Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab

J. S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.5.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by which Pritam Singh, Manjit Kaur, Lakhvinder Kaur Land Rajbinder Kaur have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each.

The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows :

Daljit Kaur daughter of Joginder Singh complainant was married with Narinder Singh son of Pritam Singh appellant. The husband and other members of his family were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage of Daljit Kaur and they started maltreating her and asking her to bring more dowry. One month prior to her death the complainant supplied one T.V., one Refrigerator and one shebuffalo to the inlaws of Daljit Kaur. On 18.5.1990 complainant Joginder Singh and his son Amrik Singh went to her inlaws house to meet her. After taking dinner they slept in the courtyard. At about 9/10 P.M. they heard shrieks from the room where Daljit Kaur had been dragged in by all the four appellants and the appellants had bolted the door from inside. The complainant and Amrik Singh knocked at the door but it was not opened by the appellants. They heard the shrieks of Daljit Kaur from inside the room and they raised alarm. Thereafter all the appellants opened the door and fled away. Daljit Kaur was found lying on the ground inside the room and she was struggling for life. Electric wire was lying near her. Daljit Kaur died. During the night complainant and his son Amrik Singh remained near the dead body of Daljit Kaur and on the next day i.e. 19.5.90 Joginder Singh left Amrik Singh at the spot and he took Karam Singh from his village Chochla Sahab and was going to lodge the report with the police when the police met them at the turning of village Gandiwind. The police recorded the statement of the complainant, which is Ex.PD and on the basis thereof formal F.I.R. Ex.P.E. was recorded. The police accompanied the complainant to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. Dead body was identified by Joginder Singh and Karam Singh. Injury statement was also prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The police took into possession the electric wire. After the postmortem examination the police took into possession the clothes of the deceased. The appellants were arrested on 20.6.1990 and after completing the investigation they were challaned and sent up for trial to the Court.

The prosecution examined Dr. Viney Kumar Azad as PW1, Shri Rishi Ram Draftsman, as PW 2, Shri Sukhdev Singh Ahalmad, as PW4, Karam Singh as PW5, Randhir Singh Sarpanch as P.W.6., Charan Singh as PW7, Joginder Singh complainant as PW8, Amrik Singh as PW9, Raj Kumar as PW10, C. Sewa Singh as PW11, C. Jaswinder Singh as PW12 and A.S.I. Shangara Singh as PW13. PWs Mohinder Singh A.S.I. Inspector Surinder Singh and Fauja Singh H.C. were given up as unnecessary. The prosecution closed its evidence after tendering into evidence affidavit Ex.PW3/A of C. Sukhchain Singh.

In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants admitted that Daljit Kaur was married with Narinder Singh son of Pritam Singh appellant. It was also admitted that Manjit Kaur appellant is the wife of Pritam Singh appellant while appellant Lakhvinder Kaur and Rajbinder kaur are the daughters of Pritam Singh appellant. Remaining allegations of the prosecution were denied and the appellants claimed to be innocent. They also filed their written statements wherein appellant Manjit Kaur, Rajbinder Kaur and Lakhwinder Kaur denied their presence in the house at the time of occurrence and to have demanded dowry. Pritam Singh appellant stated that they had cordial relations with Daljit Kaur and they never harassed her or demanded dowry. According to him, Daljit Kaur used to sleep in the room with electric fan on and that his wife, son and daughters were not present in the house on the fateful night and that on the morning of 19.5.90 he found his daughter inlaw dead. He stated that he informed the neighbours and respectables of the village and he also sent intimation to the parents of the deceased and that he and other persons of the village also informed the police. Appellant Pritam Singh alleged that he was illegally detained in the police station for a number of days and then he was falsely involved in this case. In defence the appellants examined Massa Singh D.W.1, C. Pritam Singh DW2 and closed their defence evidence after tendering their written statements.

In the ocular version Joginder Singh complainant P.W.8 that his daughter Daljit Kaur was married with Narinder Singh and in her marriage he gave dowry. He further stated that after 78 months, after her marriage Daljit Kaur came to his house and told that her inlaws were complaining against insufficiency of dowry; that with the intervention of Sarpanch Randhir Singh, his brotherinlaw Charan Singh and others, Daljit Kaur was sent to her inlaws house about two months prior to her death and the witness agreed to give additional dowry, and that after about a month healong with his son Amrik Singh delivered one shebuffalo, one T.V. and one Refrigerator to her inlaws. Karan Singh PW5 deposed that he acted as a gobetween in the marriage of Daljit Kaur with Narinder Singh and that relations between Narinder Singh and his wife Daljit Kaur were not cordial as her in laws were not satisfied with the dowry and they were harassing her. He also stated that Daljit Kaur was sent back to her inlaws house but still their relations did not improve. He also stated that Narinder Singh had told him that he did not like Daljit Kaur and that Daljit Kaur had told him that she was being harassed by her inlaws on account of dowry. Randhir Singh Sarpanch has also deposed that after 67 months of her marriage Daljit Kaur returned to her parents house as she was harassed by her inlaws. He further stated that about two months prior to her death, Daljit Kaur was sent to her inlaws with their intervention. He also stated that Charan Singh P.W. produced certain receipts regarding the purchase of Refrigerator, T.V. and they were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH, Charan Singh PW deposed that Daljit Kaur complained after about one year of her marriage that her inlaws were not satisfied with the dowry and that Daljit Kaur was sent back with their intervention with the promise that Joginder Singh would supply additional dowry. He also stated that Joginder Singh gave one refrigerator, one T.V. and one shebuffalo about two months prior to her death. Charan Singh produced the receipts before the police.

Joginder Singh PW stated that on 18.5.1990 he along with his son Amrik Singh went to the inlaws of Daljit Kaur; that after taking meals they slept in the courtyard and that at about 910 P.M. they heard raulla and found that his daughter Daljit Kaur had been dragged inside the room by all the accused namely Pritam Singh, Manjit Kaur, Lakhwinder Kaur and Rajbinder Kaur who had bolted the door from inside. Joginder Singh further stated that he and his son Amrik Singh knocked at the door, but it was not opened by the accused; that Joginder Singh PW and his son heard the shrieks of Daljit Kaur from inside the room and that thereupon, they raised alarm and then all the accused opened the door and fled away. Joginder Singh stated that his daughter was found lying on the ground inside the room; that she was struggling for life; that electric wire was lying near the body; that there was mark of electric wire on her right arm in addition to other injuries on her person and that Daljit Kaur died at the spot. He further stated that he accompanied by Karam Singh left for the police station to lodge the report on the next day and his statement was recorded by the police at about 12.45 P.M. And that statement is Ex. PD/1. Amrik Singh PW9 has corroborated the statement of Joginder Singh PW8.

PW 1.3 ASI Singara Singh recorded the statement Ex. PD/1 of Joginder Singh which was read over to him and after admitting the same to be correct Joginder Singh thumb marked the same. After making his endorsement Ex.PD/5 he sent the statement of Joginder Singh to the police station for registration of the case on the basis of which First Information Report Ex. PE/14 was recorded by A.S.I. Dalip Singh whose signatures were identified by Singara Singh.

Dr. Viney Kumar Azad P.W.1 deposted that he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Daljit Kaur on 20.5.1990 and he found that her eyes and mouth were close and blood in the nose and both the ears was present. He found the following injuries on her person :

(1) Diffused swelling 7 cm x 5 cm, on the right parietal region of skull. It is 5 cm above the pinna of ear and slightly backward. On dissection, skin muscles were lacerated in the middle of swelling dimensioning 4 cm 1.5 cm Right parietal bone was fractured. Brain membrane and brain matter was lacerated. Base of skull fractured in the anterior and middle cranial fossa. Blood about 100 cc was present.

(2) Electrical burn wound circular in pattern around the right wrist having the impression of Kara (iron). Wound was 12 cm x 1.25 cm in dimension. This was the wound of entry.

(3) Electric burn wound 6 cm x 2 cm. on the left foot on the heel was present. This was the wound of exit.

On dissection the skin muscles were burnt. Intervening muscle in between injury Nos. 2 and 3 were paler and ecchymosed. Lungs were oedematous. Minute haemorrhage was present in the brain other than described in injury No. 1.

(4) An abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on the right side of forehead 4 cm above the eye brow was present wound was muscle deep only with clotted blood.

(5) Multiple small abrasion dimensioning I cm x 0.25 cm to .75 cm x.25 cm. These were about 7 in number and were present on the anterior of the neck in an area of 6 cm x 4 cm.

In his opinion the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage, brain injury and cardio respiratory arrest caused by injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3. He deposed that injuries No. 1, 4, 5 were caused by blunt weapon while injury No. 2 and 3 were caused by electric shock and that injury No. 1, 2 and 3 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually and collectively. He found that all the injuries on the person of Daljit Kaur were antemortem. According to the doctor, the time between the injuries and death was instantaneous and between the death and the postmortem examination was about 36 hours. Ex. PA/18 is the carbon copy of the postmortem report and Ex. PA/9 and Ex. PA/10 are the pictorial diagrams showing the seats of the injuries. The witness also initialled the inquest report Ex. PB and the police request for postmortem examination Ex. PC, statement of the complainant Ex. PD, copy of the F.I.R. Ex. PE. The witness stated that injuries No. 2 and 3 of Daljit Kaur contributed to the instantaneous death. In crossexamination the doctor agreed that the death by electric current is generally accidental and that when the person gets electric current and falls then a severe injury to the head is likely to be caused. The witness had received the police papers for postmortem examination on 20.5.90.

