Raju Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1152104
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-27-2014
AppellantRaju Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
verma sunil criminal appeal no.s.929 -sb of 2013 1 2014.06.17 10:37 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal appeal no.s.929 -sb of 2013 date of decision 27.05.2014. raju singh ...... appellant. versus state of punjab ...... respondent. coram :- hon'ble mr.justice k.c.puri.1. whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. to be referred to the reporters or not?.3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present : mr. anil chaudhary, advocate for appellant. mr. ajaib singh, addl. ag, punjab. k.c.puri, j.raju singh accused-appellant has directed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2013 passed by shri virinder aggarwal, learned additional sessions judge, sangrur vide which he stood convicted under section 304-b of the indian penal code (in short – the ipc) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.2. the prosecution story in brief is that on 25.8.2010 lachhman dass complainant has stated that his daughter kiranpal kaur was married with accused raju singh about 8/9 months back and at that time he has given dowry beyond his capacity. but after two months of the marriage, his son-in-law raju singh started beating his daughter and had been demanding criminal appeal no.s.929 -sb of 2013 2 more dowry. he went to the house of his son-in-law and told him that since he is a poor person and cannot give more dowry. when he went to the house of in-laws of his daughter about fifteen days earlier, she told him that her husband raju singh, brother-in-law lakhvir singh and her father-in-law satpal singh demanded a television, refrigerator and rs.50,000/- in cash and when he failed to fulfill their demand, they maltreated his daughter. he brought his daughter kiranpal kaur to his house at village karial. thereafter, father in-law of his daughter came to his house and he stated that he wanted to take kiranpal kaur with him, but he did not allow him to do so. then paternal uncle of raju singh namely jagroop singh alongwith his wife came and on their assurance, he sent his daughter kiranpal kaur to the house of her in-laws. on 24.08.2010 at about 7p.m. he received a telephonic message from village khanala kalan that her daughter has suffered an electric shock. therefore, he alongwith his son gurvinder singh went to village khanal kalan where his daughter kiranpal kaur was lying on a cot in her matrimonial house and there was a wound mark on the cheek of his daughter. his daughter has been murdered by his son-in-law raju singh, her brother-in-law lakhvir singh and father-in-law satpal singh in furtherance of their common intention by strangulation. on the basis of aforesaid statement, fir was got recorded. statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. after completion of necessary investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court.3. copies of the documents were supplied to the accused free of costs. the illqua magistrate committed the case to the court of session as criminal appeal no.s.929 -sb of 2013 3 the offence alleged against the accused was exclusively triable by the said court. the accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under sections 304-b read with section 34 of the ipc to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.4. in support of its case, the prosecution examined lachhman dass complainant as pw-1, gurwinder singh pw-2, dr. hari om aggarwal pw-3, hc gurmeet singh pw-4, hc jarnail singh pw-5, sukhchain singh, bdpo pw-6 and closed the prosecution evidence.5. in their statements recorded under section 313 cr.p.c., the accused have denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded their false implication. accused further pleaded that he told his wife that instead of rakhi, they will visit her parents house after the rakhi festival as he was not having sufficient money. kiranpal kaur herself committed suicide as she was alone in the house as she was aggressive and hyper in nature. when his father returned back and saw that kiranpal kaur committed suicide and he told this fact to everyone and thereafter police started demanding money from them and when they refused to do so the police planted a false case upon them in connivance with the complainant. the accused examined ram singh as dw-1 in defence.7. the trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2013, as aforesaid.8. feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.10.2013, the present appeal has been directed. criminal appeal no.s.929 -sb of 2013 4 9. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.10. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in order to prove the ingredients of offence under section 304-b of the ipc, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients of offence :- (i) that the death of a woman has taken place by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstances. (ii) said death has occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) soon before her death that woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry.11. learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the last two ingredients of offence. kiranpal kaur deceased has not died unnatural death but has committed suicide on account of the fact that appellant has not taken her to her parental house on the eve of rakhi ceremony. the demand of dowry is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. appellant raju singh is a labour and as such he is not able to maintain television, washing machine etc. the allegation of washing machine and rs.50,000/- in cash is not proved from independent corroboration except the statements of lachhman dass complainant ( pw-1) and his son gurwinder singh (pw-2). dr. hari om aggarwal pw-3, has stated that death in this case is by hanging. none of the family members was present at the time of committing suicide by the deceased.12. i have carefully considered the said submission. criminal appeal no.s.929 -sb of 2013 5 13. so far as the fact that death has taken place within one year of the marriage is concerned that has not been disputed during the course of arguments. the death by unnatural manner is also proved from the statement of dr.hari om aggarwal pw-3, as death has taken place due to asphyxia due to hanging. there is no evidence on the file that death has taken place on account of committing suicide by deceased. the demand of dowry articles i.e., television, washing machine and rs.50,000/- stands proved from the testimony of lachhman dass complainant (pw-1) and gurwinder singh (pw-2) against the accused-appellant.14. counsel for the appellant has further submitted that no evidence has been produced on the file that at the time of marriage any demand of dowry articles was made. the allegation of subsequent demand of dowry articles is not proved.15. i have carefully considered the said submission.16. no doubt, lachhman dass complainant (pw-1) and gurwinder singh (pw-2) have not stated that at the time of marriage demand was made by the accused but these witnesses have stated in their statements that after marriage there was demand of dowry. even deceased was sent to her parental house and it is only at the assurance of family members of accused she was sent back. so, soon before death demand of dowry by the appellant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.17. authority prem singh vs. state of haryana reported in 2013 (2) r.c.r. (criminal) page 379 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable as in that case, it was not proved that marriage criminal appeal no.s.929 -sb of 2013 6 was solemnized within seven years of the occurrence. once the basic ingredient of offence under section 304-b of the ipc is missing, therefore, in those circumstances, the accused was rightly acquitted in that case.18. authority ashok kumar vs. state of haryana reported in 2011 (1) r.c.r. (criminal) page 352 relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is also distinguishable as in that case that soon before death there was harassment on account of dowry articles.19. authority bakshish ram and another vs. state of punjab reported in 2013 (4) scc.page 131 ; t. aruntperunjothi vs. state through s.h.o., pondicherry reported in 2006(2) (criminal) page 551 ; rakesh kumar vs. state of haryana reported in 2010 (4) r.c.r. (criminal) page 625 and nepal singh vs. state of haryana reported in 2009 (3) r.c.r. (criminal) page 418 relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are also distinguishable as in those cases the demand of dowry articles have not been proved.20. the death had taken place within ten months of the marriage. statements of lachhman dass complainant (pw-1) and gurwinder singh (pw-2) proved the factum of demand of dowry articles soon before death of the deceased. the death has taken place in an unnatural manner i.e. by way of asphyxia due to hanging. the rope was recovered from the accused/appellant. so, in these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial court under section 304-b of the ipc does not call for any interference.21. in view of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellant criminal appeal no.s.929 -sb of 2013 7 under section 304-b of the ipc stands affirmed.21. now reverting to the quantum of sentence.22. learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of three years ten months and four days out of the substantive sentence of ten years. he prays for taking lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.23. i have considered the said submission.24. the trial court has awarded imprisonment for ten years to the appellant. however, keeping in view authority tapas kumar ghosh vs. state of west bengal reported in 2012 (2) recent apex judgments (r.a.j.) page 60 , where the hon'ble apex court reduced the imprisonment to seven years from rigorous imprisonment of ten years, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence awarded to the accused- appellant stands reduced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years instead of ten years awarded by the trial court.25. in the manner, indicated above, appeal stands disposed of accordingly.26. a copy of this order be conveyed to the trial court for strict compliance. ( k. c. puri ) may 27 , 2014 judge sv
Judgment:

Verma Sunil Criminal Appeal No.S.929 -SB of 2013 1 2014.06.17 10:37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.S.929 -SB of 2013 Date of decision 27.05.2014. Raju Singh ...... Appellant. versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present : Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Ajaib Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J.

Raju Singh accused-appellant has directed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2013 passed by Shri Virinder Aggarwal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which he stood convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.8.2010 Lachhman Dass complainant has stated that his daughter Kiranpal Kaur was married with accused Raju Singh about 8/9 months back and at that time he has given dowry beyond his capacity. But after two months of the marriage, his son-in-law Raju Singh started beating his daughter and had been demanding Criminal Appeal No.S.929 -SB of 2013 2 more dowry. He went to the house of his son-in-law and told him that since he is a poor person and cannot give more dowry. When he went to the house of in-laws of his daughter about fifteen days earlier, she told him that her husband Raju Singh, brother-in-law Lakhvir Singh and her father-in-law Satpal Singh demanded a television, refrigerator and Rs.50,000/- in cash and when he failed to fulfill their demand, they maltreated his daughter. He brought his daughter Kiranpal Kaur to his house at village Karial. Thereafter, father in-law of his daughter came to his house and he stated that he wanted to take Kiranpal Kaur with him, but he did not allow him to do so. Then paternal uncle of Raju Singh namely Jagroop Singh alongwith his wife came and on their assurance, he sent his daughter Kiranpal Kaur to the house of her in-laws. On 24.08.2010 at about 7p.m. he received a telephonic message from village Khanala Kalan that her daughter has suffered an electric shock. Therefore, he alongwith his son Gurvinder Singh went to village Khanal Kalan where his daughter Kiranpal Kaur was lying on a cot in her matrimonial house and there was a wound mark on the cheek of his daughter. His daughter has been murdered by his son-in-law Raju Singh, her brother-in-law Lakhvir Singh and father-in-law Satpal Singh in furtherance of their common intention by strangulation. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was got recorded. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. After completion of necessary investigation challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

3. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused free of costs. The Illqua Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session as Criminal Appeal No.S.929 -SB of 2013 3 the offence alleged against the accused was exclusively triable by the said Court. The accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under sections 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Lachhman Dass complainant as PW-1, Gurwinder Singh PW-2, Dr. Hari Om Aggarwal PW-3, HC Gurmeet Singh PW-4, HC Jarnail Singh PW-5, Sukhchain Singh, BDPO PW-6 and closed the prosecution evidence.

5. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused have denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded their false implication. Accused further pleaded that he told his wife that instead of Rakhi, they will visit her parents house after the Rakhi festival as he was not having sufficient money. Kiranpal Kaur herself committed suicide as she was alone in the house as she was aggressive and hyper in nature. When his father returned back and saw that Kiranpal Kaur committed suicide and he told this fact to everyone and thereafter police started demanding money from them and when they refused to do so the police planted a false case upon them in connivance with the complainant. The accused examined Ram Singh as DW-1 in defence.

7. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2013, as aforesaid.

8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.10.2013, the present appeal has been directed. Criminal Appeal No.S.929 -SB of 2013 4 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in order to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B of the IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients of offence :- (i) That the death of a woman has taken place by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstances. (ii) Said death has occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) Soon before her death that woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the last two ingredients of offence. Kiranpal Kaur deceased has not died unnatural death but has committed suicide on account of the fact that appellant has not taken her to her parental house on the eve of Rakhi ceremony. The demand of dowry is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant Raju Singh is a labour and as such he is not able to maintain television, washing machine etc. The allegation of washing machine and Rs.50,000/- in cash is not proved from independent corroboration except the statements of Lachhman Dass complainant ( PW-1) and his son Gurwinder Singh (PW-2). Dr. Hari Om Aggarwal PW-3, has stated that death in this case is by hanging. None of the family members was present at the time of committing suicide by the deceased.

12. I have carefully considered the said submission. Criminal Appeal No.S.929 -SB of 2013 5 13. So far as the fact that death has taken place within one year of the marriage is concerned that has not been disputed during the course of arguments. The death by unnatural manner is also proved from the statement of Dr.Hari Om Aggarwal PW-3, as death has taken place due to asphyxia due to hanging. There is no evidence on the file that death has taken place on account of committing suicide by deceased. The demand of dowry articles i.e., television, washing machine and Rs.50,000/- stands proved from the testimony of Lachhman Dass complainant (PW-1) and Gurwinder Singh (PW-2) against the accused-appellant.

14. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that no evidence has been produced on the file that at the time of marriage any demand of dowry articles was made. The allegation of subsequent demand of dowry articles is not proved.

15. I have carefully considered the said submission.

16. No doubt, Lachhman Dass complainant (PW-1) and Gurwinder Singh (PW-2) have not stated that at the time of marriage demand was made by the accused but these witnesses have stated in their statements that after marriage there was demand of dowry. Even deceased was sent to her parental house and it is only at the assurance of family members of accused she was sent back. So, soon before death demand of dowry by the appellant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.

17. Authority Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 379 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable as in that case, it was not proved that marriage Criminal Appeal No.S.929 -SB of 2013 6 was solemnized within seven years of the occurrence. Once the basic ingredient of offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is missing, therefore, in those circumstances, the accused was rightly acquitted in that case.

18. Authority Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 352 relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is also distinguishable as in that case that soon before death there was harassment on account of dowry articles.

19. Authority Bakshish Ram and another vs. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (4) SCC.page 131 ; T. Aruntperunjothi vs. State Through S.H.O., Pondicherry reported in 2006(2) (Criminal) page 551 ; Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 625 and Nepal Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 418 relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are also distinguishable as in those cases the demand of dowry articles have not been proved.

20. The death had taken place within ten months of the marriage. Statements of Lachhman Dass complainant (PW-1) and Gurwinder Singh (PW-2) proved the factum of demand of dowry articles soon before death of the deceased. The death has taken place in an unnatural manner i.e. by way of asphyxia due to hanging. The rope was recovered from the accused/appellant. So, in these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 304-B of the IPC does not call for any interference.

21. In view of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellant Criminal Appeal No.S.929 -SB of 2013 7 under Section 304-B of the IPC stands affirmed.

21. Now reverting to the quantum of sentence.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of three years ten months and four days out of the substantive sentence of ten years. He prays for taking lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.

23. I have considered the said submission.

24. The trial Court has awarded imprisonment for ten years to the appellant. However, keeping in view authority Tapas Kumar Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) page 60 , where the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the imprisonment to seven years from rigorous imprisonment of ten years, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence awarded to the accused- appellant stands reduced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years instead of ten years awarded by the trial Court.

25. In the manner, indicated above, appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

26. A copy of this order be conveyed to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K. C. PURI ) May 27 , 2014 JUDGE sv