Pardeep Singh vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Pardeep Singh and Smt. Raj Kumari were prosecuted in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, who vide his order dated December 1, 1988, convicted them under section 304B read with section 34, IPS and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each.

Feeling aggrieved, they have filed this appeal.

Prosecution case, in brief is, that Bimla Rani deceased was married with Pardeep Singh appellant. The marriage took place 41/2 years prior to occurrence. Out of the wedlock, two daughters were born. Elder daughter was three years old and the younger was seven eight months old at the time of occurrence.

Bahadur Singh, father of Bimla Rani had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. However, the accused were not satisfied with the dowry given and used to taunt Bimla Rani for insufficient dowry.

About two years prior to the occurrence, Bimla Rani was turned out of the house after giving her beating and she started living with her parents at Gurdaspur. She stayed with her parents for about a year. The matter was taken up before Istri Sabha, Gurdaspur and complaint copy of which is Ex. PG was filed before President Istri Sabha, Gurdaspur. The Present Istri Sabha, Gurdaspur was the wife of Deputy Commissioner. The Istri Sabha, Gurdaspur called the parties and their parents . After hearing them, Pardeep Singh was persuaded to take Bimla Rani to his home. She was taken by Pardeep Singh to his home.

Inspite of the fact that the matter was patched up before Istri Sabha, Pardeep Singh and his mother Raj Kumari continued harassing Bimla Rani and compel her to ask her parents to give them more dowry. Bimla Rani informed Romesh Kumar who was married with her sister Santosh at Batala about the ill treatment meted out to her.

A day prior to the occurrence, Bimla Rani was given severe beating. She went to the house of her sister and apprised Romesh Kumar, her brotherinlaw of the situation. Romesh Kumar persuaded her to a return to the house of herinlaw.

Next day i.e. on October 3, 1987 Romesh Kumar went to the house of deceased''sinlaws to enquire about her and he found the outer door of the hose open. On entering the house, he heard the shrieks of Bimla Rani coming from inside the kitchen. On opening the door of the kitchen, he found that Pardeep Singh was holding Bimla Rani from the arms. Raj Kumari accused poured Kerosene oil on her and then set her on fire. Romesh Kumar informed Surjit Kumar, the brother of the deceased and her parents about the incident, at Gurdapul. Accompanied by them, Romesh Kumar came to Batala and on reaching there was informed that Bimla Rani had been taken to Amritsar. They all went to the hospital at Amritsar.

S.G.T.B. Hospital authorities had informed the police about the arrival of Bimla Rani. ASI Santokh Singh on coming to know of the incident connected Medical Officer to find out if Bimla Rani was fit to make a statement. As Bimla Rani was found unfit to make a statement, ASI Santokh Singh recorded statement EXhibit PL of Surjit Kumar in the hospital.

After completion of investigation, the accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW 1 Dr. S.K. Kapoor who stated that on October 3, 1987, he had admitted Bimla Rani in S.G.T.B. Hospital.

PW 2 Dr. Jagdish Gargi had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bimla Rani deceased at 3.30 P.M. on October 5, 1987 and had found the following :

"On examination the length of body was 5 feet 2 inches. It was incompletely burnt naked dead body of a moderately built and nourished young female wearing a white metallic ringin the left ring finger. Postmortem staining was present on the back. Lower limbs were flexed and the upper limbs were flat. Mark of venesection with camula and bandage was intact on the right ankle joint. Catheterinsitu was present. Hair clip was present. Superficial and deep burns were present on the body sparing forehead, scalp, lateral aspect of the right and left buttock and sole of foot as well as the loin region i.e all around the waist. Scalp hairs were intact except few singed hair in the forehead region. Blackish deposits were present in the burnt areas. Line of redness (faint) was present in the region of healthy asking in the buttock region adjacent to the burnt area. Eyes brow were intact. Axillary and pubic hairs were burnt. Brain was contested. Larynx, trachea contained frothy blood stained fluid with carbonaceous deposits. Right and lift lungs were congested.

Stomach contained about 50 cc of fluid with blood. Submucostal, haemorrhages were present in the stomach walls, Liver, spleen and Kidneys were congested. Uterus contained dark coloured blood."

According to his opinion, the burns were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death, in this case, was shock as a result of burns which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was within 24 to 48 hours and between death and post mortem was within 36 hours.

PW 4 Dr. Baljit Singh made his endorsement on October 3, 1987 at 11.35 P.M. that Bimla Rani was unfit to make her statement.

PW 3 Satish Chander Draftsman had prepared site plan Ex. PE on November 18, 1987.

PW 5 Rattan Chand Clerk, Office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur had produced the relevant file containing application of deceased Ex. PG and the copy of the proceedings Ex. PH.

PW 6 Radha Joshi, a member of District Branch of Association for Social Health in India, Gurdaspur stated that on December 18, 1985 a meeting was held in Red Cross Hall Gurdaspur. Mrs. Promila Pawar, wife of Deputy Commissioner was the Chairman. Case of Bimla Rani deceased and Pardeep Singh appellant was considered and Ex. PH is the photo copy of the proceedings of the meeting. They had heard the parties and their parents. Pardeep Singh had taken Bimla Rani to his home and the parties promised to live together happily in future.

PW 7 Hazari Lal stated that Bimla Rani daughter of Bahadur Singh was married to Pardeep Singh about five years earlier to his making the statement. Bahadur Singh had given sufficient dowry. After about two years of the marriage, Bimla Rani was turned out of the house after a beating and then she came to Gurdaspur. The deceased told the witness that Pardeep Singh, his mother and other family members were maltreating and pressurising her for bringing more dowry. The witness further stated that Bimla Rani stayed at Gurdaspur for three months and under a compromise, she was sent to her in laws.

PW 8 Bachan Lal is a witness of recovery of certain articles from the place of occurrence.

PW 9 Romesh Kumar is sister''s husband of the deceased. He stated that the deceased was married to accused Pardeep Singh about 4/4 1/2 years prior to the occurrence. Raj Kumari is the mother in law of the deceased. At the time of marriage, Sufficient dowry was given but the accused were unhappy. They quarrelled with the deceased and gave her beatings for insufficient dowry. After 2/3 years of the marriage, the deceased came to her parent''s house because of maltretment and beatings given by the accused. She lived in her parental house for about a year. An application was moved to Istri Sabha at Gurdaspur where the accused and other relations were summoned and with the intervention of resectables and at the asking of Istri Sabha, Bimla Rani was sent with Pardeep Singh. He further stated that on October 3, 1987, he had seen the accused killing the deceased.

PW 10 Bahadur Singh, father of the deceased and PW 11 Surjit Kumar brother of the deceased stated that the deceased was maltreated for insufficient dowry. She was given beatings a number of times and was turned out the house. The matter had gone to Istri Sabha also which tried to get the matter patched up but inspite of repeated efforts, the behaviour of the accused did not change and they continued maltreating the deceased due to insufficient dowry. They insisted that their demands for dowry should be met.

PW 12 ASI Santokh Singh had investigated the matter.

After the close the prosecution case, The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. No witness was examined in defence.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, with her help.

It is not disputed that the death of the deceased took place within seven years of the marriage. It is also established that she died due to burning, i.e. an unnatural death. There is evidence given by the P.Ws. to the effect that there was demand of dowry and the treatment of the accused was cruel towards her on account of nonsatisfaction of their demand of dowry. The evident led by the prosecution consisting of father Bahadur Singh, brother Surjit Kumar corroborated by the proceedings of Istri Sabha and the testimony of Hazari Lal clearly establish that the accused were unhappy over dowry and were maltreating and pressing the deceased to bring more dowry. The death of the deceased is the result of cruelty meted out to her on account of insufficient dowry. All the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are proved. The evidence led by the prosecution being consistent and natural the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants under Section 34 IPC. The conviction of appellants under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC is upheld.

Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased had left two small children; there is nobody to look after them and the death took place after more than 41/2 years of the marriage; we deem it proper to reduce the sentence of the accusedappellants from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment each. The sentence of fine with its default clause it however, maintained.

With this modification in the sentence, this appeal is disposed of.