Parkash Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 2.12.2002 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the Appellant was held guilty of offence under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and vide a separate order of even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `1,000, for the offence u/s 306 IPC, in default whereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. For the offence u/s 498-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `500, in default whereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The marriage of deceased Ravinder Kaur with Appellant Parkash Singh was more than seven years old. From the loins of the Appellant and from the womb of deceased Ravinder Kaur, two sons namely Satbir Singh and Jashandeep Singh were born. As per the Birth Certificate of Satbir Singh Ex.DC, he was born on 5.4.1991. Therefore, the marriage was before 5.4.1991 and it is to be presumed that it was performed somewhere in the year 1990.

On 22.8.1996 at about 8.00 P.M., deceased Ravinder Kaur had committed suicide in her matrimonial home in Chheharta, a Satellite Town of Amritsar. As per the version of the witnesses, deceased Ravinder Kaur had consumed a poison. The medical evidence had also confirmed the fact that the deceased had consumed aluminium phosphide a pesticide. The report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PB also proved that aluminium phosphide, a pesticide, was detected in the viscera of deceased Ravinder Kaur.

Briefly put, the allegation against the Appellant is that he was demanding an amount of `10,000 to expand his business of vegetables from his in-laws and due to inability of the parents i.e. mother and brother of deceased Ravinder Kaur to pay the amount, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty including beating. In the present case, FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered on the basis of a statement Ex.PD made by PW.2 Sukhbir Singh, brother of deceased Ravinder Kaur. In his statement, PW.2 Sukhbir Singh revealed that he was a resident of village Dapai and was employed as Beldar at Jhabal in the Department of Agriculture. He was having two sisters. Ravinder Kaur was his youngest sister. She was married with Appellant Parkash Singh according to Sikh Rites. At the time of marriage, the family had given dowry beyond their capacity. After about two/three months of the marriage, Appellant Parkash Singh started maltreating his wife Ravinder Kaur for bringing less dowry. She was given beating and was compelled to bring more dowry. Due to conduct of Appellant, Ravinder Kaur used to stay at her parental house for about more than eight/ten days. About two times, Mangal Singh, maternal uncle and Ajit Singh, father, had taken deceased Ravinder Kaur back to the house of in-laws and had fulfilled the demands of Appellant Parkash Singh. As and when the demands were fulfilled, the conduct of Appellant Parkash Singh became appropriate with his wife but soon the demand of dowry was again repeated and deceased Ravinder Kaur was again subjected to harassment and maltreatment. On 11.8.1998, bhog ceremony and Akhand Path was performed in the native village of deceased Ravinder Kaur on account of death of Swaran Singh, elder brother of her father. Deceased Ravinder Kaur had also gone to attend the last ceremony of her uncle. There she disclosed to her mother that Appellant Parkash Singh was demanding Rs. 10,000/-to expand his business of vegetables and in case she failed to bring the amount demanded she would face dire consequences. However, PW.3 Naseeb Kaur, mother of deceased Ravinder Kaur persuaded her to return to her in-laws'' house. On 22.8.1998, at about 8.00 P.M. Sukhbir Singh received a telephonic message that deceased Ravinder Kaur and Appellant Parkash Singh were quarrelling, upon which he along with his cousin Kuldip Singh went to Chheharta to their sister''s house. On reaching there, they found that Ravinder Kaur had consumed some poisonous substance was lying in the courtyard and was about to succumb. Thus, he along with Kuldip Singh arranged for a three wheeler and took her to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where she was treated by the doctor but expired on the next day in the morning. A grievance was made by the complainant that due to harassment and beating given by Appellant Parkash Singh, his sister Ravinder Kaur had committed suicide by consuming poison. The above said FIR was investigated and the report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, for trial. The Appellant was charged for the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined Dr. Gurman Jit Rai as PW.1, who along with Dr. Didar Singh had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ravinder Kaur on 23.8.1998 at about 2.45 P.M. On dissection of dead body, he found that the chest and abdomen were congested. Liver, spleen and kidneys were also found congested. The stomach was also congested and was having about 200 cc of fluid. According to the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death was consumption of aluminium phosphide poison, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

PW.2 Sukhbir Singh reiterated as to what was stated in his statement Ex.PD contents of which have been reproduced above. In his statement Ex.PD PW.2 Sukhbir Singh stated that the marriage was about six years old. In the Court, he stated that deceased Ravinder Kaur was married with Appellant Parkash Singh about seven/eight years ago.

This witness, who was subjected to a lot of cross-examination for determining the date and year of the marriage, however, since this Court has already stated that one of the son of deceased Ravinder Kaur and Appellant Parkash Singh, as per birth certificate Ex.DC, was born on 5.4.1991, the marriage has been rightly held by the trial Court to be more than seven years old. In cross-examination, this witness asserted that immediately after two/three months of the marriage, his sister Ravinder Kaur was subjected to harassment, cruelty and was also given beating. The defence failed to dislodge the statement of this witness that harassment and cruelty was the continuous affair and lastly in the year 1998 the accused had demanded `10,000 and had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. However, the witness has stated that he was unable to remember as to whether any Panchayat was convened or a complaint regarding the conduct of accused was made to any authority.

PW.3 Nasib Kaur, mother of deceased Ravinder Kaur, reiterated and corroborated the testimony of PW.2 Sukhbir Singh. Captain Mangal Singh, maternal uncle (Brother of PW.3 Nasib Kaur) appeared as PW.4 and also supported the prosecution.

