he had given sufficient dowry according to his financial resources but the elder brotherinlaw Bhola Singh, motherinlaw Avtar Kaur and Nahar Singh, father inlaw, of the deceased, used to maltreat and used to beat her for bringing inadequate dowry. The deceased used to complain to her father about this fact. Two months prior to the occurrence Bhola Singh, Nahar Singh and Avtar Kaur, aforesaid, maltreated Balbir Kaur and gave beating to her for bringing inadequate dowry and a demand of scooter was made by them from the deceased so that she may be able to bring the scooter from the house of her parents. When this matter came to the notice of Avtar Singh, he along with Atma Singh, Member Panchayat, Lal Singh, Nathe, Hari and his brother Gurdial Singh went to the house of Gurjit Singh and told to the aforesaid persons that sufficient dowry had already been given and more dowry could not be given. The appellants were advised not to harass Balbir Kaur. However, on the contrary, the appellants told Avtar Singh that in case he was interested for the rehabilitation of his daughter, he will have to arrange a scooter, otherwise his daughter will not be in a position to settle in her matrimonial house. Upon this, the complainant made a promise that after the sale of the Kharif crop, he will be able to arrange a scooter. Appellants were requested to give proper respect to the deceased. It was further alleged by the complainant that about 6/7 days earlier to the death of his daughter, his daughter and soninlaw had come to his village and there also his daughter told him that her motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and elder brotherinlaw, had been maltreating her by saying that if she did not bring the scooter from the house of her parents, they would kill her. This matter was told to Sarpanch Atma Singh and Sadhu Singh, Member Panchayat. On 11.8.1994 at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant was present at his house in the village. Lal Singh, Mediator (Vichola) informed him that Avtar Kaur, Bhola Singh and Nahar Singh had quarrelled with Balbir Kaur and he should go to the house of the inlaws of the deceased in order to enquire about her welfare. Upon this, the complainant along with Lal Singh, Atma Singh and Gurdial Singh went to Village Dulwankalan to enquire about the welfare of Balbir Kaur and when they entered in the room of the residential house of Nahar Singh, they saw Balbir Kaur hanging over a cot, which was standing inside the room and a Dupatta of pink colour was found tied around her neck. The other end of the Dupatta was tied with the leg of the cot. The complainant, Atma Singh, Member Panchayat and Gurdial Singh, cut down the chunni and the body of Balbir Kaur was put on the cot. She was found dead. The complainant, finally, alleged in his statement that he was confident that his daughter Balbir Kaur had been murdered by the three appellants with the help of Chunni on account of inadequate dowry. Leaving the dead body in the house of the appellants, the complainant along with Atma Singh and Gurdial Singh proceeded for the police station in order to lodge the report but on the way, the police party met them and the complainant gave the statement, Ex. PE. It was the autopsy on the dead body of Balbir Kaur, and Avtar Singh, PW2, whose statement was corroborated by Gurdial Singh and Atma Singh, PWs 3 and 4, respectively. These are the three material witnesses on which the prosecution has relied in order to secure conviction for the appellants. O.I. Nirmal Singh, ASI, was examined by the prosecution as PW5.

The statements of the accused were recorded u/s 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 Nahar Singh, appellant, was as follows :

"I am innocent. I am on old person. Avtar Singh, complainant, was a man of bad habits. He was addicted to opium. He had taken all the ornaments from his daughter Balbir Kaur and she used to demand these ornaments from Avtar Singh. On his refusal to return the same, Balbir Kaur died herself. We never demanded any dowry from Avtar Singh or from Balbir Kaur and we always treated Balbir Kaur with love and affection. We have been falsely implicated in this case by Avtar Singh in connivance with the police."

The stand of Bhola Singh and Amar Kaur was the same as of their coaccused Nahar Singh.

When called upon to enter their defence, the accused did not examine any witness.

The learned trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

The complainant Avtar Singh has also filed a Crl. Revision 34 of 1998, praying that the appellants should be convicted u/s 302, IPC, and in the alternative, their sentence should be enhanced.

