Paramjit Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a criminal appeal filed by Paramjit Singh (husband) and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 9.11.1995 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, who convicted the appellant u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo RI for one month.

The brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :

Paramjit Singh appellant, his younger brother Didar Singh and mother Swaran Kaur earlier faced a trial under Sections 304-B, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered on 23.7.1994 on the statement of Manpreet Singh son of Chanan Singh resident of Village Lohian Khas, brother of Harbans Kaur deceased. It is 2. After the marriage Harbans Kaur deceased had complained to him and his mother that her husband Paramjit Singh was not satisfied with dowry provided by them on the occasion of their marriage and thus he used to maltreat her and wanted her to bring more dowry from the house of her parents. Manpreet Singh complainant and his mother then asked the accused on so many occasions that they were not in a position to provide him more dowry. On 22.7.1994 Manpreet Singh took Harbans Kaur to the house of her in-laws and on that day at about 6.30 p.m. Paramjit Singh came to his house and started beating Habans Kaur in his presence. The accused picked up a wooden seat lying there and hit the same on the legs of Harbans Kaur. He caught hold her from her long hairs and dragged her on the ground. The complainant intervened and after requesting the accused to bahave properly, he came back to his village. On the next day early in the morning he again went to the house of the accused to enquire about her sister and found Harbans Kaur lying dead. He rushed back to his village, informed his family members and lodged the report with Daljit Singh, SHO of Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi. On the basis of said statement Ex. PF, and endorsement Ex. PF/1 made by Daljit Singh, SI, formal FIR Ex. PF/2 was recorded. Thereafter Investigating Officer Daljit Singh went to the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest report on the dead body of Harhans Kaur. The inquest report is Ex. PG. Post mortem on the dead body of deceased was got conducted and rough site plan Ex PJ of the place of occurrence was also prepared with correct marginal notes. The appellant and his two relations were taken into custody. The statements of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code. Paramjit Singh appellant also suffered a disclosure statement on 20.7.1994 in the presence of Mohan Singh, HC and Sarmukh Singh, MHC that he had kept buried the clothes of the deceased which she was putting on at the time of occurrence in plot towards western side of his village. His disclosure statement Ex. PL was reduced into writing. It was read over and explained to the appellant, who signed the same in token of its correctness. Thereafter he led the police party to the place of concealment and got recovered one wooden seat, one salwar, one shirt, one underwear, one brazier and one silver chain from the disclosed place. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PK. The accused were challaned in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused free of charge and vide commitment order dated 14.10.1994 committed the accused and his companions to the Court of Session in order to face the trial.

Vide order dated 16.11.1994 the appellant and his companions were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 304-B, 101 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The charges v/ere read over and explained to the appellant and his companions to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Harjit Singh as PW1, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Harbans Kaur. PW 3 Manpreet Singh is the complainant and PW 3 Dharam Singh is the uncle of the complainant and both these witnesses have supported the alleged acts of cruelty as relied upon by the prosecution. PW4 Piare Lal is yet another witness, who has deposed about the alleged cruelty and harassment on the part of the appellant. Inspector Daljit Singh appeared as PW 5 and Jagjit Singh and Mehnga Singh appeared as PW 6 and PW 7 respectively.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. Accused denied those circumstances and the plea of Paramjit Singh appellant is as follows:

"I am innocent. All the allegations against me are false. No dowry was given on the occasion of marriage of the deceased as per settlement made with me. The deceased was not willing for her marriage with me. Because of this, she did not like to stay with me after the marriage. She left my house a few days before the occurrence and stayed at Babe Nanki Gurdwara at Sultanpur Lodhi for 3-4 days. Manpreet Singh PW, her brother, got information that she had taken poison and he took her from the Gurdwara to her in-laws'' house, from where she was taken to the clinic of a doctor at Village Tibba by Manpreet Singh and myself but she could not be saved. From the clinic I and Manpreet Singh prought the dead body of the deceased Harbans Kaur to her in-laws'' house for the last rites. We blamed Manpreet Singh PW for the death of the deceased as her parents had married her with me against her will. Due to this grievance, a false case was got registered against the accused after due deliberations and consultations."

1 need not incorporate the plea of younger brother and mother of Paramjit Singh appellant in view of their acquittal and the State has not filed any cross appeal.

The learned Trial Court relied (the story of the prosecution in part and convicted the appellant u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant and his companions were acquitted from the charges under Sections 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The companions of the appellant were also acquitted u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal, which I am disposing with the assistance rendered by Mr. T.P.S. Mann, the Counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who appeared on behalf of the State and with the assistance I have also gone through the record of this case.

Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code lays down that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 304-B, the prosecution is supposed to prove at the trial--(i) that unnatural death of a woman took place within seven years of her marriage; and (ii) that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death.

Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Now it is to be seen whether there is satisfactory evidence to constitute the above ingredients or not. We have seen that in such like cases the relations, friends and relatives are the best witnesses besides the testimony of the woman itself. Unfortunately the woman in this case has expired and in these circumstances the best evidence with regard to the alleged cruelty and harassment can always come from the statements of the relatives because an aggrieved lady would always repose confidence in her parents, brothers, sisters, relatives and friends if she is genuinely met with harassment or cruelty. Manpreet Singh while appearing as PW 2 has categorically stated that accused were not satisfied with the dowry provided to the deceased at the time of her marriage and they wanted to arrange more dowry from them. The witness has stated that his father had since expired before the marriage of his sister and a mutation of inheritance of his father was got sanctioned in his favour by his sisters being the sole son of his father and for that reason also the appellant was harassing his wife to bring more property from the house of her parents. It has been further stated by Manpreet Singh that his sister had complained to him 3/4 times about the maltreatment by the appellant and the appellant was mad e to understand that the complainant was not in a position to give more articles in dowry. It has also stated by this witness that on 22.7.1994 he took his sister to the house of the accused and in his presence Paramjit Singh appellant maltreated his sister by catching hold of her long hairs and she was also dragged, so much so the appellant picked up a wooden seat lying there and gave beating to his sister. He intervened into the matter and even persuaded the appellant to desist from giving injuries to his sister. The conduct of Manpreet Singh is very natural. When his sister is being harassed by his brother-in-law, he being the sole son of the family would always go to the house of his sister in order to enquire her welfare. In these circumstances, the story of Manpreet Singh is not improbable. It is an established fact that father of Manpreet Singh died. The daughters invariably are not interested to inherit the estate of their father and for that reason the mutation was entered and sanctioned in favour of Manpreet Singh. The appellant possibly was not happy because he coerced his wife to bring her share from the land of her father which was not accepted by the deceased. It has further come in the statement of Manpreet Singh that when he returned to his house on 22.7.1994, he received information on the next day that his sister was lying dead in the house of her husband. The statement of Manpreet Singh on the question of cruelty and harassment has been fully corroborated from the statement of PW 3 Dharam Singh and PW 4 Piare Lai besides PW 6 Jagjit Singh and PW 7 Melinga Singh. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to create a reasonable dent in the story of the prosecution so as to hold that these witnesses are unreliable.

The marriage in this case had taken place six months prior to the death of Harbans Kaur. A lady, who becomes ready for marriage, goes to the house of her husband with some aspirations that she would get love, affection and financial security. It is never expected on the part of a lady that instead of getting love and affection, she would get shoe beating or physical assault at the hands of her husband. She goes in the family of her in-laws to generate the children so that the family of his in-laws may prosper. But here is a case where the appellant had maltreated his wife in connection with the demand of dowry and evidence has also come that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty in that connection.

To prove the factum that Harbans Kaur died under unnatural circumstances, I can refer to the statement of PW 1 Dr. Harjit Singh, who found the following injuries on the person of Harbans Kaur :

(1) A bluish reddish contusion 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the right tibia just below patella.

(2) A bluish contusion of 7 cm. x 3 cm. on left patella.

(3) An abrasion of 3 cm. x 3 cm. on the left scapula inferior angle.

(4) An abrasion of 4 cm. x 1 cm. on the back of right elbow joint.

(5) Three abrasions of approximately 1 cm. in size on the bridge of the nose.

According to the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Firstly, he postponed the cause of death in order to await the report of the Chemical Examiner, but on receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner the doctor has stated that the cause of death was poisoning. Thus this ingredient is also established that within seven years of her marriage the deceased died under unnatural circumstances in the house of the appellant itself.

In the light of above discussion, I maintain the conviction of the appellant u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. With regard to the question of sentence, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant made the efforts to save the life of the deceased. He took her for medical treatment to the private clinik at Tibba. This fact has also been admitted by the Investigating Officer. I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced from ten years to seven years and I order accordingly.

With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Let the intimation about the reduction of sentence be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar.