Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—Sukhdev Singh and his father Bahadur Singh, both appellant along with three others were tried by the Addition Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on charges for offences under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code. Amarjit Kaur, Kiranjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur, coaccused of the presentappellants, were, however, acquitted by the trial Court while the appellants were found guilty of the above referred charges and each of them was sentenced to undergo sever years'' rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 4,000/ and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one years'' rigorous imprisonment, under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were further awarded two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default thereof to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved against the above referred orders of conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up in appeal.

The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal is that Mst. Karanjit Kaur deceased, daughter of Jagir Singh (PW1) of village Lalheri was married to Sukhdev Singh, appellant of village Partapgarh, on 21.2.1988. Bahadur Singh accused is the fatherinlaw of the deceased. Jagir Singh, father of the deceased, on the occasion of the marriage satisfied almost all the demands of the husband and parentsinlaw of his daughter to his maximum capacity but it appears that the accused were not satisfied with the same. On 15.12.1988, Jagir Singh had deposited Rs. 5,000/ in the account of his daughter in the Punjab National Bank. Bahadur Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused were forcing Mst Karamjit Kaur to withdraw this amount but she did not do so. About fifteen days prior to the present occurrence, Sukhdev Singh accused along with his wife Karamjit Kaur deceased visited the house of Jagir Singh and demanded the payment of some money in order to purchase a new trolley of a tractor. Jagir Singh father of the deceased got the tyres of the father of Sukhdev Singh accused retreaded at the cost of Rs. 2,800/ only four or five days of the above referred demand. Again on 2nd of June, 1989, Sukhdev Singh accused along with his wife went to his inlaws'' house and on demand, his fatherinlaw Jagir Singh gave him another Rs. 2,000/ although he was demanding more. Karamjit Kaur deceased used to tell her mother Nasib Kaur PW2, brother Balwinder Singh and father Jagir Singh that her motherinlaw Balbir Kaur, father inlaw Bahadur Singh sisters inlaw Kiranjit Kaur and Amarjit Kaur were harassing her in order to fetch more money from her father. These persons also used to taunt Mst. Karamjit Kaur deceased by saying that she belonged to a poor family and had no place in their house, if she failed to bring any money. On 5.6.1989, Jagir Singh PW along with his wife''s brother Major Singh went to see his daughter Karamjit Kaur deceased at her matrimonial house, where they learnt that some poison had been administered to Karamjit Kaur by her sistersinlaw, parentsinlaw and husband and she had been taken to Dayanand Hospital for treatment. Both these persons then went to that Hospital where they found Mst. Karamjit Kaur dead. Jagir Singh PW then contracted ASI Charan Singh in the Hospital and lodged report Exhibit PA at 9.55 AM on that very day. On its basis, as case for the above referred offences were registered by ASI Darshan Singh at Police Station Sahnewal.

Reverting to the fate of the victim, it transpires that while alive, she was treated by Dr. Rajnish Garg (PW10) in Dayanand Hospital at 10.20 A.M. on 4.6.1989. In the history of the patient, this doctor recorded that she had vomitted twice since morning and had ingested one tablet of aluminum phosphide. The injured had developed altered sensorium after ingestion of tablet and started vomitting. On examination, this doctor found the injured drowsy having pulse rate of 104 per minute, blood pressure was not recordable. He also observed epigastric tenderness in the abdomen. There was no external injury. The victim died at 4.45 PM in the hospital.

Assistant SubInspector Charan Singh PW11 after recording the statement of Jagir Singh PW and despatching it for registration of the above referred case, also held inquest Exhibit PC on the dead body of Mst. Karanjit Kaur and got the dead body subjected to postmortem examination from Dr. A.S. Sahni PW5 of Civil Dispensary, Kidwai Nagar, Ludhiana. This doctor during autopsy observed the coming of froth from the nose and mouth besides the congestion of brain both the lungs and heart. Suspecting it to be a case of poisoning, this Doctor sent the viscera in a sealed parcel to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Exhibit PH found that the viscera contained aluminium phosphide poison. Assistant SubInspector Charan Singh during the investigation of the case also recorded the statement of Nirmal Singh PW6, who had acted as mediator in bringing about matrimonial alliance between Sukhdev Singh accused and Karamjit Kaur deceased, who stated that he went to the house of the accused at 8.00 a.m. on 4.6.1989 and found Karamjit Kaur deceased in a depressed state. On query, she apprised him that both her sistersinlaw Kiranjit Kaur and Amarjit Kaur had pinned her down to the ground by pressing her legs and arms while her motherinlaw Balbir Kaur had secured her from pig tail and her Husband Sukhdev Singh had put some thing in her mouth from a glass tumbler in liquid form after squeezing her nose and that she was feeling giddy since then. Nirmal Singh then enquired from Bahadur Singh accused as to what the matter was. Bahadur Singh then confessed his guilt and asked Nirmal Singh to keep evict and not to agitate the matter further. On the advice of this witness the victim was removed to the Hospital for treatment. After the death of Mst. Karamjit Kaur in the Hospital. Nirmal Singh left the Hospital of village Lalheri and reached there at 6.30 P.M. Jagir Singh PW was then not available at his house and, therefore he informed Mst. Nasib Kaur for this episode. Nirmal Singh returned to Dayanand Hospital on the text morning when his statement was recorded by the police. The accused were arrested and after completion of investigation were arraigned for trial on such like allegations.

The trial Court believing the ocular evidence of Jagir Singh, Mst Nasib Kaur, parents of the deceased, coupled what the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case convicted and sentenced these appellants as referred to above. The motherinlaw and two sistersinlaw of the deceased were, however, acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt, as the evidence of Nirmal Singh PW6 regarding the dying declaration of the deceased and the confessional statement of Bahadur Singh accused did not find favour with the trial Court.

The version of all the accused before the trial Court in their statements recorded under Section 343 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that of innocence and false implication contending that Mst. Karamjit Kaur had accidentally consumed the aluminium Phosphide.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

Mr. P.S. Mann, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, contended that the deceased being a literate lady, there should have been some evidence in the shape of letters written by her to parents with regard to her being treated cruelly by her husband or parents inlaw or sisterinlaw, but there being no such evidence, it clearly implies that the deceased was being treated nicely by her husband and inlaws and that she happened to consume poison by accident. The conduct of the accused in removing the victim to the Hospital was also stressed in order to persuade the Court that they would have been the last persons to do so, if actually they had deliberately administered poison to her. The chance arrival of the father of the deceased at her matrimonial house on 5.6.1989 was also stressed in order to show that as a matter of fact, a massage was conveyed by Didar Singh DW on the instructions of the accused regarding the deceased having taken some poison by some accident. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the findings of trial Court.

Admittedly, Mst. Karamjit Kaur deceased was a matriculate and thus expected to write letters to her parents regarding her harassment at the hands of her husband and inlaws in the usual course of events, especially when Jagir Singh PW1, during crossexamination admitted that after the marriage, his daughter throughout stayed with her inlaws. Jagir Singh further admitted that during this period, the deceased had never written any letter to him complaining that she was being put to harassment by her inlaws on the ground of her having brought less dowry. Moreover, the matrimonial house of the deceased falls at a distance of 37 to 38 miles from her parental village. Thus ordinarily, she was expected to write some letters to her parents in this regard. No doubt this circumstance alone in not in itself sufficient to discard the testimony of Jagir Singh PW1 and Nasib Kaur PW2, parents of the deceased, regarding her harassment, yet all the same it is one of the circumstances which can shed light upon the cordial or strained relations between the deceased and her inlaws. The trial Court has laid much stress upon the parents of the deceased having been forced to deposit Rs. 5,000/ in her name in the Bank at Khanna after her marriage with Sukhdev Singh accusedappellant in concluding that there was no occasion for the parents of the deceased to deposit this amount in her name after her marriage. It appears that the trial Court had not rightly appreciated the testimony of Jagir Singh PW1 and Nasib Kaur PW2, parents of the deceased, as both these witnesses had simply stated having deposited Rs. 5,000/ in the Bank in the fixed deposit account on 15.12.1988 in the name of Mst. Karamjit Kaur deceased after the marriage but had not disclosed any circumstance under which they were forced to deposit this amount. On the other hand, the version of Jagir Singh PW1 is that the accused were coercing Mst. Karamjit Kaur deceased to withdraw this amount from the Bank. Thus, the above referred adverse inference drawn by the trial Court from the deposit of this amount in the Bank in the name of the deceased is not supported by the testimony of these two witnesses. Jagir Singh PW1 admitted during crossexamination that Karamjit Kaur deceased gave birth to a female child at his house after 10/11 months of her marriage but the child died a few days thereafter. The marriage took place on 21.2.1988. Thus, it appears more probable that this money was given as gift on 15.2.1988 to the deceased by her parents on the occasion of the birth of female child who died a few days thereafter.

Regarding the demand of Sukhdev Singh accused for money in order to purchase a new trolley of a tractor, it transpires that according to Jagir Sigh PW1, Sukhdev Singh accused had put up this demand about fifteen days prior to the present occurrence. Whereas according to Nashib Kaur PW2 mother of the deceased, her soninlaw Sukhdev Singh had simply demanded money for replacing the tyres of his tractor and her husband had paid him Rs. 2,000/ and prior to that, her husband had spent Rs. 2800/ on getting the tyres of the tractor of her soninlaw Sukhdev Singh retreaded. Thus if actually the accused had made any demand for money in order to purchase a new trolley of a tractor from Jagir Singh PW1, then this matter would certainly have figured in the testimony of the latter''s wife Nasib Kaur as it is usual with the parents of a married girl to discuss inter se the unreasonable demands of their soninlaw. The factum that Nasib Kaur had not supported the version of her husband Jagir Singh in this regard is eloquent enough that the father of the deceased is playing upon his imagination and exaggerating the version of demand of dowry by Sukhdev Singh accused obviously being aggrieved on the well founded or ill founded suspicion that the accused had administered poison to his daughter Karamjit Kaur and killed her.

The other incident of demand of Sukhdev Singh accused in owes the retreading of two tyres of his tractor by his father inlaw Jagir Singh hardly a few days prior to the present occurrence. In the first information report Exhibit PA/2 and during his testimony Jagir Singh PW1 has simply averred that he had got the tractor tyres of hi soninlaw resoled from Khanna by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 2,800/ a few days prior to the present occurrence. It is not his case that Sukhdev Singh accused had asked him to do so. The description of the workshop or the concern form where the tyres were got retreaded also does not figure in the testimony of this witness. During the investigation of the case, the investigator recorded the statement of Iqbal Singh PW 4, Manager of Speed Ways Tyres, Khanna, to the effect that on 13.5.1989, his concern had resolved the rear tyres of the tractor at the instance of Jagir Singh of village Lalheri for Rs. 2800/ vide case memo Exhibit PF. During crossexamination this witness stated having not brought the relevant original cash memo book. The persual of cash memo Exhibit PF reveals that the registration number of the tractor, the tyres of which were resoled, does not figure therein. If actually, the rear tyres of the tractor of Sukhdev Singh were got resoled by Jagir Singh PW1 from the above referred concern, then the best evidence was those retreading tyres which could have been easily shown to Iqbal Singh PW 4 by the investigator and the number figuring thereon could have been compared with the one given in the cash memo. Strangely enough, ASI Charan Singh has altogether overlooked this aspect of the matter and not taken into possession the rear tyres of the tractor of the accused, what to say of showing the same to Iqbal Singh PW4 or stating that he had satisfied himself about the number given on the tyres being the same as figuring in the case memo Exhibit PF. During crossexamination, Iqbal Singh PW4 admitted that retreading was done on the very day the tractor was brought but strangely enough he has not noted down the registration number of the tractor in the cash memo, although he was required to do so if the tractor was kept standing at his business concern while the tyres were being retreaded. Thus the possibility of creating this evidence at a later stage of investigation in order to support the oral version of Jagir Singh PW in this regard cannot be ruled out. This conclusion is further fortified from the testimony of Mst. Nasib Kaur PW2 mother of the deceased to the effect that Sukhdev Singh accused had