Criminal Appeal No.981-SB of 1998 v. State of Punjab

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that keeping in view the evidence of the prosecution, its case against appellants Avtar Singh and Kartar Kaur is not free from doubt. In his statement made before the police by complainant Kahan Singh, brother of Harbans Kaur (deceased) leading to the registration of the instant case against the accused, no specific -5- Criminal Appeal No.981-SB of 1998. allegations have been made against appellants Avtar Singh and Kartar Kaur, who are parents of appellant Tapinderpal Singh. General allegations have been levelled against them i.e appellants Avtar Singh and Kartar Kaur, conveying that they were hand in glove with appellant Tapinderpal Singh in torturing Smt.Harbans Kaur on account of insufficiency of dowry. It is a tendency on the part of the family of the victim to rope in as many members of the family of the in-laws of the victim in a case like this as possible. Appellant Kartar Kaur was found innocent during investigation by the police and had not been challaned. She was summoned to face trial by the trial Court on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant Kartar Kaur is a teacher by profession and it appears that she had nothing to do with the demand of Rs.25,000/-. Harbans Kaur (deceased) was taken to hospital by appellant Avtar Singh on coming to know about her condition. Avtar Singh appellant had first taken Harbans Kaur to the clinic of Dr.Swaran Singh Sandhu (D.W.1) at Raikot. Dr. Swaran Singh Sandhu (D.W.1) had referred Harbans Kaur to C.M.C, Ludhiana as her condition was serious. Dr. Swaran Singh Sandhu (D.W.1), who was M.B.B.S, M.S (General Surgery) ex-P.C.M.S proved the slip/Certificate (Exhibit D.A) whereby Harbans Kaur was referred by him to C.M.C, Ludhiana. The role of appellant Tapinderpal Singh in the commission of the crime will be discussed in the later part of the judgment. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances -6- Criminal Appeal No.981-SB of 1998. of the case, especially the fact that appellants Avtar Singh and Kartar Kaur had nothing to do with the demand of dowry, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the prosecution against them has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and they are entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt. The question arises as to whether accused-appellant Tapinderpal Singh is liable for the offences under Section 498-A and Section 304-B of the Code for which offences he has been found guilty by the learned trial Judge. Section 304-B of the Code, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:- “ 304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death”. As per the provisions of Section 304-B of the Code, -7- Criminal Appeal No.981-SB of 1998. the offence of “dowry death” consists of three ingredients i.e death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; that the death occurs within seven years of her marriage; and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for or in connection with any demand for dowry. If these three ingredients are there, the offence of “dowry death” can be said to be complete and proved. In this case, admittedly Harbans Kaur had died within two months of marriage, as her marriage with appellant Tapinderpal Singh had taken place on 18.12.1994 and she died on 3.2.1995. Death of Harbans Kaur occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Dr. S.K. Gupta (P.W.2), who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Harbans Kaur, after receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner that Aluminium Phosphide was detected in the viscera, had declared the cause of death due to poison. The fact that soon before her death Harbans Kaur was subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellant Tapinderpal Singh for or in connection with any demand of dowry, is proved on record as is evident from the evidence led by the prosecution. Complainant Kahan Singh (P.W.3) and Gurcharan Singh (P.W.4) have deposed that Harbans Kaur (deceased) had been married with appellant Tapinder Singh on 18.12.1994. The evidence of Kahan Singh (P.W.3) and Gurcharan Singh (P.W.4) is consistent about their -8- Criminal Appeal No.981-SB of 1998. visits to the village of appellant Tapinderpal Singh. Appellant Tapinderpal Singh was running a Medical Store and had demanded Rs.25,000/- from the parents of the deceased in order to expand his business. The depositions of Kahan Singh (P.W.3) and Gurcharan Singh (P.W.4) establish without any doubt the case of the prosecution against appellant Tapinderpal Singh. Appellant Tapinderpal Singh, as observed above, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has taken the plea that the deceased was a beautiful lady whereas he was a simpleton, hard of speaking and physically disabled; that she was not happy to marry appellant Tapinderpal Singh and that she used to remain in a sorrow mood. However, before the marriage of Harbans Kaur with appellant Tapinderpal Singh, all these facts must have been brought to the notice of the parents of Harbans Kaur by the persons who had acted as intermediaries in arranging this marriage, but at no stage Harbans Kaur or her parents raised any objection. Ranbir Singh Sarpanch (D.W.4) has disclosed the names of persons who had acted as intermediaries in arranging this marriage and they are Jagdev Singh, Harbans Singh and Gian Singh of Village Talwandi. None of these persons has been examined by appellant Tapinderpal Singh. They were the best persons who could throw light upon the circumstances whether it was a forced marriage or whether the facts of appellant Tapinderpal Singh being stammering and simpleton were brought to the notice of Harbans Kaur and her parents prior to the marriage. Three photographs of appellant -9- Criminal Appeal No.981-SB of 1998. Tapinderpal Singh with deceased Harbans Kaur taken on the occasion of marriage are on record. One photograph depicts the occasion of ring ceremony where the bride is putting ring on the ring finger of the bridegroom. These photographs do not indicate that it was a forced marriage. The defence taken by appellant Tapinderpal Singh in this regard is an afterthought. The life of Harbans Kaur came to an end by consuming some poisonous substance within two months of her marriage, which shows the magnitude of the harassment meted out to her by appellant Tapinderpal Singh. The above discussed evidence clearly establishes that soon before Harbans Kaur ended her life, she was subjected to cruelty by accused-appellant Tapinderpal Singh on account of demand of dowry. So, the third ingredient of the offence of “dowry death” i.e whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death for or in connection with dowry demands by accused-appellant Tapinderpal Singh, stands proved from the evidence on record. For the aforesaid reasons, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused-appellant Tapinderpal Singh under Section 304-B and 498-A of the Code. The impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court in respect of appellant Tapinderpal Singh is, therefore, upheld. The sentence imposed upon appellant Ram Sarup also commensurates with the offence committed by him. The impugned sentence order qua appellant Tapinderpal Singh is also, accordingly, upheld. The net result is that this appeal qua appellants -10- Criminal Appeal No.981-SB of 1998. Avtar Singh and Kartar Kaur is accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order qua them are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them by giving them the benefit of doubt. However, this appeal qua appellant Tapinderpal Singh is dismissed. January 21, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE