Ranjit Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal filed by Ranjit Singh and Nirmal Kaur, husband and motherinlaw of the deceased Satnam Kaur, and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 9.7.1996, passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who convicted the appellants u/s 304B read with section 498A, IPC, and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years each u/s 304B, IPC. They were further directed to undergo R.I. for one year each u/s 498A, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each; in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo R.I. for three months each. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution version in brief is that Lakhwinder Singh, complainant, gave a statement stating that he is the resident of Batala and is running a tea shop at Aliwal Road. He has four children, two sons and two daughters. The name of his eldest daughter is Charanjit Kaur, who is still unmarried. Satnam Kaur, younger to her, aged about 19 years, was married to Ranjit Singh, appellant, about one year back before the occurrence, as per religious rites. The motherinlaw of his daughter Nirmal Kaur and Ranjit Singh, husband, used to maltreat his daughter for bringing less dowry. She was turned out from the house of her inlaws many times after giving beatings by the accused. He along with Gurbax Singh, Member Panchayat, has been sending her back to her inlaws house. The deceased used to complain that her motherinlaw and her husband used to maltreat her very badly and compelled her to bring more dowry. The complainant promised his daughter that he will help her as per his capacity. He along with Gurbax Singh had sent her back last time to her in laws house about two months back. On 2.6.1995, Surjit Kaur w/o Gurbax Singh, who was the gobetween in arranging the marriage, told him at about 4 PM that Satnam Kaur had since died. They along with Surjit Kaur immediately reached Verka, in the house of his daughter, where she was found dead lying on a cot. The complainant suspected that Ranjit Singh and Nirmal Kaur had administered some poisonous substance to his daughter Satnam Kaur, as a result of which, she had died. ASI Satnam Singh, who was posted as ASI in Police Post, Verka, after receiving information regarding the death of Satnam Kaur, went to the place of occurrence in the house of Ranjit Singh, appellant, in the area of Nawin Abadi, Verka. The dead body of Satnam Kaur was lying on a cot in the house of the appellants. He recorded the statement Ex.PA of Lakhwinder Singh, father of the deceased. It was read over to Lakhwinder Singh, who signed the same in token of its correctness. Thereafter, the I.O. made endorsement Ex.PA/1, underneath the statement and sent the same to Police Post, Verka, for the registration of the case. He also prepared the inquest report, Ex.PE, on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination through HC Jarnail Singh, vide request Ex.PD. The case was registered in Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. The clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession and after completing the other formalities, both the appellants were arrested. Both the accused were produced in the court of the Illaqa Magistrate u/ss 304B/498A, IPC read with Section 302/34, IPC. After the completion of the investigation of the case, both the appellants were challaned in the court of the Illaqa Magistrate u/s 304B/498A, IPC. The learned Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the appellants according to law free of cost and vide commitment order dated 13.9.1995, committed the appellants to the court of Sessions. Vide order dated 28.10.1995, the learned trial court framed charges u/ss 498A, 304B and 302, IPC against the appellants. The charges were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses in all, including Lakhwinder Singh, father of the deceased, Tarsem Singh, uncle of the deceased and Om Parkash, a neighbour and Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased.

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 and pleaded that they were innocent.

When called upon to enter into their defence, the accused examined Dr. Amarjit Singh, DW1, Rajinder Singh Pathania, DW2, Tarsem Pal, DW3, and Kesho Ram, DW4.

The learned trial discussed the entire documentary and oral evidence led by the parties in the impugned judgment dated 9.7.1996 and, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the appellants had committed offences u/ss 304B and 498 A, IPC. Both the appellants were exonerated of the charge u/s 302, IPC.

I have heard Mr. T.P.S Mann, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants and Mr. J.S. Brar on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

The learned counsel for the appellants though made an effort to secure acquittal for both the appellants, but I am of the opinion that so far as the case of Ranjit Singh is concerned, it is too weak and he cannot be given the benefit of doubt. So far as the case of Nirmal Kaur is concerned, I am of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to her in view of the evidence which has been led by the prosecution.

In order to attract the ingredients of Section 304B, the prosecution has to prove the following facts :

"(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."

From the evidence, it is established on the record that the marriage of Satnam Kaur took place on 2.3.1994 and her death took place on 2.6.1995, i.e., within 7 years of marriage. From the report of the doctor, it is also clear that her death took place under unnatural circumstances. The other point which requires consideration is regarding the probabilities of the case about the alleged demand of dowry. In such like cases, relations are good witnesses and their statements are quite relevant and significant. At the same time, the law courts cannot forget a patent fact that after the death of a girl, the relations of the family of her parents will definitely become sour and they can go to any extent in order to implicate the relations of the husband. A perusal of the statement of Lakhwinder Singh would show that he has not specifically stated what was the demand of Nirmal Kaur, appellant, qua the deceased. The only allegation of the father of the deceased is that after the marriage of his daughter, the accused were not satisfied with dowry and they were demanding more dowry on account of which they allegedly started maltreating his daughter. Lakhwinder Singh has deposed that both the accused had been demanding dowry and they used to maltreat his daughter. So far as the statement of Tarsem Singh is concerned, he has come with some allegations. As per the statement of this witness, after the marriage, both the accused started maltreating Satnam Kaur for bringing less dowry, in the sense that she had not brought T.V. and Refrigerator. Such like demand of dowry can originate from the mouth of the husband only, who might be interested in enhancing the status of his family by taking the possession of T.V. and Refrigerator. Tarsem Singh has also stated that the parents of the deceased made a promise to give to the accused T.V. and Refrigerator but his statement does not find any corroboration from the statement of Lakhwinder Singh. Nevertheless, Satnam Kaur has died under unnatural circumstances in the house of her inlaws. It is not understandable why a young lady who had hardly relished her married life of 11/2 years would try to put herself to an end until and unless there is a demand of dowry or until and unless she is subjected to maltreatment or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. In such like cases to expect foolproof evidence from the prosecution is a remote possibility. I have already commented above that in such like cases, the statements of the relations are supposed to be acted upon but with care and caution, keeping in view the fact that with the death of the daughter, the relations were bound to become strained between the two families. It is not the case of the prosecution that Nirmal Kaur ever made a specific demand of dowry and keeping in view the general allegations levelled against her, I am of the considered opinion that she is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Her appeal is, therefore, accepted and she stands acquitted of the charges u/ss 304B and 498A, IPC.

So far as the appeal of Ranjit Singh is concerned, his case cannot be considered at par with that of his mother Nirmal Kaur. The statement of PW3 Om Parkash is relevant. The house of this witness adjoins to the house of the accused and this witness has deposed that maltreatment was going on with Satnam Kaur in the house of Ranjit Singh. Further, it has come in his statement that on 25.3.1995, the parents of the deceased had given some articles as dowry and even thereafter the appellants did not stop maltreating Satnam Kaur. This witness stated that on 2.6.1995, Satnam Kaur died in the house of the accused. Thus, from the statements of Lakhwinder Singh, Tarsem Singh and Om Parkash, a reasonable inference beyond doubt can be drawn establishing the guilt of Ranjit Singh. After going through the statements of these witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to make out a strong case by leading cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence against Ranjit Singh. This conviction and sentence of Ranjit Singh u/ss 304B and 498A, IPC, are hereby confirmed and maintained. Both the sentences awarded to this appellant shall run concurrently.

The net result of the above is that the appeal stands partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of Nirmal Kaur is hereby set aside and she stands acquitted of the charges framed against her. The appeal of Ranjit Singh is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Let intimation about the acceptance of the appeal of Nirmal Kaur be sent to the Central Jail, Amritsar, so that she may be released forthwith, if not wanted or convicted in any other case.