asked for money to replace the tyres of the tractor and her husband had given him Rs. 2.000/ although prior to that, her husband had spent Rs. 2,800/ on getting the tyres of the tractor of Sukhdev Singh retreaded because if actually the tyres of the tractor of Sukhdev Singh were got retreaded by Jagir Singh accused only a few days prior to the occurrence, then their was no question of Sukhdev Singh accused demanding more money to replace the tyres of his tractor and payment of Rs. 2,000/ in this regard by Jagir Singh. On the other hand, Jagir Singh had simply stated that he had given Rs. 2,000/ to his soninlaw on 2nd June, 1989 when the latter along with the daughter of this witness visited his house, although the accused had put up a demand for more money. He has not at all stated whether this money was required by the accused for getting the tyres of tractor of Sukhdev Singh replaced. Thus the contradictory version of these two witnesses given an oblique indication that they being the parents of the deceased are prone to exaggerate the version of their soninlaw being continuously pestering them to give money for buying a trolley of a tractor or replacing the tyres of the tractor or for retreading the tyres. Moreover, Jagir Singh PW''s version during trial that Sukhdev Singh accordingly was demanding more money but he paid Rs. 2,000/ being an improvement upon his version contained in statement Ex. PA also shows that he is prone to magnify the fault of his soninlaw in order to prove that it was a case of dowry death.

The version of Jagir Singh PW 1 and Mst. Nasib Kaur PW2 parents of the deceased that the latter used to complain them whenever she visited their house with her husband that parentsinlaw and two sisters of her husband were taunting her that she belonged to a poor family and had not brought adequate dowry is belied by the version of Jagir Singh PW during cross examination that after the marriage, his daughter remained at her in laws''s house throughout. In case the husband or inlaws if the deceased were actually harassing and forcing her to fetch more dowry or money, then the husband or the inlaws of the deceased would have resorted to directing Karamjit Kaur deceased to go to her parents'' house and stay their till she fetched enough money for purchasing the trolley or tyres of the tractor as greedy husband or inlaw are usually expected to resort to this conduct in order to put pressure on the parents of the bride to part with more money. Thus the oral assertions of the parents of the deceased in this regard are not acceptable, especially when it is not their case that they alongwith some respectables or near relations had approached the parentsinlaw or the husband of the deceased to treat her amicably and give her due respect in their family, especially when, according to them, they had fulfilled all the demands of Bahadur Singh, fatherinlaw, and Sukhdev Singh husband of the deceased. The matter does not rest her as according to Jagir Singh PW, whenever his daughter Karamjit Kaur deceased used to visit their house, she apprised him, his wife Nasib Kaur and his son Balwinder Singh that all the accused used to harass her by saying that she belongs to a poor family and pressurize her to fetch more money from her parents. Similar is the version of Mst. Nasib Kaur, mother of the deceased, during her testimony at the trial. Strangely enough in the statement Exhibit DA of Mst. Nasib Kaur, she had not stated that the deceased also complained of her harassment by her inlaws to her father and brother in her presence. She had simply stated about the deceased having complained to her in this regard. Thus under these circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the parents of the deceased had set up this version under some extraneous influence when they suspected that the accused had deliberately killed daughter by administering poison.

