State of Punjab vs Gian Singh and Others

A.N. Jindal, J.—Out of four accused namely Tarlok Singh, Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur, tried u/s 304-B in the alternative

u/s 302 IPC, for causing dowry death of Joginder Kaur on 6.10.1991, in the area of village Inderpuri, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar, learned Sessions

Judge Amritsar, vide its judgment dated 1.3.1996 convicted Tarlok Singh u/s 304-B IPC and acquitted the remaining accused. Hence, State has

preferred this appeal while challenging the judgment of acquittal passed qua the three accused as referred to above.

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant Jasbir Kaur in her statement dated 6.10.1991 Ex. PA, before SI Gurpal Singh, disclosed

that her daughter Joginder Kaur was married to Tarlok Singh at Inderpuri Kot Khalsa, Amritsar, just five months prior to the occurrence.

Immediately, after the marriage, the accused being dissatisfied with the articles of dowry, started maltreating and beating Joginder Kaur on account

of bringing inadequate dowry. Tarlok Singh never visited their house. On 27.9.1991, when she visited the house of her daughter, then she found

that she had been given beatings. She spotted bluish marks of injuries on her body. Again on 28.9.1991, when she went to Tarlok Singh accused

in the company of mediator, then he repeated the demand of dowry. On 6.10.1991, when she again visited the house of the accused with her son

Mohinder Singh, then she saw that Tarlok Singh, his father Gian Singh, mother Kashmir Kaur and her daughter Chhambo were quarrelling with

Joginder Kaur. When they were going upstairs, then in their presence, the accused threw Joginder Kaur from the roof of the room. Resultantly, she

fell on the pucca floor and died at the spot due to the injuries suffered by her.

On the aforesaid statement Ex. PA recorded on 6.10.1991 at 1.30 p.m., FIR Ex. PA-1 was registered at Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar.

Investigation commenced. Inspector Gurpal Singh visited the place of occurrence; prepared the inquest report; dispatched the dead body to the

hospital for post-mortem examination through Constable Balkar Singh and another constable; recorded statements of the witnesses; prepared the

rough site plan Ex. PB; took into possession clothes of the deceased as handed over by the doctor; took into possession ornaments as removed

from the dead body and post-mortem report. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

Consequently, all the accused were charged u/s 302 and in the alternative u/s 304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During evidence, the prosecution examined MHC Bhupinder Singh (PW-1), C. Pritam Singh (PW-2), Dr. Gurmit Rai (PW-3), Dr. Jagdish

Gargi (PW-4), Dr. Harjit Kaur (PW-5), Jasbir Kaur (PW-6), Mohinder Singh (PW-7), Inspector Gurpal Singh (PW-8) and Balbir Singh

Randhawa (PW-9).

When examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded

their false implication in this case. The accused also produced 7 witnesses in defence.

Ultimately, the trial ended in acquittal of Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur accused, whereas only Tarlok Singh accused was

convicted and sentenced accordingly. Hence, this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the aforementioned accused persons.

There is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence in this case took place on 6.10.1991 in the morning, whereas statement of Jasbir

Kaur complainant was recorded at 1.30 p.m. on the same day on the basis of which formal FIR was registered on 6.10.1991 at about 1.50 p.m.

but no special report has been proved on the file, therefore, it does not transpire as to when it reached the Illaqa Magistrate. It creates doubt over

the conduct of the Investigating Officer and indicates embellishment and concoction of the prosecution story. As regards the fact whether it is a

case of dowry death, it is noticed that Joginder Kaur was married to Tarlok Singh just five months back. The complainant Jasbir Kaur (PW-6)

stated that from the very beginning till Joginder Kaur breathed her last, accused Tarlok Singh, had been beating her on account of demand of

dowry. She has narrated the incidents of 27.9.1991 and 23.8.1991. But the evidence does not transpire if accused Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and

Sarbajit Kaur ever maltreated Joginder Kaur and no demand of any specific article has been established which these three accused raised during

the period of stay of the deceased at their house. There are only allegations against Tarlok Singh that he was not satisfied with the dowry and he

had been beating the deceased. It is also a fact that the deceased died other than in normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage, therefore,

the trial Court appears to have appreciated the evidence in right perspective while acquitting Gian Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur

Respondents and convicting Tarlok Singh accused u/s 304-B IPC. The trial Court appears to have rightly declined to accept the version of the

prosecution that the accused are guilty of the offence u/s 302 IPC. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not assailed the findings of the trial Court

vide which the accused were acquitted u/s 302 IPC.

Having perused the detailed judgment, we are of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. No such

perversity much less illegality has been detected or pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, suggesting interference in the

impugned judgment at our end.

Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.