Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The appellant, alongwith his mother Kuldip Kaur, was arraigned as accused in FIR No. 259 dated 9.8.1992 under Sections 304B/498A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. Both of them were charge sheeted for the aforementioned offences, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, Kuldip Kaur accused expired and, accordingly, proceedings against her came to an end. The appellant was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana u/s 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. As the offence u/s 498A IPC was covered u/s 304B IPC, no separate finding was recorded for the said offence.

Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the present appeal in which he was granted interim bail on 9.2.1998 which bail was, thereafter, confirmed on 11.3.1998.

According to the prosecution, the appellant married Pinder Kaur @ Harpreet Kaur, daughter of Gajjan Singh, in February, 1989. They were blessed with a male child after about one year of the marriage. According to complainant Gajjan Singh, after 3/4 months of the marriage, the appellant started ill-treating his daughter for having brought inadequate dowry. He wanted her to bring more dowry and a scooter from her parents. On that account she was given beatings by the appellant on a number of occasions and she was sent to her parents for bringing money for the purchase of a scooter. However, on account of poverty, the complainant could not provide scooter to his daughter. On or about 25.7.1992 said Pinder Kaur was last sent by the appellant to her parents'' house after giving her beatings. She stayed with her parents for 5/10 days. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith his brother-in-law Darshan Singh took her to her in-laws'' village and left her there. Even at that time the appellant taunted the deceased that she had no self respect as she had brought her father to his house. The complainant requested the appellant not to harass his daughter as the parents of a girl were always at a lower level. On 9.8.1992 in the morning, Mahan Singh, co-villager of the appellant, came to the house of the complainant in village Gumti, District Bathinda and informed him that during the preceding night Pinder Kaur had taken some poisonous substance and died. The complainant, alongwith his brother-in-law Darshan Singh, went to the house of the appellant and found Pinder Kaur lying dead. Froth was coming out from her mouth. The complainant then made a statement before ASI Darshan Ram of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana on 9.8.1992 at about 6.30 p.m. On the basis of aforementioned statement, FIR was registered.

After completion of investigation, challan was presented only against the Appellant. His mother Kuldip Kaur was placed in column No. 2. Following commitment of the case, the appellant was charged for the aforementioned offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After examining Gurdip Kaur, mother of deceased Pinder Kaur @ Harpreet Kaur, as PW.1, the prosecution filed an application u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Kuldip Kaur as additional accused. After her appearance, the appellant and Kuldip Kaur were charged for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As mentioned above, Kuldip Kaur expired during the trial and, accordingly, proceedings against her were dropped. The trial proceeded only against the appellant.

In support of its case, the prosecution had examined PW.1 Dr. U.S. Sooch, PW.2 Gajjan Singh, PW3 Gurdip Kaur and PW.4 ASI Darshan Ram.

When the appellant was examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted that he married the deceased about 3/4 years prior to her death. He denied the other allegations levelled by the prosecution and claimed to be innocent. According to him, on the marriage of his wife''s sister Birpal Kaur, the complainant took a loan of Rs. 5,000/ -, which he arranged after borrowing from Kartar Singh, Commission Agent in the presence of one Ajmer Singh. He used to ask his wife Pinder Kaur for the return of the loan amount. On the day of her death, his wife complained that she had taken some medicine. When her condition deteriorated, he, alongwith Dr. Pritam Singh of his village, took her to Mullanpur but she died on the way. In defence, he examined DW.1 Kartar Singh, Commission Agent, DW.2 Pritam Singh, DW.3 Ajmer Singh and DW.4 Constable Darshan Singh.

The trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above.

Learned Counsel for the appellant had submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the demand of dowry against the appellant. Nothing was ever demanded by the appellant from deceased Pinder Kaur @ Harpreet Kaur. The demand for bringing money for purchase of a scooter could not be termed as a demand for dowry. It was also submitted that there was no allegation of the alleged harassment of the deceased by the appellant soon before the occurrence when the deceased had taken some poisonous substance. It was also submitted that the deceased had taken the poisonous substance by mistake and it was the appellant himself, who had taken her to Mullanpur but she died on the way. Prayer was, accordingly, made for setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

Learned State counsel had opposed the pleas raised on behalf of the appellant by submitting that it was the appellant, who had been treating Pinder Kaur @ Harpreet Kaur with cruelty by impressing upon her to bring more dowry. When the deceased failed to satisfy his financial demands, she was used to be beaten by the appellant. Moreover, the maltreatment/cruelty continued for a period till about a week before her death. The defence plea set up by the appellant was highly improbable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence be dismissed.

I had heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance.

