Criminal Appeal No.1317-SB of 2002 v. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J

Chanan Singh. He was named as an accused in case FIR No.98 dated

19.07.1997 registered at Police Station City Muktsar under Sections 304-B, 148 and 149 IPC. The appellant was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Faridkot, who vide its judgment dated 17th August, 2002 found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and vide a separate order dated 19th August, 2002 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304-B IPC. The appellant was further sentenced under Section 498-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to Criminal Appeal No.1317-SB of 2002 2 further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below. Appellant Swaran Singh was married with Gurmeet Kaur, daughter of the complainant Mohinder Kaur, on 17th August, 1996. Gurmeet Kaur is stated to have died due to burn injuries on 19th July,

1997. Complainant Mohinder Kaur on 19th July, 1997 made a statement Ex.PA to ASI Inder Singh of Police Station City Muktsar, wherein she stated that she was a resident of Bathinda. Her husband was a rickshaw puller. She had got three sons namely, Karnail Singh, Pritam Singh and Jarnail Singh, and three daughters. Eldest daughter Manjit Kaur was married at village Mallanwala and the youngest one Gurmeet Kaur was married with Swaran Singh (present appellant) son of Chanan Singh about one year ago. At the time of marriage, they had given dowry to their daughter Gurmeet Kaur according to their capacity. Three months ago, a pre-mature child of seven months was born to Gurmeet Kaur daughter of the complainant. Due to birth of her grandson, the complainant along with her son Karnail Singh had gone to meet her daughter at Muktsar. Earlier also, for 2/3 times the complainant had gone to meet her daughter Gurmeet Kaur, who told her that she was being harassed by her husband Swaran Singh, mother-in-law Amarjit Kaur alias Amro, elder brother of her husband Balbir Singh alias Billa, Bholi wife of Balbir Singh and her sister- in-law Bobby for bringing less dowry.

She told that they were demanding a television and a fridge in the marriage. They were saying that by not giving the television and fridge in the dowry, their prestige had been lowered in the society. Karnail Singh told the in-laws of Gurmeet Kaur that they were poor persons and were not in a position to give fridge and television. On 17th July, 1997, on Thursday, the complainant along with her son Karnail Criminal Appeal No.1317-SB of 2002 3 Singh again went to meet Gurmeet Kaur at her matrimonial home, where she told them that she was being harassed and tortured by the family of her in-laws for bringing less dowry and the demand of television and fridge was being renewed. The complainant requested Swaran Singh husband of Gurmeet Kaur, mother-in-law Amarjit Kaur alias Amro, elder brother of her husband Balbir Singh alias Billa, Bholi wife of Balbir Singh and her sister- in-law Bobby that they were not in a position to fulfill the demands, upon which they told that in case the demand of fridge and television could not be met, Gurmeet Kaur should be taken back to her parental house.

Gurmeet Kaur also told her mother that she should be taken back, as it was difficult for her to live in her matrimonial home due to the harassment caused by the accused. On 19th July, 1997, Chanan Singh father-in-law of Gurmeet Kaur came and informed that in the morning at about 8.30 a.m. Gurmeet Kaur, after pouring kerosene oil, had put herself on fire and she had been got admitted in Adesh Hospital, Muktsar. The complainant along with her sons, namely Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh and father-in-law of Gurmeet Kaur, Chanan Singh, reached at the hospital at Muktsar where they found that Gurmeet Kaur daughter of the complainant had died. It was stated that due to the ill-treatment at the hands of her in-laws, she had committed suicide by putting herself on fire. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the appellant. On 23rd January, 1998, the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar charged the appellant for offences punishable under Section 498- A and 304-B IPC. The charge stated that appellant Swaran Singh had subjected the deceased Gurmeet Kaur to cruelty and harassment regarding demand of more dowry soon before her death, which led her to commit suicide on 19th July, 1997 at about 8.30 a.m. in the area of City Muktsar.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Appeal No.1317-SB of 2002 4 Complainant Mohinder Kaur appeared as PW-1 and reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. In cross examination, she stated that a pre-mature child was born to Gurmeet Kaur on 30th March, 1997. This witness further stated that Sucha Singh son of Kehar Singh was go- between the marriage. Karnail Singh, son of the complainant Mohinder Kaur PW-1, appeared as PW-2 and corroborated her testimony. In cross examination, he admitted that father of the accused was plying a mule-cart. This witness further admitted that the pre-mature child born to Gurmeet Kaur was not having hair on his head and that he was not even having eye-brow hair. However, this witness stated that the child was week but was in good health. He stated that the child was kept in a glass cabin and a Nurse was also present in the house. Lastly, in cross examination, he admitted that the child was still with the accused.

Dr. Rakesh Goyal PW-3 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gurmeet Kaur. He found 90 percent burns on the dead body and stated that 90 percent burns were the cause of death. The burns were ante-mortem in nature. No poison was detected in the viscera. R.L. Khurana, Administrative Officer, Adesh Hospital, Muktsar appeared as PW-4. He proved original bed-head ticket of Gurmeet Kaur. ASI Ravinder Singh PW-5 had investigated the case and he proved various facets of the investigation. HC Surinder Singh PW-6 had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PO. Hans Raj Patwari (Retd.) PW-7 proved scaled site plan Ex.PP. DSP Harmohan Singh PW-8, who was then posted as SHO, had prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.1317-SB of 2002 5 Constable Kuldip Singh PW-9 had taken the dead body for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to him.

He denied the same and pleaded false implication. In defence, Karaj Singh was examined as DW-1. He stated that there was no dispute regarding dowry however, he stated that Swaran Singh had not allowed Gurmeet Kaur to go to her parental house. He further stated that no dowry was being demanded by Swaran Singh. Bhajno DW-2 stated that Swaran Singh suspected the character of his wife Gurmeet Kaur and was not allowing her to go to her parental house. The trial Court rejected the defence evidence and placed reliance upon the testimonies of complainant Mohinder Kaur PW-1 and Karnail Singh PW-2. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate appearing for the appellant, has stated that the defence version should be given due credence. It is submitted that the child born to the deceased Gurmeet Kaur was pre-matured. He was not having hair and the pregnancy, which was not fully blown had caused depression to the deceased Gurmeet Kaur, who had committed suicide.

It is further submitted that the defence evidence is more trustworthy and reliable and the same ought to be given due credence over the prosecution evidence, as the witnesses examined had admitted that the accused were their neighbours and they knew the deceased fully well. Learned counsel has stated that according to the defence witnesses, accused husband never allowed his wife to visit her parental house. It is submitted that Bhajno DW-2 had stated that the accused appellant was suspecting the character of his wife. It is further submitted that in the Indian society, it is customary for a young lady to go Criminal Appeal No.1317-SB of 2002 6 to her parental house at the time of delivery of a child. In the present case, refusal of the appellant had annoyed the deceased Gurmeet Kaur, who was already depressed. Therefore, the offence, if any, is made out under Section 306 IPC and not under Section 304-B IPC. Counsel for the State has submitted that in the present case, trial Court had rightly relied upon the prosecution witnesses and had convicted and sentenced the appellant.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. In the present case, marriage had taken place on 17th August, 1996 and the death of Gurmeet Kaur had taken place on 19th July, 1997. Thus, the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. The complainant Mohinder Kaur PW-1 and Karnail Singh PW-2 were very categoric that the deceased was harassed, ill-treated and subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of a television and a fridge. Two days before her death, i.e. on 17th July, 1997, when her mother and brother had gone to visit the deceased, she had disclosed that the accused used to mal-treat her for not fulfilling their demand of television and fridge. The deceased had also expressed her intention to leave her matrimonial home and accompany her mother to her parental house. These facts are discernible from the perusal of the FIR. Like an elder, the complainant made her daughter understand to stay in her matrimonial home.

Thus, soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. The deceased had died due to burn injuries. She had suffered 90 percent burns. Her death was in the circumstances other than normal. Therefore, all ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC are made out against the accused appellant and he has rightly been convicted Criminal Appeal No.1317-SB of 2002 7 and sentenced under Section 304-B IPC. The minimum prescribed sentence has been awarded to the appellant. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. May 18, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE