Sewa Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.—Charge framed against the appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of his wife, Harvinder Kaur, by setting her ablaze, has been upheld, and he has been convicted under the said action to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default whereof, he has been further ordered to undergo RI for six months, vide orders dated August 16,1993 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.

The facts leading to the death of Harvinder Kaur were narrated by her only when she was admitted in the hospital with 80% burns. Her statement came to be recorded at 4.10 or 4.15 p.m. on August 23,1992. The special report with regard to the incident reached the Magistrate concerned at Garhshankar at 9.15 p.m. on the same day. She stated that three years ago, she was married with Sewa Singh son of Jawala Singh. Her husband used to quarrel with her for bringing insufficient dowry. She used to say to her husband that her parents were poor people and were not in a position to give more dowry. On August 21,1992 she and her husband Sewa Singh had gone to her husband''s sister, namely, Satya wife of Gurdev Singh at village Ghahour, police Station Garhshankar. Her husband''s sister, Satya and her (Satya''s) husband Gurdev Singh, after leaving them in the house, had gone to Gurudwara Saheedan at Banga Road. After they had left, her husband Sewa Singh again started quarrelling with her for bringing less dowry. At about 12 noon, her husband beaten her and out of fear she went inside the room. Her husband while having a kerosene oil bottle and a match box, came in the room and sprinkled kerosene oil on her clothes and set her clothes on fire with the match stick. She raised hue and cry. At this, Ajit Singh, Sarpanch, Lachhman Singh, Member Panchayat and Bachittar Singh, Member Panchayat reached the spot. At that time, her husband was closing the door after setting her on fire. The said persons tried to overpower her husband but he succeeded in running away. Ajit Singh Sarpanch, Lachhman Singh and Bachittar Singh, Member Panchayat saw her clothes on fire. They opened the door and extinguished the fire. Major portion of her body was badly charred. After making arrangements for a vehicle, the said persons removed her to Civil Hospital for treatment. Her husband''s sister''s husband (Nandoyia) Gurdev Singh, on being called, also reached there. She further stated that this act of sprinkling kerosene oil over her body and setting her on fire had been done by her husband Sewa Singh with an intention to kill her for bringing insufficient dowry.

Police party consisting of Mohan Singh SI, Nimal Singh, HC, Baldev Raj, constable, Narinder Singh, Constable, Raman Kumar, SPO, Mukesh Kumar, SPO and Sarabjit, SPO was going on Anandpur road in a requisitioned four-wheeler for patrolling. When they reached near the gate of the hospital, Kashmir! Lal, peon of the Hospital met them and handed over a chit regarding admission of Harvinder Kaur Wife of Sewa Singh in the hospital with burn injuries. SI Mohan Singh alongwith the accompanying staff, reached the Civil Hospital and obtained the opinion of the doctor in writing for recording the statement of the injured. The doctor declared Harvinder Kaur fit to make statement. SI Mohan Singh recorded the statement of Harvinder Kaur, mention whereof has been made above. Since by that time, Harvinder Kaur was alive, a case u/s 307 IPC was registered against the appellant. This was, however, converted to Section 302 IPC as, after few hours, when Harvinder Kaur was being taken to PGI, Chandigarh, she died on the way.

With a view to substantiate its version, the prosecution examined Dr. Hanuman Sahai Gupta, PW 1, Dr. B.B. Saini, PW 2, Paramjit Singh, PW 3, Lachhman Singh PW 4, Ajit Singh, PW 5, Balkar Singh, PW 6, Mohan Lal, father of the deceased, PW 7 and SI Mohan Singh, PW 8. Dr. Hanuman Sahai Gupta stated that he had sent an intimation slip, Ex. PA to the Station House Officer, Police Station Garhshankar about Harvinder Kaur wife of Sewa Singh having been brought to the hospital at 3 p.m. on August 23,1992. On that information SI Mohan Singh came to the Civil Hospital and moved an application seeking his opinion with regard to fitness of the patient to make a statement. The doctor gave opinion, Ex. PB that she was fit to make a statement. SI Mohan Singh then recorded her statement in the hospital in his presence and hearing and she thumb-marked that statement in token of its correctness. He attested it vide endorsement Ex. PC/I. The doctor further stated that she was conscious and fit throughout the period she made her statement. He had given opinion vide endorsement, Ex. PD on August 23, 1992 that Harvinder Kaur was having 80 % burns on her person and the injuries on her body were dangerous to life collectively. In this cross-examination, he stated that he had recorded the blood pressure of the patient as 80/30 at the time of her admission which was indicative of her being moderately weak. He, however, denied the suggestion that it indicated that she was not in a position to speak. He further stated that he had informed the father of the patient on telephone about her admission with injuries in the Civil Hospital because he knew him since the time of his posting at Rahon and on that information he reached the Civil Hospital on that day at about 5 p.m. Rahon, according to this witness, was about 18 kms. from Garhshankar. Dr. B.B. Saini, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Harvinder Kaur, stated that the body was of a moderately built female. Her eyes were closed, mouth was semi-open. Post-mortem staining was present on dependent parts. Rigor merits was present on all the four limbs. The skin over the right side of the face, chest, front and back, abdomen front and back, legs front and back, left arm front, right arm front and back was blackened. Skin was peeled off at most of the places and at few places blisters were present 80% of the area of the body was burnt. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to shock caused by extensive burns which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within 12 hours and between death and post-mortem within 24 hours. In his cross-examination, he stated that a patient with 80% bums would normally be in a state of shock and the condition of the patient was likely to deteriorate in a case like this. Blood pressure of 80/30 with said burns was indicative that patient was in hypo volumice shock and a person with 80% burns does not go in coma immediately because the pain in such cases is the more dominant factor which prevents the patient from slipping into unconsciousness suddenly.

Paramjit Singh, Draftsman, District Courts, Hoshiarpur was examined only S with regard to site plan, Ex. PG. Lachhman Singh has supported the prosecution version only halfway through. Whereas he stated in tune with his statement made u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that they had heard shrieks from the abadi and on hearing the same they had reached the house of Curdev Singh; the outer door of the house of Gurdev Singh was found locked from outside and the wife of the accused was raising hue and cry because she was on fire; they entered the house after opening the outer door which in fact was not locked but only bolted from outside and on entering they saw wife of the accused lying on the floor of a room of the house and the clothes on upper part of her body had already been burnt and on the lower part, those were still burning and she was saying that Sewa Singh had run away after putting her on fire. He denied if he had seen Sewa Singh running away from the house of his brother-in-law Gurdev Singh or his companions might have seen him running. He, however, stated that the outer door was found bolted from outside. For the reason that he had changed his version with regard to later part of this statement, he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. The other two witnesses, PW 6 and PW 7 have fully supported the prosecution version. Mohan Singh, father of the deceased, has also supported the prosecution version with regard to demand of dowry by the appellant and his reaching the hospital and taking his daughter in a burnt condition to P.G.I. Chandigarh and that she died before she could be treated by the doctors of P.G.I, as she died on her way to Chandigarh. He, however, stated in his cross-examination that the marriage of his daughter with the appellant was against her wishes, as also that Hanuman Sahai Gupta was not known to him earlier. SI Mohan Singh apprised the Court of the way and manner in which the investigation had progressed in this case.

When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant stated that he was innocent. His wife was hot-temperd lady and she did not like him because he was illiterate and she had studied upto 8th class. She was taller than him and used to leave his house without his consent and permission and used to stay away for days together. She also compelled her father to remarry her somewhere else to a person of her choice. His mother and brothers were blind and she never liked them. She could not adjust herself in his family. On August 23, 1992 he alongwith his sister Satya and her husband Gurdev Singh had gone to Gurudwara Shaheedan leaving his wife alone in the house. When they returned, they found Harvinder Kaur in flames and they tried to put out the fire and immediately removed her to the hospital. She remained unconscious till her death. She never made any statement/dying declaration before the police. PWs Bachittar Singh, Ajit Singh and Lachhman Singh were never present on the spot and they were made up witnesses. He was involved falsely with the help of Dr. H.S. Gupta, who was friendly with the father of his wife. He was taken away by the Police on August 23, 1992. The appellant, however, led no evidence in his defence.

We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and with their assistance perused the records on the case. Mr. Satbir Singh, learned Counsel in support of the appeal preferred by the appellant, contends that the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the dying declaration i.e. statement made by the wife of appellant before SI Mohan Singh which, as per the prosecution version, was recorded after the doctor has given his opinion that Smt. Harvinder Kaur was fit to make a statement. That being so, the prosecution is left with only the statements of PW 5 and PW 6 as PW 4 Lachhman Singh has not supported the prosecution version. Insofar as statements of PW 5 and PW 6 are concerned, there are major contradictions in their depositions before the Court, and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon their statements, contends the learned Counsel. Insofar as father of Harvinder Kaur is concerned, he was not an eyewitness of the occurrence leading to death of his daughter and his deposition with regard to demand of dowry is only a made-up affair, further contends the learned Counsel.

Mr. S.S. Randhawa, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has, however, endeavoured us to uphold the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant.

After giving our thoughtful consideration to the points raised by the learned defence Counsel noted above, we are, however, of the opinion that there is no merit whatsoever in either of the contentions of the learned defence Counsel. It is overwhelmingly proved on records of the case that the appellant accompanied by his wife had gone to the village of his sister and brother-in-law. In the village of sister and brother-in-law of the appellant, no one knew the deceased or her father but for Dr. H.S. Gupta. There was none in the village, thus, who might have had any affiliation with the deceased or who might have had some motive to involve the appellant falsely. Considered in this background, if the statements of PW 5 and PW 6 are examined, it will appear that they are witnesses of the occurrence and have deposed whatever they had seen. Further, if these witnesses were to depose falsely, it was not difficult for them to have exaggerated the version by stating that they had seen the appellant setting his wife ablaze by'' pouring kerosene oil on her clothes and lighting a match stick. We have thoroughly gone through their statements and are of the firm view that they have truly deposed whatever they had seen. Their statements inspire confidence. Nothing at all could be brought out from their cross-examination which might detract from the prosecution version. Even though Lachhman Since PW 4 did not state that he had seen the appellant running away from the spot i.e. house of his brother-in-law, he still stated that when he alongwith others entered the room, Harvinder Kaur stated that she had been burnt by her husband Sewa Singh-appellant herein. Even though, thus, declared hostile, he corroborates the statements made by PW 5 and PW 6 to a very large extent. It is true that the learned Trial Judge has discarded the dying declaration made by Harvinder Kaur, even though the reasons given by him for doing so do not impress us at all, yet the conviction of the appellant can be maintained on the statements of PW 5 to PW 7. Further, the possibility of Harvinder Kaur committing suicide is totally ruled out in this case for the simple reason that as per the deposition of the witnesses the door of the room, in which Harvinder Kaur sustained burn injuries was bolted from outside and not from inside. That in itself, in our view, totally rules out the theory propounded by the appellant that she being/perhaps, fed up of him as her marriage was not according to her choice, committed suicide. Insofar as small discrepancies in the statements of PW 5 and PW 6 are concerned, in our view, they are not at all significant enough to discard the prosecution version. On the other hand, a little variation in the statements of the witnesses, who depose after a considerably long time, is bound to occur.

We find absolutely no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.