CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 v. State of Punjab

Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), has convicted and sentenced the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh, as under:- U/s 306 IPC To undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further U/s 498-A IPC R.I. for three months To undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two months CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 2

2. The brief facts of the prosecution story, as emanating from the record, are that on 28.4.1998 at 5.55 p.m., complainant, Mukhtiar Singh, PW1, along with Mohan Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Rattan Singh, Chowkidar, Pritam Singh, Ram Murti and Tara Singh, went to the Police Station, Sadar Khanna, and got recorded DDR No.21, Ex.PA, through ASI Harinder Singh, PW4, stating that the deceased- Baljinder Kaur, was his daughter and sister of Pritam Singh, PW3. She was married with Lakhwinder Singh, accused, in the year 1993 and three children had born out of the wedlock. The deceased was getting treatment from Dr. Kala, Kochhar Market, Ludhiana, for the last six or seven months, as she was suffering from some inner disease. Whenever the deceased visited her parental house, the complainant used to provide her with medicine and during her stay in the matrimonial home, her husband used to provide her medicines.

3. On 28.4.1998, the complainant, along with his family members, was harvesting the wheat crop in his fields whereas his son, Surinder Singh, was present in the house. Surinder Singh came to the fields and told him that a message had been received from Village Baghaur that his daughter, Baljinder Kaur, had died. Thereafter, the complainant along with Mohan Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, and some other respectables, went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of Baljinder Kaur lying there. When he asked about the reason for her death, Tejo, mother-in-law of the deceased, told him that at about 12.00 noon, the deceased had developed some pain in the abdomen and suffered fits, etc. An attempt to call the doctor was also made but till the time the doctor could reach, she had already breathed her last. It was also told by Tejo that at times, the deceased used to leave the house of her own will. However, no CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 3 injury marks were found by the complainant on the dead body of the deceased.

4. Thereafter, the complainant submitted an application, Ex.PB, dated 18.6.1998, before the then DGP, Punjab, on 18.6.1998, alleging that he had given sufficient dowry as per his capacity, however, the in-laws of his deceased daughter were not satisfied with the said dowry. They used to beat and turn her out of the matrimonial home many times and it was only with the intervention of the respectables, he used to send the deceased back to her matrimonial home. However, she was killed by the accused on 28.4.1998. The complainant lodged a report with the Police Station Sadar Khanna and brought back the dead body of the deceased. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 29.4.1998 in which the doctor did not make any mention of the injury marks on the dead body. He rather described the death as normal and sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner for test. Despite the fact that he lodged the report at P.S. Sadar Khanna, the police did not take any action in connivance with

the accused. On the basis of this report, FIR, Ex.PB/1, was registered against the accused on 11.3.2000. The special report was sent to the SDJM, Khanna, on 11.3.2000 at 6.30 p.m.

5. On completion of the investigation and upon presentation of challan, the accused, namely, Lakhwinder Singh (herein the appellant) and Smt. Tejo, were sent up to face trial before the Court of Sessions.

6. The accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 4

7. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, namely, Mukhtiar Singh, complainant, as PW1; Dr. P D Singla, SMO, Civil Hospital, Khanna, who conducted the port-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 29.4.1998, as PW2; Pritam Singh, son of the complainant and brother of the deceased, as PW3; ASI Harinder Singh, who recorded DDR No.21, Ex.PA, on 28.4.1998, as PW4; SI Sarup Singh, who got recorded FIR, Ex.PB/1, from the MHC and signed it, as PW5; HC Gian Singh as PW6; HC Darshan Singh as PW7; Constable Kuldeep Singh as PW8; and Ashwani Kumar Dhand, Draftsman, who proved the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence, Ex.PL, prepared by him, as PW9.

10. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded their statements wherein they denied the circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.

11. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned trial Court, while acquitting accused-Tejo by giving her the benefit of doubt, convicted and sentenced accused-Lakhwinder Singh (herein the appellant), as noticed at the outset of this judgment.

12. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the present appellant preferred this appeal, which was admitted on 22.11.2001 by this Court.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the marriage in the instant case took place in October, 1993. On information from the appellant, complainant-Mukhtiar Singh, father of CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 5 the deceased, Mohan Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and some other respectables, reached the matrimonial house of the deceased. On the same day, he (complainant), made a statement, Ex.DA, that the marriage of her daughter, Baljinder Kaur, was performed in the year 1993 and she was suffering from some inner disease. He used to get her treated from one Dr. Kala of Kochhar Market, Ludhiana. He has further stated that occasionally, the accused-husband also used to get her treated and fetch medicines for her. This statement was duly signed by the complainant after acknowledging its veracity.

