Uttam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal

A First Information Report was lodged on

30.11.2001 by the complainant Gurdeep Singh (uncle of the deceased Jaswinder Kaur @ Swarn Kaur) that his niece was killed by the accused Uttam Singh, Harvansh Singh, Jaspal Singh and Smt. Indro Bai. The First Information Report dated 30.11.2001, lodged by Gurdeep Singh, states that the daughter of his brother Khazan Singh, namely, Jaswinder Kaur @ Swarn Kaur was married on 09.02.2001 to one Jaswant Singh of Village Jabran. In the marriage, they had given dowry as per their capacity but still there was a continuous and unending demand of dowry from the side of Jaswant Singh and his family members. Jaswinder Kaur was being harassed because of the less dowry she had brought in the house and there was now a fresh demand of a motorcycle and ‘20,000/- from Khazan Singh. They used to say that they will only keep Jaswinder Kaur, if motorcycle and ‘20,000/- is given. Consequently they used to beat Jaswinder Kaur and torture her. This 2 information was given to the complainant by his niece Jaswinder Kaur herself. Till 26.11.2001 his niece was in their village (cid:147)Hazira(cid:148) i.e. her (cid:147)MAYAKA(cid:148), but on 26.11.2001 her husband and father-in-law, namely, Jaswant Singh and Uttam Singh respectively came to her village Hazira and took away their daughter-in-law saying that they will not harass her any further. On 26.11.2001 they were told by a villager Asha Singh of their village that his daughter has been killed by her in-laws. When they reached the village Jabran, they found that for not fulfilling the demand of dowry by in-laws, Jaswinder Kaur has been killed by her in-laws and her husband. His niece Jaswinder Kaur was in family way and was about seven-eight months pregnant. When they reached the house, they found that Jaswinder Kaur and her husband were lying dead on adjacent rooms. They were charged under Section 498A/304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was committed to the Sessions for trial on

21.10.2002 and charges were framed on 07.03.2003 under Sections 498A/304B of I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses. Interestingly, in this case Asha Singh (P.W.2) has been made an eyewitness to this incident. According to this witness, who is actually a resident of village Hazira, he was working as a carpenter in the house of Jaspal Singh S/o Uttam Singh at village Jabran when he noticed that Jaswinder Kaur was being beaten by Uttam Singh, Jaspal Singh, Jaswant Singh, Harvansh and Indro Bai (mother-in-law). Jaswant Singh assaulted his wife with an iron rod, which fell on the head of Jaswinder Kaur @ Swarn Kaur (this is an injury, which has been sustained by the deceased on the left partial 3 region). Infuriated Jaswinder Kaur picked up an axe which was lying nearby and assaulted Jaswant Singh as a result, Jaswant Singh died and subsequently Jaswinder Kaur too died, on the spot.

4. This story of the prosecution cannot be believed primarily considering the injury which was sustained by Jaswinder Kaur, as it is evident from the postmortem report Ext. Ka. 9, the injury had broken the skull and had also fractured the brain membrane of Jaswinder Kaur. After sustaining such an injury, Jaswinder Kaur or any other person for that matter, was in no position to make any kind of assault on Jaswant Singh. This witness P.W.2 i.e. Asha Singh therefore is a wholly unreliable witness. If we remove the testimony of P.W.2, we see that it is only a case of circumstantial evidence where, in fact, apart from the statement given by P.W. 1 (cid:150) Gurdeep Singh and P.W.2 (cid:150) Asha Singh before the court, for demand of dowry, there is no iota of evidence regarding demand of dowry from the accused.

5. For a case under Section 304B I.P.C., considering also the relevant provision of Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, the incident must be within seven years of the marriage, which is present in this case, the remaining ingredients, however, are not present. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, there is no evidence, which shows that there was any harassment or demand of dowry on the day of incident. Therefore, this case could not have been brought within the ambit of 304B of I.P.C. It is for this reason the prosecution has planted P.W.2, as an alleged eyewitness, whose testimony has so rightly been disbelieved by the trial court. Apart from this there is no other evidence placed by the prosecution which may call for 4 the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 304B of I.P.C.

6. There is another aspect to this case, which is that there has been an inordinate delay of three days in lodging the First Information Report. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decision of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in Bijoy Singh & another Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 9 SCC 147 wherein it has held as under:- (cid:147)This Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. held that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eye-witnesses, if known to the informant. Delay lodging FIR results embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought.(cid:148)

7. Admittedly, the incident is of 26/27.11.2001 in the night and the First Information Report has been lodged three days i.e. on 30.11.2001. Moreover, interestingly, the First Information Report has not been lodged by the father of the deceased girl Jaswinder Kaur nor has it been lodged by any of the close relatives, who are accused in another case crime No. 732 of 2001 for the simple reason that had they gone to the police station to 5 lodge the report, they would have certainly been inviting their arrest as he was a named accused in the earlier First Information Report lodged on 27.11.2001 by the family of Jaswant Singh. Therefore, this report was lodged by one Gurdeep Singh who is not an accused in the said case.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2004 thereby convicting the accused/appellants, namely, Uttam Singh, Harvansh Singh, Jaspal Singh and Indro Bai under Sections 304B and 498A of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Let the lower court records be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J) (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

06.08.2012 ASWAL