Sukhwinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—The Appellants were convicted for an offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) vide judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Vide order dated 21.10.2008, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each u/s 304B IPC. Hence, the present appeal.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:

The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 4.8.2000 Chanchal Singh complainant got his statement recorded before ASI Ajab Singh of police station Mamdot to the effect that he is resident of village Sharinwala, police station Mamdot and indulges in the agriculture work. He has two sons and four daughters. His eldest daughter is Paramjit Kaur aged about 29 years, younger to her is his son Gurdip Singh aged about 28 years, younger to him is his daughter Charanjit Kaur aged 26 years, younger to her is his daughter Sawaran Kaur aged 24 years, younger to her is his son Gurpreet aged 20 years. His daughter Sawaran Kaur and son Gurpreet Singh are still unmarried and rest of his children are married. Chanchal Singh further stated in his statement that his daughter Charanjit Kaur was married to Sukhwinder Singh son of Darbara Singh resident of village Shareenwala police station Guru Har Sahai about four years ago according to the Hindu rites. He had given Scooter, black and while T.V. and ten tolas of gold in the marriage as per his capacity. The in-laws of Charanjit Singh had been treating her properly four about two years after the marriage. Thereafter, mother-in-law of Charanjit Kaur namely Piar Kaur, father-in-law Darbara Singh and her husband Sukhwinder Singh started taunting her and harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry and started demanding fridge, coloured T.V. And cash amount. After one year ago they sent back his daughter to his house to bring the aforesaid articles with a threat that in case she would not bring these articles then be not come back to their house. He alongwith his relative Major Singh son of Balwant Singh resident of Ladhuwala Uttar and his brother Bachan Singh, police station Guru Har Sahai and requested Darbara Singh, Piar Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh that being a poor person and father of four daughters he could not give any more dowry upon which they agreed to rehabilitate his daughter Charanjit Kaur. They left Charanjit Kaur to the house of her in-laws. Thereafter, his daughter Charanjit Kaur told him many times that due to non-bringing to Fridge, coloured T.V. and cash amount the family members of in-laws beat and harass her but he made his daughter understand to live there as possible as. Chanchal Singh further stated in his statement that yesterday at about 2.00 PM his son Gurdip Singh and his daughter-in-law Ranjit Kaur went on scooter in the house of in-laws of his daughter. When they reached in the house of in-laws of his daughter, they asked Charanjit Kaur, who was made laid in the cot, what is the problem, whether she is well, upon which she told to his son and his daughter that her father-in-law Darbara Singh, mother-in-law Piar Kaur and her husband Sukhwinder Singh has been quarreling with her since the previous night by saying as to why she does not bring more dowry. She further told them that she suspects that her father-in-law Darbara Singh, mother-in-law Piar Kaur and her husband Sukhwinder Singh has administered some poisonous substance to her in the tea or water with the intention to kill her. She is not feeling well and she is vomiting. His son Gurdip Singh and daughter-in-law Ranjit Kaur requested Darbara Singh, Piar Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh to take Charanjit Kaur to the hospital but they refused to do so. Ultimately on the request of his son Gurdip Singh and daughter Ranjit Kaur they agreed to take his daughter to Pawan Hospital, Guru Har Sahai in their car. However, before reaching to Pawan Hospital, Guru Har Sahai his daughter Charanjit Kaur died on the way and her dead body was taken back to the house of her in-laws . After that his son Gurdip Singh and daughter-in-law Ranjit Kaur, on coming back to the house, told him that Charanjit kaur was died and also narrated the aforesaid story. He alongwith Gurdial Singh Ex.member panchayat and some more persons went to the house of her in-laws and brought back the dead body of his daughter Charanjit Kaur at Village Shareenwala, police station Mamdot and the dead body is still lying in his house. He further stated in his statement that his duaghter Charanjit Kaur has been killed by her father-in-law Darbara Singh, mother-in-law Piar Kaur and husband Sukhwinder Singh in furhterence of their common intention by administering some poisonous substance for not bringing more dowry. After recording the statement Ex.P6 of Chanchal Singh, ASI Ajaib Singh made his endorsement Ex.P6/A on it and sent the same to police station, Guru Har Sahai for registration of a case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P10 was registered. Thereafter ASI Beant Singh visited the spot and prepared inquest report Ex.P11 and sent the dead body of Charanjit Kaur to Civil Hospital, Ferozpur for post mortem examination through HC Gurdev Singh constable Harmesh Lal along with application Ex.P4. ASI Beant Singh took into possession the belonging of the deceased after the post mortem examination. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Accused Sukhwinder Singh was arrested by ASI Beant Singh on 11.9.2000 and on his person search nothing was recovered regarding which separate Memo Ex.P13 was prepared which was signed by accused Sukhwinder Singh and attested by HC Thana Singh. Accused Sukhwinder Singh was disclosed the grounds of arrest vide Memo Ex.P14 which was signed by him and attested by the aforesaid witness. After completion of the investigation accused Sukhwinder Singh was challaned for his having committed offence punishable u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the prosecution case was not free from doubt. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of her parents. The story putforth by the prosecution that the deceased had died on 3.8.2000 was not corroborated by the medical evidence. From these facts, it was evident that the deceased had not died in the house of her in-laws but had died in the house of her parents by consuming poison.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The deceased had died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage on account of harassment meted out to her by the Appellants on account of demand of dowry.

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

That the death of the woman took place due to burns or the bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances.

That such death had occurred within seven years of her marriage.

The victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

PW-1 Dr. Jagbir Singh Sandhu deposed that on 4.8.2000, at 6 p.m. he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Charanjit Kaur. The cause of death was due to consumption of organophosphorus ( a group of insecticide). Probable time between death and postmortem was within 2 to 6 hours.