The conduct of Balbir Kaur accused (since acquitted) motherinlaw of the deceased in removing Mst. Karamjit Kaur to Daya Nand Medical College Hospital, Ludhiana, for treatment with the help of her neighbour Jagtar Singh on the morning of this incident also shows that in case, she along with her son, husband and daughters had actually tried to kill Mst. Karamjit Kaur by forcible administering poison, then she would be the last person to apprised her neighbours of this episode, what to say of removing her for treatment to the well known Hospital at Ludhiana and save her life.

The trial Court had discarded this conduct of the accused by holding that they had done so in order to save themselves, which is not acceptable in view of the natural conduct of the human beings in such like circumstances. Moreover, the version of the accused that their neighbour Jagtar Singh sent Kuldip Singh and Didar Singh to village Lalheri to inform the parents of the deceased of this episode and that the parents of the deceased came to Dayanand Hospital at about noon time on 4.6.1989 sounds more probable as their was no occasion for Jagir Singh (PW1) to visit the house of the inlaws of his daughter on 5.6.1989 along with Major Singh, his wife''s brother, if actually his daughter and soninlaw had paid a visit to his house on 2.6.1989 and he had given Rs. 2,000/ to his soninlaw on the latter''s demand. Jagir Singh further alleged that he came to know from some person of village Partapgarh that his daughter had been administered some poison by her inlaws and husband. He has not disclosed the name of that villager. Moreover, if the accused had done such like thing, then they were expected to keep it as a guarded secret and not appreise the villagers of having administered poison to Karamjit Kaur. The version of the accused that Jagir Singh and Nasib Kaur were present in the Hospital when their daughter died in the Hospital at 4.45 PM and thereafter they went away saying that they will apprise their relations and then return to the Hospital and further that the version contained in the statement Ex. PA of Jagir Singh was given final shape on the advice and influence of Inspector Maghar Singh, who belongs to the village of maternal parents of the deceased, appears to be well founded as the testimony of ASI Charan Singh reveals that the wireless message regarding the admission of Mrs. Karamjit Kaur in the Hospital as poison case was received from Police Station, Saraba Nagar, Ludhiana on 4.6.1989. and that Head Constable Jaspal Singh left for Dayanand Medical College Hospital, Ludhiana at 2.30 P.M. on that day while he left for Ludhiana on the same day at 3.00 PM and returned to Police Post Koomb Kalan and that he visited the hospital during the night intervening 4 & 5 61989. Admittedly, Mst. Karamjit kaur had died at 4.45 PM on 4.6.1989 in the Hospital as deposed by Dr. Rajnish Garg (PW10). Thus if actually the victim was administered some poison, then this police officer was bound to know about the same and record the statement of some of the persons. The version of the police officer that no one conversant with the facts met him in the Hospital is thus not acceptable. This circumstance also leads to the irrestible conclusion that the version of the prosecution as set up in the first information report now was concocted later on i.e. on 5.6.1989. This conclusion is also supported by the factum that although ASI Charan Singh during patrolling had visited village Partapgarh i.e. the village of the accused on 4.6.1989 along with other police officials in Jeep No. PJK3640, and left the Police Post Koomb Kalan on that date, yet all the same after his return to the Police Post at 1.00 PM, he has recorded in the daily diary report No.8 at 1.00 PM that there was perfect peace in the Illaqa and no untoward incident had taken place. If the version of Jagir Singh PW is taken to be true that the villagers of Partapgarh had apprised him of his daughter having been administered poison by the accused, then those very villagers would have certainly informed the Assistant Sub Inspector Charan Singh of this episode. Thus the testimony of Assistant Sub Inspector Charan Singh in this regard clearly leads to two conclusions the one being that no villager of Partapgarh knew about the incident of Mst. Karamjit Kaur having taken poison accidentally or was given poison by the accused and consequently belies the version of Jagir Singh (PW1), father of the deceased, that he had learnt from some villagers of Partapgarh about his daughter having been administered some poison by the accused. The second conclusion which could reasonably be deduced from the conduct of Assistant Sub Inspector Charan Singh in visiting village Partapgarh on 4.6.1989 before 1.00 PM could be that he may have deliberately withheld the same from the court in order to explain the delay in lodging the first information report.

In a case of circumstantial evidence, where their are no eyewitnesses to the actual occurrence the role of the investigator plays dominant part in ascertaining whether the pieces of circumstantial evidence were created by such investigator or were genuine. In the case in hand, the investigation conducted by Assistant Sub Inspector Charan Singh does not inspite the confidence of the court as admittedly he has tried to introduce dying declaration of the deceased and extra judicial confession of the accused before Nirmal Singh (PW 6). The trial court has rightly discarded that testimony of Nirmal Singh because of his unnatural conduct in returning to his village after learning that Mst. Karanjit Kaur was forcibly administered poison by the accused and thereafter her admission in the Hospital at Ludhiana and her death at 4.45 PM, he did not take any step in lodging the report at the Police Station even though he had allegedly arranged the marriage between the deceased and Sukhdev Singh accused. His version that he had gone to village Lalheri at 6.30 PM and apprised Nasib Kaur of the entire episode is belied by the factum that Nasib Kaur has not stated so in her testimony at the trial. On the other hand, if actually Nasib Kaur was apprised of this episode by Nirmal Singh PW, then she was bound to inform her husband in this regard and in that case this version would have figured in the first information report lodged by Jagir Singh, PW1. The conduct of Nirmal Singh in going to his village thereafter without informing the police and returning to the hospital at 10.00 AM also spells out that he was not aware of this episode till he got information on the next morning i.e. on 5.6.1989 and came to the Hospital. The version of Nirmal Singh about the dying declaration of the deceased or the accused having confessed before him also does not figure in the brief resume of facts contained in the inquest report. Thus, the possibility of creating this evidence at a later stage by the investigator cannot be ruled out.

The trial court had given undue importance to the nonexamination of Dr. Sharda by the accused in defence although they had alleged that the said doctor used to treat the deceased for her mental depression which she suffered after the death of her first child. From this circumstance, the trial Court has drawn an adverse inference discarding the version of the accused about Mst. Karamjit Kaur having taken a pill of aluminium phosphide by inadvertence taking it to be some other medicine and that she being a matriculate was not expected to indulge in such like mistake. These conclusions of the trial Court are certainly bare surmises as due to inadvertence a literate person can also take wrong medicine, and the position of the deceased being not very well after the death of her first child cannot be ruled out. Dr. A.S. Sahni PW 5 during crossexamination admitted that aluminium phosphide tablets usually available in the market and are being used as insecticide for preserving wheat in bags against insects. Thus, the death of Mst. Karamjit Kaur due to consumption of aluminium phosphide by accident cannot be ruled out under the circumstances of the case.

The learned counsel for the State laid much stress on the factum that the marriage of the deceased having taken place only 11/4 years before her death and under unnatural circumstances at the house of the accused, adverse inference should be drawn against them to the extent of causing her death under the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. I find no force in this contentions as the prosecution evidence regarding the accused having harassed or maltreated Mst. Karamjit Kaur for having brought less dowry or that she was being maltreated in order to pressurize her to fetch more dowry has already been found unreliable. The trial Court has also found the evidence of prosecution qua the harassment of the deceased at the hands of her motherinlaw Balbir Kaur or sistersinlaw Paramjit Kaur and Kiranjit Kaur being unreliable. The oral assertions of Jagir Singh and Mst. Nasib Kaur parents of the deceased, regarding the admission of the accused to give money for purchasing trolley of a tractor or tyres has already been found unreliable by this Court. Thus no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused under the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code or Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, especially when as already discussed, the conduct of the accused in taking effective steps to save the life of the victim by removing her to Dayanand Medical College Hospital for treatment clearly shows that they were not at fault.

For the foregoing reasons, the orders of conviction and sentence of the appellants being not sustainable are hereby set aside by accepting this appeal. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded. The bail bonds of Bahadur Singh accused are discharged. Sukhdev Singh accused be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

JUDGMENT accordingly.