14. The learned counsel has further submitted that even during the proceedings carried out under Section 175 Cr.P.C., no foul play was suspected by the complainant. It was only in pursuance of the complaint made by the complainant to the then DGP on

14.6.1998, FIR, Ex.PB, dated 11.3.2000, was registered under Section 304-B. The learned counsel has further argued that in the DDR, Ex.PA, the complainant has specifically stated that no injury marks were noticed on the dead body of the deceased.

15. Learned counsel has further contended that except the bald statement of Mukhtiar Singh, PW1, made after one year and six months of the marriage, there is nothing on record to establish the demand of dowry. It was an improvement upon the statement, Ex.DA, made on 28.4.1998 before ASI Harinder Singh.

16. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of Pritam Singh, PW3, brother of the deceased, who has categorically stated that on receipt of information regarding the death of his sister, he and his father, along with Mohan Singh, Ex. Sarpanch and other respectables visited the matrimonial house of the deceased. He has further stated that they all had signed the statement admitting the CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 6 contents of the same as correct. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the statement of Pritam Singh, PW3, he visited the deceased only once about one and a half years prior to the date of occurrence.

17. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of ASI Harinder Singh, PW4, who has stated that he recorded the Statement, Ex.PA, on 28.4.1998, correctly. Exhibits DA and DC, were duly signed by the complainant. In this backdrop, the learned counsel has submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and Section 498-A IPC, are not made out in the instant case as it has not been shown as to what was demanded and at what point of time, the alleged demand was raised.

18. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no specific denial of the complainant, Mukhtiar Singh, PW1, and Pritam Singh, PW3, that they did not make the statement, Ex.DA, or the same was incorrect.

19. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that after the death of his wife (deceased), the appellant has not remarried and is bringing up his three children born out of this wedlock.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The assertion of the appellant that the deceased, Baljinder Kaur, was suffering from any depression, is not proved on record as Dr. Kala was not examined.

21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

22. From the perusal of statement, Ex.DA, it is made out that on receipt of information regarding the death of his daughter, CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 7 Mahinder Singh, complainant, visited her matrimonial home at Village Baghaur and made inquires. He found that Tejo, mother-in-law, of the deceased, was present in the house. She narrated that the deceased Baljinder Kaur suffered stomachache and they made an effort to call the doctor but she died before the doctor could reach there.

23. The complainant made a statement before ASI Harinder Singh, PW4, in which no foul play was alleged. On the contrary, it has come in the statements of both the complainant, appearing as PW1, and the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C., that the deceased-Baljinder Kaur, had been suffering from some inner illness/depression and she was being treated by Dr. Kala of Kochhar Market, Ludhiana.

24. As per the FSL report, Ex.PD, the death in the instant case has taken place on account of consumption of aluminium phosphide. From the perusal of record and the statement of complainant-Mahinder Singh, PW1, and Pritam Singh, PW3, brother of the deceased, the fact of illness of the deceased and her taking treatment from Dr. Kala of Ludhiana, is fully corroborated and established. Even as per the statement of the complainant, the alleged demand of dowry was raised one year and six months after the marriage. However, the demand has not been clearly spelt out. It has also come in the testimony of Pritam Singh, PW3, that the relations between the appellant and her sister were cordial and they were leading a happy matrimonial life. It has also come in the testimony of this witness that during the subsistence of marriage from October 1993 till 28.4.1998, he visited her sister’s matrimonial home only once and that too, about one and a half years prior to the date of occurrence. CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 8

25. No injury marks were noticed by the complainant or by Dr. P D Singla, PW2, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.

26. The appellant has taken a categorical stand in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that his wife had been suffering from depression and was under treatment from Dr. Kala. However, this doctor has not been produced either by the prosecution or by the appellant, but in view of the statements of the complainant and the appellant, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased was suffering from some illness and she was being treated by Dr. Kala. On account of the non-examination of Dr. Kala, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant.

27. It is further proved on record that the appellant has not remarried and is supporting and raising his children who are stated to be aged 15 years, 14 years and 12 years, respectively. The factum of not getting married again also indicates that the appellant has devoted his life to his children.

28. There are material improvements in the statement of the complainant, Mahinder Singh, PW1 with regard to the demand of dowry and harassment, however, the fact that the deceased was suffering from some illness is duly established from the statement of the complainant, his son, Pritam Singh, and the stand taken by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. As there is no specific demand of dowry immediately before death, nor there is any time, date and nature of demand, therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to bring out any concrete evidence against the appellant, the benefit of which must go to the accused-appellant. CRA No.1329-SB of 2001 9

29. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant was admitted to bail by this Court on

07.12.2001. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

09.12.2010 atulsethi (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes / No