Sham Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

K.K. Srivastava, J.

1. The appellant Sham Singh, his wife Amar Kaur, their younger son Harjit Singh, their married daughter Baljit Kaur, her husband Satnam Singh and Ajinder Singh, the elder son of Sham Singh and husband of Surjit Kaur (deceased), were tried for the offence of dowry death, punishable under Section 304B, IPC of the Court of Shri L.R. Roojam, Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, and were convicted thereunder and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, may be noticed as under :

The informant/Joga Singh had four daughters and a son. The son was younger to his two daughters. Manjit Kaur was elder daughter, while Surjit Kaur (deceased) was younger. His daughter Surjit Kaur was, however, married a fortnight earlier to the marriage of her elder sister Manjit Kaur. The marriage of Surjit Kaur was solemnized with Ajinder Singh appellant according to Sikh rites in May, 1993. After the marriage, she resided with the appellant/ Ajinder Singh. Though Joga Singh (PW 7) had given dowry, including gold ornaments, at the time of the marriage of Surjit Kaur, yet the appellants were highly dissatisfied with the dowry articles given in the marriage. This grievance became more severe since after the marriage of Manjit Kaur, which took place only a fortnight after the marriage of Surjit Kaur because in the marriage of Manjit Kaur, Joga Singh had given more gold ornaments and had also given refrigerator, cooler, television etc. The items, namely refrigerator, cooler, television etc. were not given in the marriage of Surjit Kaur. The appellants, thus, made demand for these items and started harassing Surjit Kaur, who was asked to go and tell her father to provide these things to the appellants. Since Joga Singh failed to provide the same, the harassment and torture of Surjit Kaur continued. It is alleged that the prayer for some time in order to arrange for money after the crops were ready for harvesting, was made by Joga Singh but this did not apparently satisfy the hunger for dowry of the appellants. A Panchayat was also convened to settle the dispute and in this Panchayat, the appellants participated and they were told to behave properly and not to harass Surjit Kaur for the demand of dowry, but the appellants did not desist from their (sic) harassment and torture to Surjit Kaur. Eventually Surjit Kaur died on 1.4.1994 as a result of asphyxia due to hanging.

3. Joga Singh learnt about the said shocking news of the death of his daughter Surjit Kaur and he met the police of Police Station City Ferozepur, where his statement had been recorded and on the basis of which, FIR No. 20 dated 2.4.1994 (Exhibit PD) was registered. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occur rence in the house of the appellants and found the dead body of Surjit Kaur lying on a double-bed with a Chunni lying on the side of the dead body. Inquest proceedings were conducted thereon. The dead body was taken into possession and was sent for post mortem examination vide application (Exhibit PA), through constables Vijay Kumar and Bhagwan Singh.

4. The post mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Sunil Juneja (PW 1) and Dr. Sarita Kamra (PW 2) on 2.4.1994 at 10.00 a.m. in Civil Hospital, Abohar. The age of the deceased was around 22 years. It was identified by constables Vijay Kumar and Bhagwan Singh, who had brought the dead body for post mortem examination. The height of the dead body was measured as 5'-1'. It was an average built and nourished body. The deceased wore the shirt (Exhibit P1), Salwar (Exhibit P2), Bra (Exhibit P3), a pair o,f gold earrings (Exhibit P4), one golden nose pin (Exhibit P5), clip steel (Exhibit P6), one pair or hair pin (Exhibit P7), piece of glass bangles (Exhibit P8). All these items were removed from the dead body and were sealed in a parcel and were handed over to the constables, who had brought the dead body.

5. Rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. Post-mortem staining was present on the back of the body. The deceased was pregnant carrying a child of 28 weeks in her womb. There was ligature mark situated above the thyroid cartilage measuring 26 cms. x 1.75 cms. between the larynx and chin and was directed obliquely upward, following the line of mandible towards mastoid. The ligature mark was interrupted at the back of the neck. The mark was reddish brown in colour. There were present abrasions and haemorrhages on the ligature mark. On dissection, subcutaneous tissues under ligature mark were dry, white and glistening. On dissection of trachea there was bloody froth present in it. There was a laceration on inner coats of carotid vessels. On dissection of abdomen, uterus was found healthy and containing a male child of 28 weeks. Placenta and cord were healthy. The cause of death was asphyxia, as a result of hanging, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The Autopsy Surgeon prepared post mortem report, correct carbon copy of which was exhibited as Exhibit P3, original of which had been brought at the time of recording of his statement, which had the signatures of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sunil Juneja and Dr. Sarita Kamra. Exhibit PB /1 was the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injury. Exhibit PC was the inquest report.

6. The case was investigated by Sh. Harbans Lal, Dy. S.P. After registration of the case, he reached the house of Sham Singh appellant, where he found the dead body of Surjit Kaur lying on the double-bed. He conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the inquest report (Exhibit PC) in the presence of Vijay Kumar and Machhi Ram, who identified the dead body and thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination vide application (Exhibit PA) through constables Vijay Kumar and Bhagwan Singh. He also found Chunni (Exhibit P15), which was taken into police possession and sealed into a parcel with his seal 'HL'. The recovery memo (Exhibit PH) was prepared regarding the Chunni, which had been taken into possession on 1.4.1994 while the other articles were removed from the dead body on2.4.1994. He also got the dead body photographed on 2.4.1994. The case property was deposited with the M.H.C. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Harbans Singh (PW 7).

7. SI Harbans Singh (PW 7) took up the investigation of this case on 15.4.1994. On that day he recorded the statements of Nihal Chand, Om Parkash and Tilak Raj. On 4.5.1994 he arrested Sham Singh, Ajinder Singh, Harjit Singh and Amar Kaur accused. On 13.6.1994, Kewal Krishan photographer handed over to him negatives (Ex. P9 to P11) and positives (Exhibits P12 to P14) of the photographs, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exhibit PE), attested by HC Vinod Kumar.

8. After completion of investigation, a challan was submitted against the accused persons in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 304-B, IPC against the appellant, who denied the same and claimed to be tried.

9. The prosecution examined Dr. Sunil Juneja (PW 1), Dr. Sarita Kamra (PW 2), Joga Singh-complainant (PW 3), Om Parkash (PW 4), Kewal Krishan photographer (PW 5), Harbans Lal, Dy. S.P. (PW 6) and Sub-Inspector Harbans Singh (PW 7). The affidavits of constables Vijay Kumar and Gurmit Singh were tendered in evidence and the prosecution evidence was closed.

10. The accused/appellants were examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. They denied the allegations made against them in the prosecution evidence and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. Sham Singh appellant stated that after the marriage of his son Ajinder Singh with Surjit Kaur, Surjit Kaur wanted to live separately from him and his wife and in a bigger house. He gave them one room to live in and they were living separately from him. Ajinder Singh was employed in the FCI godown as a chowkidar and his income was insufficient to pay for a rented house. Surjit Kaur had appeared in plus-two papers and her husband/ Ajinder Singh had also been taking plus two examination. Two papers of Ajinder Singh were still remaining. Surjit Kaur wanted to attend the marriage of her uncle and also wanted Ajinder Singh to accompany her to the marriage, but Ajinder Singh refused to go and insisted that Surjit Kaur should also not go there. This happened in the morning of the day when Surjit Kaur committed suicide. He stated that there was no demand of dowry. Ajinder Singh had insured his life for Rs. 20,000/- and made his wife Surjit Kaur a beneficiary. He further stated that Surjit Kaur had extramartial affairs. Joga Singh, father of the deceased, after the death of his daughter had demanded the dowry articles from him, but he told Joga Singh to ask for the same from Ajinder Singh, who denied to give back the articles and, therefore, this case was registered. The statements of the other appellants are also on the same lines.