A perusal of the FIR lodged by complainant Gajjan Singh would reveal that he married his daughter Pinder Kaur @ Harpreet Kaur with the appellant about 3 1/2 years prior to her death. After about 3/4 months of the marriage, the appellant started harassing his daughter for bringing more dowry and a scooter. He used to beat her quite often and, thereafter, send her to her parents'' house for bringing money. On account of his poor financial condition as well as his being father of five more daughters, the complainant could not give a scooter to his daughter Pinder Kaur. About 15 days before her death, Pinder Kaur was given beatings by the appellant and sent to her parents'' house. She stayed with her father for 8/10 days. The complainant after associating his brother-in-law Darshan Singh with him, took his daughter Pinder Kaur to her in-laws'' house and left her there. Even on that day the appellant while in their presence had told the deceased that she had no self respect as she had brought her father to his house. The complainant expressed that the parents of a girl were always at a lower level and, therefore, his daughter be not harassed.

While appearing as PW.2 complainant Gajjan Singh reiterated what he had stated to the police while lodging the FIR. His testimony was corroborated by his wife Gurdip Kaur, who appeared as PW3. During their cross-examination, the defence could not bring any material to show that they had deposed falsely. So much so that it was the defence itself which brought on record the fact during the cross-examination of PW.2 Gajjan Singh that there were injury marks on the person of Parvinder Kaur (referring to Pinder Kaur @ Harpreet Kaur) when she came to his house. Mere fact that Parvinder Kaur was not got medically examined for her injuries or no report was made to the police or to the Panchayat, is not sufficient to hold that the deceased had never been maltreated or beaten by the appellant on account of demand of dowry.

It was the consistent case of the prosecution that the appellant had been harassing the deceased for bringing more dowry and a scooter. However, on account of his being not wealthy and father of five more daughters, the complainant was not in a position to satisfy the said demand. When the demand was not met, the appellant used to beat the deceased. Two weeks before her death, the deceased was maltreated and harassed by the appellant by giving her beatings on account of non-fulfilling his demand for dowry and a scooter. She was sent to her parents'' house where she stayed for 8/10 days. A couple of days before her death, she was taken by her father and his brother-in-law Darshan Singh and left at the house of the appellant. Even at that point of time, the appellant had taunted her for not fulfilling his demand for dowry and a scooter and, instead, brought her father with her.

According to DW.1 Kartar Singh, Commission Agent, the appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 15,000/ - on 10.4.1992. As per DW.3 Ajmer Singh, out of the said amount of Rs. 15,000/ -, Rs. 5,000/ - were given by the appellant to his father-in-law, i.e. complainant Gajjan Singh. This amount was said to have been used by complainant Gajjan Singh for solemnizing the marriage of his other daughter Birpal Kaur. No evidence was led by the defence as to when the marriage of Birpal Kaur was solemnized by her father Gajjan Singh. In reply to a query put by the defence during his cross-examination, PW.2 Gajjan Singh stated that Birpal Kaur was married in the month of Chet. The said month corresponds to the month of March, whereas the amount of Rs. 15,000/ - was borrowed by the appellant on 10.4.1992. Thus, the plea of the appellant of giving a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - to his father-in-law after raising a loan on 10.4.1992 is highly improbable. Moreover, it is highly uncommon for father-in-law to take money from his son-in-law for the marriage of his other daughter.

According to DW.2 Pritam Singh, his house was at a distance of two houses from that of the appellant. The appellant never demanded any dowry from the parents of the deceased. He never saw any quarrel between the appellant and his wife. On 7.8.1992 when he was called to the house of the appellant, he saw Pinder Kaur writhing in pain. He then accompanied by the appellant took Pinder Kaur to a hospital at Mullanpur but she died on the way. Although he claimed to be ex-Sarpanch of the village yet in cross-examination he admitted that no resolution was passed in the Panchayat regarding the death of Pinder Kaur on account of consumption of some poisonous substance by her by mistake. Though he further clarified that he was R.M.P. yet he had never treated Pinder Kaur medically. He did not know as to why deceased Pinder Kaur was writhing in pain.

The defence also relied upon the testimony of DW.4 Constable Darshan Singh of Central Jail, Ludhiana, who proved entry No. 59 showing the visit of complainant Gajjan Singh to the jail for meeting the appellant there in the month of April, 1993. According to the defence, the complainant wanted to extract money from the appellant and it was for that purpose he visited the appellant in jail. Simple meeting with the appellant in jail is not sufficient to conclude that such a meeting was for extracting money from the appellant. Meeting could be for any other reason also. It may be quite possible that the appellant was trying to persuade the complainant to sort out the matter with him. Moreover, the deceased had left behind a male child, who was about 2/4 years at the time of the occurrence. The complainant could have met the appellant, for rehabilitation and/or welfare of the young child. When complainant Gajjan Singh was examined as PW2, no question was asked at all from him by the defence about his visit to the jail to meet the appellant. Thus, the plea set up by the appellant is nothing but an afterthought.

In view of the above, no fault can be found with the findings arrived at by the trial Court that it was the appellant, who had been harassing and maltreating the deceased on account of nonfulfillment of his demand for dowry and a scooter. Accordingly, no case is made out for setting aside the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.