PW-4 Gurdeep Singh deposed that Charanjit Kaur, his sister, was married to Sukhwinder Singh four years prior to the occurrence. They had been blessed with a son and a daughter out of the wedlock. On 3.8.2000 at about 10 A.M. he received a phone call from his sister that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband were quarrelling with her for bringing less dowry. Thereafter, he received a phone call from Sukhwinder Singh that they should take Charanjit Kaur with them. The witness along with his wife Ranjit Kaur went to the house of the accused. Charanjit Kaur was lying on a cot and started weeping on seeing them. She told them that she had been beaten on account of not bringing a colour television, fridge etc. in dowry. Charanjit Kaur further stated that she had been administered some poisonous substance and started vomiting. Then a vehicle was arranged to take Charanjit Kaur to the hospital. However, on the way to the hospital, Charanjit Kaur died and thereafter, the dead body of Charanjit Kaur was left at her in-laws house. The witness along with his wife came home and narrated the occurrence to his father. A panchayat was convened. The dead body of Charanjit Kaur was brought to their house on the next day.

PW-5 Chanchal Singh deposed that his daughter Charanjit Kaur was married with Sukhwinder Singh about four years prior to the occurrence. He had given sufficient dowry to his daughter at the time of her marriage. For about two years, all the accused behaved properly with his daughter but thereafter, they started harassing and maltreating his daughter due to insufficient dowry. All the accused were raising a demand of fridge, colour television and cash. His daughter had been sent to his house to bring the said articles. Thereafter, he went to the house of the Appellants and requested them that he was unable to meet their demand. The accused agreed to rehabilitate his daughter and she was left in the matrimonial home. However, Charanjit Kaur was again maltreated by the Appellants. On 3.8.2000, his son and his wife went to the house of the Appellants and saw that Charanjit Kaur was lying on a cot and his daughter told them that she suspected that she had been given some poisonous substance in her tea. Charanjit Kaur started vomiting. Ater arranging a vehicle Charanjit Kaur was being taken to Pawan Hospital, Guruharsahai but she died on the way to the hospital. Thereafter, his son and his wife came to his house and told him about the death of his daughter. He convened a panchayat and brought the dead body of his daughter to his house and lodged the report.

In the present case, there are some material doubts in the prosecution story. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Charanjit Kaur had died on 3.8.2000 but from the medical opinion it transpires that the deceased had died on 4.8.2000. As per PW-1, he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Charanjit Kaur at 6 P.M. on 4.8.2000 and as per his opinion, the time between death and postmortem was within 2 to 6 hours. From this it can be inferred that the deceased had died on 4.8.2000. PW-4 Gurdeep Singh has deposed that he had gone to his sister''s house along with his wife on 3.8.2000 and she told him that she had been given a poisonous substance. While he was taking his sister to the hospital for treatment, she died. The said witness brought the dead body of his sister to the house of her in-laws and on the next day his father convened a panchayat and the dead body of Charanjit Kaur was shifted to her parental home. There is no explanation as to why the matter was not immediately informed to the police by PW-4 after the death of his sister. In case, PW-4 was present with his sister on 3.8.2000 as alleged by him, then there was no occasion for him to have taken the dead body to the house of the Appellants. After the death of his sister, PW-4 could have brought the dead body of his sister to his house and lodged the report with the police. However, the police was informed after the dead body of Charanjit Kaur was brought to her parental home. There is no justification qua the removal of the dead body of Charanjit Kaur from the house of the Appellants to the house of her parents without informing the police. This shows that PW-4 and PW-5 have not come out with the true story and have hidden the genesis of the case during investigation as well as during trial. It is doubtful that the death of deceased Charanjit Kaur had taken place on 3.8.2000 in view of the medical evidence. Although PW-5 has deposed qua demand of dowry by the Appellants before the occurrence but PW-4 has not deposed qua the demand of dowry made by the Appellants before 3.8.2000. It is unfortunate that Charanjit Kaur has died an un-natural death within four years of her marriage but from the statements of PW-4 and PW-5 it cannot be inferred that it is a case of dowry death. It appears that the deceased was being given some maltreatment in the house of her in-laws but the same was not in connection with demand of dowry. The deceased has left behind two minor children. Apparently, the deceased had been meted out harassment in the house of her in-laws which forced her to take an extreme step of ending her life by consuming poison.

As per Section 306 IPC provision for abetment of suicide reads as under:

Abetment of suicide:

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

From the facts of the present case, it appears that it is a case which falls under the purview of Section 306 IPC and not u/s 304B IPC.

Appellants Darbara Singh and Piar Kaur are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and apparently, they cannot be held to be responsible for abetment of suicide committed by deceased Charanjit Kaur. The said Appellants were found innocent during investigation but were summoned to face the trial u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure

So far as Appellant Sukhwinder Singh is concerned, he is the husband of the deceased and it appears that he had meted out harassment to the deceased which forced her to commit suicide and thus, he is guilty of commission of an offence u/s 306 IPC.

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of Appellants Darbara Singh and Piar Kaur u/s 304B are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them.

So far as Appellant Sukhwinder Singh is concerned, he is acquitted of the charge framed against him u/s 304B. However, he is convicted for an offence u/s 306 IPC although no charge was framed in this case against the said Appellant u/s 306 IPC but since the said offence is the lesser offence, the conviction of Appellant Sukhwinder Singh can be ordered under the said provision in view of the decision in K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. v. Yadav Srinivasa Rao 2002 (4) RCR 697 SC.

Accordingly, Appellant Sukhwinder Singh is held guilty of an offence u/s 306 IPC and is convicted thereunder. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.