11. The appellants led evidence in defence and examined Joga Singh, Field Officer of Mark-fed (DW 1), Avtar Singh (DW 2), Baldev Singh (DW 3), Mohar Singh, who is said to be a go-between in settling the marriage of the deceased with Ajinder Singh (DW 4) and Gurdip Singh (DW 5).

12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and held that the appellants were guilty of the offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B, IPC. He convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to suffer RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to suffer further RI for seven years to suffer further RI for (sic) months.

13. Feeling aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal.

14. I have heard Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, learned Deputy Advocate General, who was assisted by Mr. Baldev Singh Advocate, appearing for the complainant/Joga Singh.

15. The Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1996, filed by the complainant/Joga Singh, against the inadequacy of the sentence was also heard alongwith this appeal and is being disposed of by this judgment.

16. The marriage of the deceased Surjit Kaur with the appellant Ajinder Singh was solemnized in May, 1993. Surjit Kaur died in April, 1994. Thus, Surjit Kaur died well within seven years of her marriage. The post mortem examination conducted on the dead body showed that the death was caused due to asphyxia, as a result of hanging, which was found by the autopsy surgeon to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Surjit Kaur, according to the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, died an unnatural death, i.e. due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.

17. In order to establish an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:

(i) The death took place within seven years of the marriage;

(ii) The deceased/ wife died due to burn injuries or other injuries, or otherwise due to unnatural reasons and causes; and

(iii) The wife (deceased) was being harassed and tortured for the demand of dowry, soon before her death.

Out of these three essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death, the first two ingredients are undisputedly present in the instant case, i.e. the wife/Surjit Kaur died well within seven years of her marriage and her death was due to unnatural reason, i.e. due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The prosecution has to establish by the evidence on record the third ingredient, i.e. the harassment and torture of the wife/Surjit Kaur soon before the death for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

18. In the instant case, the prosecution has, from the stage of the registration of the FIR set up a case of demand of dowry by the appellants and the harassment and torture of the wife/Surjit Kaur for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned Counsel for the appellants, has vehemently argued that in the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution was not reliable and credible insofar as the (sic) the third and last ingredient of harassment and torture of the deceased for the demand of dowry, soon before her death, is concerned.

19. Joga Singh /informant, father of the deceased/Surjit Kaur stated in the FIR about giving gold ornaments, weighing 4/5 tolas in the marriage of the deceased besides some more articles according to his financial resources, but he did not give refrigerator, cooler and other valuable articles. He stated that in the marriage of his elder daughter Manjit Kaur, he had given gold ornaments weighing 9/10 tolas and had also given refrigerator, cooler and other articles. He specifically alleged in the FIR that after two months of the marriage of Surjit Kaur, appellants namely Ajinder Singh, Amar Kaur, Sham Singh, Satnam Singh and Baljeet Kaur started harassing his daughter and asking her to bring dowry articles, which had been given to her elder sister Manjit Kaur. It was categorically stated in the FIR that all of them in order to get all the demands of dowry fulfilled, had turned his daughter Surjit Kaur out of their house twice after giving beating to her. Surjit Kaur had consequently visited his house and narrated the whole incident. He also mentioned in the FIR about the intervention of Om Parkash, Tilak Raj and Nihal Chand, residents of Hanumangarh Town and Mohar Singh resident of Fazilka and two/three other persons had taken Surjit Kaur to the house of the accused /appellants and made entreaties with them and told them that Joga Singh could not fulfil their demands and assured them that refrigerator, cooler etc. would be given after some time. It was alleged in the FIR that the accused persons kept this grudge in their mind and kept maltreating his daughter.

20. He also mentioned in the FIR that on an earlier occasion also the appellants had tried to burn his daughter by pouring kerosene on her and that he had not reported the matter to the police as he wanted to rehabilitate his daughter at her husband's house. Joga Singh entered the witness-box as PW 3 and stated on oath the averments made in the FIR. He was cross-examined on behalf of the accused- appellant and maintained his statement regarding the afore (sic) demand of dowry by the appellants. He stated about his visit to the house of the appellants in order to extend invitation to them in March, 1994, for attending the marriage of his own brother and at that time his daughter/Surjit Kaur, son-in-law Ajinder Singh expressed their inability to attend the marriage on the ground that they were to appear in 10+2 examination and at that time his daughter Surjit Kaur had told him that the accused were harassing her and demanding Rs. 45,000/- for the purchase of land. He had assured the appellants to give the money, but sought time to arrange for the money and told them that after the crops are harvested and sold, the money would be arranged and paid to them. He was confronted with certain omissions in his application Exhibit PD regarding his visit to the house of the appellants and about his daughter telling him about the demand of Rs. 45,000/-. This omission, in rny considered view, could not be viewed as an infirmity in the statement of the informant/Joga Singh.

21. It is relevant to note that the marriage of Manjit Kaur was performed subsequent to the marriage of Surjit Kaur and as per the statement of Joga Singh, refrigerator, cooler and other valuable items were not given in the marriage of Surjit Kaur as were given in the marriage of Manjit Kaur and that prompted the appellants to demand those items from Joga Singh. The statement of Joga Singh is corroborated by the statement of Om Parkash (PW 4), who has categorically stated that Manjit Kaur, the other daughter of Joga Singh was married after 15 days of the marriage of Surjit Kaur deceased. Manjit Kaur was married at Village Elnabad. He stated that Joga Singh had given 8-10 tolas of gold ornaments, refrigerator, cooler etc. to Manjit (sic) whereas he had given 5 tolas of gold ornaments, clothes and small items of dowry in the marriage of Surjit Kaur. After about 2 months of the marriage of Manjit Kaur, the in-laws of Surjit Kaur started asking for dowry articles like refrigerator, cooler etc. He further stated that Surjit Kaur came to the house of her father at Hanumangarh. But she was brought back to the house of the accused/appellants by Joga Singh. Around 13 /14.2.1994, on a Sunday, he, accompanied by Joga Singh, Surjit Kaur, Nihal Chand and Tilak Raj besides 2-3 more persons went to the house of Mohar Singh in Fazilka, from where they all alongwith Mohar Singh went to the house of the appellants. About 10 days prior to the visit of all of them to the house of the accused/appellants, Surjit Kaur had come to the house of her father as she was being harassed by her in-laws. At the time of their visit to the house of the accused, all the accused were present and in their presence, the matter regarding the fulfilment of their demand of dowry was discussed and some time was sought for meeting their demand of dowry of the articles, as were given in the marriage of Manjit Kaur.

22. He further stated that after leaving Surjit Kaur at the house of the accused / appellants, they came back to their village. It was on 1.4.1994 that he learned about the death of Surjit Kaur and in the night intervening 1 /2.4.1994, he accompanied by Joga Singh, Tilak Raj, wife of Joga Singh and 4-5 more persons came to Fazilka in the house of Ajinder Singh/appellant, but nobody was found present there at that time. In his cross-examination, Om Parkash stated that he never visited the house of the accused prior to February, 1994. He was confronted with his statement Exhibit DA, where the expression, 'all the accused' is not mentioned, present at the house of the accused when the Panchayat was held. He was also confronted with the word 'cooler' (in his statement Exhibit DA), among the dowry articles given in the marriage of Manjit Kaur. He was also confronted with the omission (in his statement Exhibit DA) about the harassment of Surjit Kaur two months after the marriage of Manjit Kaur. He was further confronted with his statement before the police regarding Joga Singh, leaving Surjit Kaur ather in-laws' house. He was also confronted with his statement, 'ten days prior to 13/14.2.1994 when it was a Sunday, Surjit Kaur had come to her parents' house', as the same was not found recorded in his statement Exhibit DA. He was also confronted with his statement '2 /3 more persons accompanying him when he went to Panchayat', which fact was not mentioned in his statement Exhibit DA. He was also confronted regarding the visit of Tilak Raj accompanying them on 1.4.1994, as this fact was not mentioned in his statement Exhibit DA. There are, undoubtedly, some omissions in the statement Exhibit DA recorded by the police of this witness, but the same cannot be attached undue significance. This witness/Om Parkash (PW 4) had no animus against the appellants to appear as a witness against them. After carefully perusing his statement, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance on his statement and the omissions cannot be held to be sufficient to discard his testimony. The statement of Om Parkash substantially corroborates the statement of Joga Singh. It is relevant to note that the demand for dowry items, like refrigerator, cooler etc. made two months after the marriage of Manjit Kaur appears to be quite believable because these items were given by Joga Singh in the marriage of Manjit Kaur, performed only 15 days after the marriage of Surjit Kaur. The deceased/Surjit Kaur had stated about her being harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws to her father Joga Singh and the same cannot be said to be unnatural, unbelievable and improbable. On the other hand, it is quite natural, believable and probable that the daughter would come to the house of her parents and apprise them of her harassment and torture, which she was receiving at the hands of her husband and parents-in-law.

It is also significant to note that the death of Surjit Kaur took place within a period of one year and as such, the harassment and torture of Surjit Kaur for the demand of dowry was quite recent and soon before her unnatural death. The learned Sessions Judge has, in my considered view, rightly held that Surjit Kaur was being harassed and tortured for the demand of dowry by her husband Ajinder Singh and parents-in-law namely Sham Singh, his wife Amar Kaur and they have rightly been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC and the sentence awarded to them, i.e. of seven years RI and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each cannot be said to be in any way excessive. The Criminal Revision filed by the complainant Joga Singh qua these appellants, in the facts and circumstances discussed above has been duly considered. The sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to the husband /Ajinder Singh and his parents, namely, Sham Singh and Amar Kaur appears to be quite adequate and justified and cannot be held to be inadequate and in this view of the matter, there are no good grounds to entertain the revision filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of their sentence.

23. Resultantly, the appeal of the husband/Ajinder Singh and his parents, namely, Sham Singh and Amar Kaur, fails and is dismissed.

24. The Criminal Revision filed by the complainant/Joga Singh also fails and is dismissed.

25. Now so far as the other appellants, namely Harjit Singh, Baljit Singh and Satnam Singh, are concerned, their participation in this occurrence seems to be quite doubtful. It appears that an effort to implicate the entire family has been made, whereby these persons have also been roped in the occurrence. It may be pointed out that Harjit Singh/appellant No. 3 is the unmarried son of Sham Singh, the younger brother of Ajinder Singh and he had no specific role in the matter and the evidence of the prosecution regarding his demanding the dowry and harassing the deceased Surjit Kaur for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry cannot be held to be natural, probable and believable. Likewise, the participation of the married daughter, Baljit Kaur, of the appellant Sham Singh, and her husband Satnam Singh in making a demand for dowry from Joga Singh does not appear to be natural as they both are residing separately in another house, from the appellant Sham Singh. Merely because Baljit Kaur is the real sister of Ajinder Singh, husband of Surjit Kaur deceased and Satnam Singh is her husband, will not be itself be sufficient to hold that they would also join hands with Ajinder Singh appellant and his parents in making demand from Joga Singh and would harass and torture Surjit Kaur for the non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry, because they would not be the beneficiaries at all of the dowry that was expected to be given as a result of the demand. It is difficult to believe that Baljit Kaur and her husband Satnam Singh would have joined hands with Ajinder Singh and his parents, Sham Singh and Amar Kaur, and would harass and torture Surjit Kaur.

26. Resultantly, the appeal of Harjit Singh, Baljit Kaur and Satnam Singh appellants against their conviction and sentence under Section 304-B, IPC is accepted and their conviction and sentence under Section 304-B, IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appeal filed by Ajinder Singh, Sham Singh and Amar Kaur is dismissed. Criminal Revision is also dismissed.