Sewa Singh P.W.11 tendered his affidavit Ex. PM/1. Constable Jaswinder Singh PW 12 stated that on 19.5,1990 he joined the police party headed by ASI Singara Singh and inspected the spot where inquest report of the dead body of Daljit Kaur was prepared. Inquest report is Ex. PD. Jaswinder Singh was entrusted with the dead body of Daljit Kaur for postmortem. After the post mortem examination he got a copy of postmortem report Ex. PA/18 along with the police papers and clothes of the deceased. Clothes of the deceased and Kara were handed over to ASI Singara Singh who put the same into a scaled parcel and took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN.

Mr. S. S. Sidhu learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there is a delay in lodging the first information report as the occurrence took place at about 9/10 p.m. on 18.5.1990 but the statement of PW8 Joginder Singh father of the deceased was recorded on the turning of village Gandiwind at 12.45 p.m. on the next day and the first information report was completed at 1.50 p.m. on 19.5.1990 whereas the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was only 10 kms. The learned counsel submitted that the copy of the special report was received at 6 p.m. by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Patti which is at a distance of 16 kms. from police station Harike.

One of the essential requisites to ensure a fair trial is that the first information report in respect of a cognizable offence should be lodged as soon as possible. Where the lodging of the report is delayed it not only gets bereft of its spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of coloured versions, thought out stories and twists to actual facts. The interested parties can then be sounded and some of them shown as false witnesses. Likewise some innocent persons can be roped in and named as culprits as a result of much thought, consultation and discussion. To avoid these dangers, the Courts have always insisted upon the prompt lodging of the report to the police. In murder cases, because of the enormity of the stakes involved, certain additional safeguards are provided to ensure that the version of the occurrence is disclosed as soon as possible thereafter. One of those safeguards is that in murder cases a copy of the first information report should be sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate immediately after the report is made. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we hold that there is inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report and the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and in sending the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate.

PW7 Charan Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased, has stated that in the morning on 19.5.1990 he learnt from Karam Singh that Daljit Kaur had been killed by her inlaws and Karam Singh also went to village Nangal Sohal to inform Joginder Singh, father of the deceased. Randhir Singh Sarpanch (PW6), resident of village Nangal Sohal, has stated that he learnt about the death of Daljit Kaur on 19.5.1990 and he also learnt that father, brother and mother of Daljit Kaur had left for village Rooriwala along with other persons in the morning of 19.5.1990. PW5 Karam Singh has stated in his crossexamination that inquest report Ex.PB bears his signatures; that he did not state in his statement that Narinder Singh and Daljit Kaur did not have cordial relations as Narinder Singh and other members of his family were not satisfied with the dowry and that he did not state that, due to harassment by her inlaws, Daljit Kaur went to her parents house after 6 or 7 months of her marriage. He has further stated that he did not state in his statement that Daljit Kaur had told him that her inlaws were harassing her on account of dowry. Presumption of Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is not available to the prosecution, because it has not been shown that soon before her death, the deceased had been subjected by the appellants to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. The evidence of PW5 Karam Singh, PW6 Randhir Singh and PW7 Charan Singh has proved that Joginder Singh PW8, Amrik Singh PW9 and mother of the deceased reached village Rooriwala on 19th of May, 1990, and then the first information report was lodged with the police. The prosecution story is highly improbable as the accused would not kill Daljit Kaur in the presence of her father and, in case Joginder Singh and Amrik Singh, PWs, were present there, they would try to intervene and open the door where Daljit Kaur deceased was being killed by the accused persons. Their conduct, that they remained in the house for whole of the night, is also highly improbable. in case Amrik Singh and Joginder Singh, PWs, were present in the House at the time of occurrence, then they would have raised hue and cry and they would collect the village people and they would not allow the appellants to escape from the house after committing the crime of murder.

In view of our above discussion, we hold that Joginder Singh and Amrik Singh, PWs, were not present in the house of the inlaws of the deceased and they were summoned on 19.5.1990 from their village which is at a distance of 102 kms. from village Rooriwala where the occurrence had taken place. The prosecution has failed to prove its case. The deceased was alone in her room and the electric wires were lying near the cot. Therefore, it appears that this is a case of accident. The appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges.

While parting with the judgment, we may mention that Lakhvinder Kaur aged 16 years and Rajbinder Kaur aged 14 years were juvenile because they had not attained the age of 18 years. In view of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act), the trial of Lakhvinder Kaur and Rajbinder Kaur had to be conducted in accordance with the provision of the Act. The trial Judge has erred in law in conducting the trial of Lakhvinder Kaur and Rajbinder Kaur who were admittedly juvenile on 6th February, 1991 when charge was framed against them. As soon as it comes to the notice of the trial Court that the accused is a juvenile, as defined in the Act, the trial Court should separate the trial and send the case to the Juvenile Court constituted under Section 5 of the Act for trial.