PW.5 Beant Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, stated that on 23.8.1998 he was posted at Police Station Chheharta. He was a member of police party headed by PW.7 Sarabjit Singh, Sub Inspector, the Investigating Officer, in his presence, had recovered four/five tablets of celphos lying on the shelves of the kitchen. The tablets were taken into possession vide a separate recovery memo Ex.PE. PW.6 LC Palwinder Singh stated that he had conducted the inquest proceedings and had handed over the dead body along with police papers for the purpose of post mortem. He had also taken clothes of deceased Ravinder Kaur into possession and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. PW.7 Sarabjit Singh, Sub Inspector/Investigating Officer, proved various facets of the investigation. Since nothing hinges upon the same, therefore, there is no need to go into details of testimony of PW.7 Sarabjit Singh. Thereafter, the statement of accused Parkash Singh was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure All the incriminating circumstances were put to him but he denied the same and pleaded false implication.

Mr. K.L. Chaudhari, Advocate, appearing for the Appellant, has relied upon Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (2) RCR 687 in support of his contention that the demand of Rs. 10,000 was raised as per the prosecution witnesses before 11.8.1998 when the deceased had gone to attend the last rites of his Uncle (father''s elder brother). Learned Counsel has submitted that thereafter the deceased had committed suicide on 22.8.1998, thus, there was a period of 11 days for tampers to cool down and it cannot be said that the demand of `10,000 was a direct cause of suicide and thus, abetment to suicide cannot be attributed to the Appellant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that it has come in the cross-examination of PW.2 Sukhbir Singh that no telephone was installed in the house of the complainant. Thus, the story has been coined after consultations and deliberations that on the day of occurrence the complainant had received a telephonic call to the effect that the deceased and the Appellant were quarrelling. A perusal of testimony of PW.2 Sukhbir Singh reveals that he along with his cousin Kuldip Singh had got the deceased admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Therefore, immediately after receipt of telephonic message, they had reached at the matrimonial home of the deceased. It is not the case of defence that they had relayed information regarding consumption of poisonous substance by deceased Ravinder Kaur. Therefore, the very fact that the deceased was taken to the hospital by PW.2 Sukhbir Singh, complainant and the fact that in the statement Ex.PD, it has been stated in categoric terms that the deceased and the accused were quarrelling, it can be safely inferred that soon before her death, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused regarding the demand of `10,000. According to the witness, this demand was repeated by the accused and the deceased was compelled to bring the amount from her parents. Thus, the judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the Appellant is not attracted on the facts of the case.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further placed reliance upon Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) RCR 57 to contend that the prosecution has led no evidence that during subsistence of marriage, any complaint was made by the family of deceased Ravinder Kaur that she was harassed, maltreated or given beating by the accused on account of demand of dowry. On facts, the ratio of law laid down in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta''s case (supra)is not applicable. It was held in the said case that the parties to marriage were living happily and suddenly after six months, the demand of golden chain was made.

In the present case, the witnesses have categorically stated that immediately after two/three months of the marriage, the deceased was given beating and that on a number of occasions, she had left her matrimonial home and had come to stay with her parents. However, each time, she was persuaded to return to her matrimonial home and on each occasion the demand of the Appellant was fulfilled. Similarly in another judgment, relied upon by learned Counsel for the Appellant, Gopal msState of Rajasthan 2009 (5) RCR 877 is not attracted on the facts of the present case. Similarly, another judgment cited as State of Haryana v. Jai Parkash and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3569 does not help the Appellant as in that case, the appeal was against acquittal of the accused and on appreciation of the evidence, the testimonies of witnesses were discarded as they had made material improvements. Much emphasis has been laid down by learned Counsel for the Appellant on M. Mohan v. State Tr. Dy. Supdt. Of Police 2011 (2) RCR 272 to contend that after four days of the taunt, the bride had committed suicide, thus, it cannot be said that offence u/s 306 IPC is made out as the bride was held to be hypersensitive. In the above said case, the Court had noticed that the allegations against mother of the husband and his brother were not of such nature that it would constitute abetment. As stated earlier, the deceased, in the present case, was harassed for a continuous period of more than seven years. Immediately, before the occurrence, as per the FIR, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the Appellant. Thus, in the present case, the offence u/s 306 IPC is made out against the Appellant.

Thus, it is to be held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Continuous demands made are to be construed as demand of dowry and the same were the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, offence u/s 306 IPC and Section 498-A IPC is proved against the Appellant. Recently, Hon''ble the Apex Court in Bachni Devi and Anr. v. State of Haryana through Secretary, Home Department 2011 (1) CCC 652 took into consideration the definition of dowry after amendment of Section 2 to the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and held that even the demand made after marriage and subsistence of marriage will be a demand in connection with dowry.

In the present case, the occurrence pertains to the year 1998. The Appellant has suffered a protracted trial of more than 13 years. Therefore, considering the sufferance of protracted trial as a mitigating circumstance, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case, the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment, awarded upon the Appellant u/s 306 IPC, is reduced to that of four years. Sentence on other count, fine and default clause are maintained. As ordered by the trial Court, sentences on all counts shall run concurrently.

With the modifications in the sentence, awarded upon the Appellant, the present appeal is disposed of.