Satnam Singh and others v. State of Punjab

Mr. M.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. B.S.Sra, Addl. AG Punjab ARVIND KUMAR, J: This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15/17.1.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby in case FIR No. 255 dated 2.9.1994 at Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur, the appellants-accused although have been acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC but have been convicted under Section 306/498-A IPC. Accused appellant Satnam Singh has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC while the other two accused, namely, Bakshish Singh and Jarnail Singh have been convicted and sentence under Section 498-A IPC. Under Section 306 IPC, accused- appellant Satnam Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and under Section 498-A IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. As regards the other two accused-appellants, Bakshish Singh and Jarnail Singh, both of them, under Section 498-A IPC, have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each. In brief, the case of the prosecution, is that on 2.9.1994, when the police party after conducting of an enquiry, was returning from Crl. A. No. 146-SB of 2002 2 village Habibwala to village Pheme Ke, complainant Harjinder Singh met them and made statement that his sister Amrik Kaur, was married to accused-appellant Satnam Singh. Out of their wed-lock, a daughter named Harbant Kaur was born. After about six and a half years of the marriage, his sister was turned out of the matrimonial home by Satnam Singh after giving beatings to her and asked her to bring more dowry. Thereafter, he (complainant) along with his father and one Sahib Singh, who was inter- mediator of the said marriage along with other respectables went to Satnam Singh and got the matter compromised and accordingly, his sister Amrik Kaur went to live with Satnam Singh. However, on account of cruel treatment at the hands of accused persons, his sister committed suicide by jumping in the canal water on 1.9.1994. On such statement, the present FIR came to be registered. Thereafter, accused Satnam Singh was arrested on

8.9.1994 while Jarnail Singh was arrested on 9.9.1994. On completion of necessary investigation and other formalities, the accused were sent to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The learned trial Court charge-sheeted the accused under Section 306 IPC and alternatively under Section 304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as eight witnesses and closed its evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting them incriminating evidence qua them to which they pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence evidence, they examined DW-1 Iqbal Singh, DW-2 Mohinder Singh, DW-3 Arjan Singh, DW-4 Raghbir Singh Chahal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide the impugned judgment and order held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appellant Satnam Singh is the husband of the deceased Amrik Kaur. He has been convicted for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC by the learned trial Court by observing that the appellant Satnam Singh abetted the commission of suicide by Amrik Kaur, who was meted Crl. A. No. 146-SB of 2002 3 out with cruelty, which compelled her to commit suicide. The learned trial Court also drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding the best available evidence with regard to the period of marriage of the appellant Satnam Singh with Amrik Kaur and concluded that the death had not occurred within seven years of marriage, but beyond that period and hence dropped the charges under Section 304-B IPC. In this case PW2 Harjinder Singh and PW3 Surjan Singh, the brother and father respectively of deceased Amrik Kaur are the witnesses of fact. Their statements show that about three months of the present occurrence, Amrik Kaur was turned out of the matrimonial home since the demand of television and two buffaloes was not fulfilled, but the matter was settled. Their testimonies further go to show that Amrik Kaur was earlier thereto harassed for bringing less dowry and one fridge was also given after the marriage to the appellant Satnam Singh. This fact finds corroboration from the testimony of PW8 Vijay Kumar, the dealer from whose shop the fridge was purchased. The chain of events suggests that Amrik Kaur was not living in congenial atmosphere in the matrimonial home, obviously on account of mal-treatment for demand of dowry, which subsists till her death and such circumstances were created for her, which compelled her to put an end to her life by committing suicide along with her minor daughter. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to contradiction in the statements of witnesses to the effect that as PW3 a scooter was also given to the appellant, while PW1 has nowhere stated about the scooter. I have gone through the statements of both the witnesses. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Apart from minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the case, their statements are corroborated on material particulars so far the demands and harassment to Amrik Kaur is concerned. It has also not be forgotten that due to minor discrepancies in the statements of simpleton and illiterate witnesses, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Their statements indict the series of incidents forming part of the same transaction which culminated in the death of Amrik Kaur. The counsel for the appellant has laid much stress that there is no independent corroboration to the statements of both the witness, who are closely related to the deceased. The contention is again meritless. The statements of PW.2 Harjinder Singh and PW3 Surjan Singh cannot be Crl. A. No. 146-SB of 2002 4 rejected merely on the ground of relations of deceased. It is, but natural, that instance of cruelty, harassment or demand of dowry would remain within the personal knowledge of near relations and they would be the best persons to depose about the same. Therefore, the evidence of physical and mental torture of the deceased coming from the brother and father of the deceased need not to be discarded simply on the score of absence of independent corroboration. The case of appellants Bakshish Singh and Jarnail Singh, the brothers of appellant Satnam Singh is distinguishable as that of appellant Satnam Singh, so far as demand, cruelty and harassment is concerned There has always a tendency to implicate the entire family members from in-laws side by the enraged family members of the deceased bride. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 suggests that there are no specific instances attributed to them and the allegations against them are omnibus. Apart this, what convinces this Court is that, there is evidence on record to show that both these persons are residing separately at Muradpur Bet, District Kapurthala while appellant Satnam Singh was residing separately at village Laliwala, District Ferozepur. In this regard evidence of DW1 Iqbal Singh and DW2 Mohinder Singh is important, which is corroborated with the documents Ex.DA and Ex.DB i.e. the ration cards of Bakshish Singh and Jarnail Singh respectively, so proved by DW3 Arjan Singh, Inspector Food and Supplies, Kapurthala to show that they are residing at village Muradpur Bet. It can also be taken note that both Bakshish Singh and Jarnail Singh were found innocent by the investigating agency. Not only this, it cannot be believed that the persons residing at a distant place can ever be instrumental or beneficiary from the alleged demand of television or buffaloes. Thus, appellants Bakshish Singh and Jarnail Singh deserves acquittal. So far as appellant Satnam Singh is concerned, the case of the prosecution is consistent coming from the mouth of PW.2 Harjinder Singh and PW3 Surjan Singh. Their statements corroborates the cruelty and demand of dowry. He, being the husband, is directly beneficiary to the said demand of dowry. He created such a situation for Amrik Kaur, under which she has left with no other option but to commit suicide. Thus, it is the appellant who abetted the commission of suicide by Amrik Kaur along with her minor daughter. Thus, he has rightly been held guilty under Sections Crl. A. No. 146-SB of 2002 5 498-A and 306 IPC. The counsel for the accused-appellant Satnam Singh has argued that sentence of imprisonment for four years is excessive. His entire family is finished; his wife committed suicide along with his minor daughter and now he is empty hand. He has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings since 1994 and has remained in custody for more than 11 months in relation to the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Hoshan & Anr. Vs. State of A.P. 2002(4) RCR (Crl.) 155(SC), where the incident had taken place about more than 13 years back and the accused had undergone sentence for about 2 months, observed that it may not be proper to send them to jail again. In Jagsir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 123, conviction was recorded under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and since the occurrence was 13 years old, the sentence was reduced to already undergone (13 months). In the case of Jagbiri & Ors. Vs. State (UT Chandigarh) 2004(2) RCR (Crl.) 826, conviction was under Section 306 IPC and since the accused had suffered agony of protracted trial for about 13 years, their sentence was reduced to already undergone (Jagbiri and Bimlesh remained in custody for little more than 2 months whereas Sham Narayan remained in custody for about 6/7 months, after their conviction). Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that appellant Satnam Singh deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant appeal to the extent of appellants Bakshish Singh and Jarnail Singh is allowed, thereby acquitting them of the charges framed against them. They are discharged of their bonds for appearance. So far as appellant Satnam Singh is concerned, his conviction under Section 306 and 498-A IPC is maintained, however, sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him, but subjecto his depositing Rs.60,000/- as compensation to be paid to complainant Harjinder Singh within a period of three months. July 13,2010 Jiten (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE