Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

V.K. Bali, J.

1. Rachhpal Singh, husband, Gurcharan Singh, father-in-law and Gurdial Kaur, mother-in-law of deceased-Paramjit Kaur alias Raji were tried under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and vide order of conviction and sentence dated June 1, 1995 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, they were sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months each, under section 304B, I.P.C.

2. The occurrence leading to death of Paramjit Kaur took place on May 11, 1991 at 8 p.m. at village Markhai, Police Station Mallanwala. The FIR with regard to incident came to be recorded on the next day i.e. May 12, 1991 at 7.30 p.m. on the statement. Ex. P F made by Piara Singh, PW-4 which was recorded by Rur Singh, S.I., PW-7 at Medical College and Civil Hospital, Ferozpur. Paramjit Kaur died on May 13, 1991 at 7.45 a.m., Piara Singh, while unfolding the prosecution story, stated that he was resident of Khanpur and had three sons and three daughters. His two elder sons and three daughters were married. Gurmukh Singh was youngest and was still unmarried. His daughter Paramjit Kaur was married to Rachhpal Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, Majhbi, resident of Markhai, Police Station Mallanwala for the last five months. He had given dowry to his daughter Paramjit Kaur at the time of her marriage according to his capacity. About two months back, Gurdial Kaur, mother-in-law of his daughter, Gurcharan Singh, her father-in-law and Rachhpal Singh, her husband, started maltreating his daughter Paramjit Kaur over the issue of inadequate dowry. In this regard his daughter Paramjit Kaur, on her visit, told him that her parents-in-law and husband had demanded a Television and that she had told them many a times that her father could not bear this burden of giving a Television. At this, Rachhpal Singh had given her beatings also. On this, he went to the in-laws of Paramjit Kaur at Markhai and made entreaties to her father-in-law Gurcharan Singh, mother-in-law Gurdial Kaur and husband Rachhpal Singh and told that he could not afford to give Television at that time. He further requested them to extend him the favour of giving some time so as to enable him to make arrangements therefor. This all happened about three months back. On the previous day, i.e., May 11, 1991 at about 6 p.m. his daughter again sent a message that her in-laws (mother-in-law and father-in-law) and husband Rachhpal Singh had started maltreating her even more and that she had reasons to apprehend danger to her life at their hands and that he should pay a visit to her. At that, he along with his son Gurmukh Singh reached village Markhai at about 8 p.m. to know about the well being of his daughter Paramjit Kaur. When they entered the house of their daughter Paramjit Kaur, they saw flames of fire in their kitchen and heard the cries of Paramjit Kaur. Then they immediately rushed to that place and extinguished the fire from her body and took her to Zira Hospital. Gurcharan Singh, Gurdial Kaur and his son-in-law Rachhpal Singh who were present there, also accompanied them. He got his daughter admitted in the hospital where doctor gave her first aid. At that time, his daughter was weeping and while weeping she told him whisperingly that all the three persons had been beating her since morning and were demanding coloured Television, and that in the evening her husband Rachhpal Singh caught hold of her while she was sitting near the kitchen and her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and her father-in-law Gurcharan Singh lit the match stick and set her on fire and they, out of greed for more dowry, had set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her with an intention to do away with her. The doctor advised them to take Paramjit Kaur to Medical College, Faridkot for treatment as no proper treatment could be given there. They removed her to Medical College, Faridkot and got her admitted there.

3. With a view to support its version, prosecution examined Dr. Sukhbir Singh Chabhan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Zira as PW-1. He stated that on May 11, 1991 at 9.50 p.m. he sent information to SHO, Police Station, Zira regarding burn case of Paramjit Kaur. The patient was having burns over the body and was being referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. She was admitted on the request since they had no arrangement to go to Faridkot. She was admitted in the hospital and given treatment.

4. Dr. K. K. Aggarwal, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicines Department, Faridkot, who was examined as PW-2, stated that on May 13, 1991 at 4.25 he conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur and found following injuries on her dead body :-

'There were dermo epidermal as well as deep burns including face, whole of neck, front and back of chest and abdomen, both upper limbs, both lower limbs except sole of both feet and sparing top of head. Scalp hair were partially singed. Axillary hair and pubic hair were completely burnt. The burnt areas were covered with ointment. Carboneous material was present in burnt areas. Blisters of variable sizes were present here and there. Some of the blisters had been burst. Red line of demarcation was present. Burnt skin showed aedema (sic) and inflammation features. Approximate percentage of burns was 95%. Rest of the organs were congested'.

5. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death in this case was shock as a result of burns which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. The Time that elapsed between injuries and death was within 24 to 48 hours and between death and post-mortem within about 24 hours.

6. Prosecution also examined Piara Singh, father of the deceased as PW-4, Gurumukh Singh, brother of the deceased as PW-5, Amar Singh as PW-6 and Rur Singh, SI as PW-7.

7. Mr. R. S. Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants has not touched the case on merits at all. His only contention is that inasmuch as Rachhpal Singh was only 17 years of age at the time of commission of the crime whereas his father and mother were aged 70 and 68 years respectively, and by now are of ripe old age, as also that they belong to Scheduled Caste and in the very nature of things there could not be a great desire on their part to demand dowry and there being hardly any capacity for the father of deceased to give dowry, it is a case where sentence already suffered by the appellants should be enough. It may be mentioned that by now, the appellants have undergone actual sentence of seven years and five months. With a view to give lesser sentence, learned counsel relies upon three judgments, one of the Apex Court and two of this Court. In Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, 1994 (3) RCR 625 (1994 AIR SCW 4150) Supreme Court, while dealing with a case under S. 304B, IPC, held that 'the section only raises a presumption and lays down minimum sentence of 7 years which may be extended to imprisonment for life and awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case'. This Court in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RCR 794, while relying upon Supreme Court judgment in Hem Chand's case (supra) and another judgment in Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) Recent CR 55, reduced the sentence from life to eight years under section 304B, IPC. In yet another judgment in Jasbir v. State of Haryana, 1998 (2) All Cri LR 529, this Court reduced the sentence under section 304B to seven years.

8. Learned State Counsel, Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab, in the facts and circumstances of this case, could not successfully urge that it was not a case where the sentence should not be reduced to the one already undergone.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of life awarded to the appellants is reduced to the one already undergone by them. So ordered. It may be reiterated that the appellants have already undergone actual, substantive sentence of 7 years and 5 months by now. Insofar as Rachhpal Singh, husband of deceased is concerned, he was only 17 years of age at the time of commission of the crime. The other two appellants are by now of ripe old age and they belong to lower strata of society. May be, the allegations with regard to demand of dowry had been exaggerated in this case inasmuch as complainant as also the appellants were not affluent enough to give and take dowry disproportionate to their financial status.

10. Disposed of accordingly.

11. Order accordingly.