By this judgment, I am disposing of the appeal as well as the revision petition, with the assistance rendered by Br. B.S. Bhasaur, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. J.S. Brar on behalf of the State, assisted by Mr. Arihant Jain, who supported the contentions of the State and also pressed his revision for the conviction of the appellants u/s 302, IPC. In the alternative, Mr. Jain argued that the sentence awarded to the appellants is very meagre, keeping in view the fact that the crime has been committed qua a helpless lady Balbir Kaur, who died in the house of her inlaws within 7 months of her marriage.

The learned counsel for the appellants made an endeavour, in order to secure acquittal for the appellants, by alleging that the story of the prosecution is unnatural because Avtar Singh, father of the deceased, has exonerated the husband of the deceased. The counsel submitted that if there was any alleged demand of dowry, the most natural aspect of the case would be that this demand should have come from the husband. The counsel submitted that the occurrence had, in fact, taken place in a different manner but a wrong colour has been given so as to implicate the present appellants so that the entire benefits should go to the husband of the deceased.

On the contrary, the learned DAG, Punjab, submitted that by not implicating the husband of the deceased, Avtar Singh has given the most truthful and natural story. If Avtar Singh wanted to implicate falsely, his first target would be the husband of the deceased but he has kept his cards quite open and has made the allegations qua those persons only who were maltreating the deceased for inadequate dowry.

Mr. Jain, counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. 34 of 1998, in support of his revision petition contended that the evidence on the record clearly indicates that the three appellants had committed the murder of Balbir Kaur and they should have been convicted u/s 302, IPC.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties with help of the record, it has been proved that Balbir Kaur was married with Gurjit Singh within 7 months of her death which had taken place under abnormal circumstances. Now, it has to be seen whether the trial court was justified in recording conviction u/s 304B, IPC, or not. As per the provisions of Section 304B IPC, in order to succeed, following ingredients are supposed to be established by the prosecution :

"(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."

If all the four above parameters are discussed with the help of record, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court has rightly held that Section 304B, IPC, is made out. This court can well appreciate the anxiety of Avtar Singh, who has implicated the inlaws of the deceased besides her Jeth, who is unmarried. According to the prosecution, the demand allegedly made to the deceased was that of scooter and this demand was persistently made by all the appellants. The scooter is such a vehicle which ordinarily is plied by the male members of the agricultural class only. During the course of submissions, it has come to the notice of this court that Bhola Singh is unmarried. I do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellants that this case has been initiated at the instance of Gurjit Singh, who wanted to grab the entire land of Nahar Singh by sending his father, brother and mother inside the jail. This was not the case pleaded by the appellants before the trial court. Why Gurjit Singh would try to implicate his parents. Rather, he would be the first man to come to the rescue of his parents especially after the death of his wife. If Avtar Singh has not implicated his soninlaw, the benefit of this can also go to the prosecution and not to the accused. The general probabilities are the basis of yardstick which the criminal courts can rely. I have stated above that the alleged demand of scooter can be beneficial to Bhola Singh directly. The same can also enhance the prestige of the father in an agricultural class if the demand of scooter is met by the family of the deceased. Avtar Singh must be perturbed on seeing the death of his daughter and he would be the first man to implicate the entire family of Nahar Singh. Amar Kaur would be the last beneficiary from the alleged demand of dowry. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt can be extended to Amar Kaur.

With regard to the case of Nahar Singh and Bhola Singh, I am fully convinced from the statement of Avtar Singh corroborated by the statements of Gurdial Singh and Atma Singh that these two appellants had been teasing and compelling the deceased to bring the scooter from the house of her parents. The conduct of the deceased was very natural when she brought the matter to the notice of her parents. The conduct of Avtar Singh is also very natural when he discussed this matter with the Vichola, the respectables of his village and with the residents of Village Dulwankalan. The presence of the dead body in the house of Nahar Singh and Bhola Singh is an additional circumstance which establishes that the death of Balbir Kaur had taken place in the house of these two persons. No sane lady would try to finish her life especially within 7 months of her marriage.

The net result is that the appeal of Amar Kaur is hereby allowed by extending the benefit of doubt. She stand acquitted of the charge framed against her. So far as the appeal of Nahar Singh and Bhola Singh is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed in its entirety. The revision petition of Avtar Singh is also hereby dismissed in view of the discussion held above.