Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004
Date of Decision : March 03, 2009
Ranjit Singh .... Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB SINGH GILL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Ms. Gursharn K. Mann, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. S. S. Gill, Addl. A. G., Punjab.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. :
By way of instant appeal, Ranjit Singh has assailed judgment
and order dated 06.01.2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc),
Amritsar, whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 304-B of
the Indian Penal Code (in short – the IPC) and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas appellant’s parents
Swaran Singh and Harjinder Kaur, who were also tried along with the
appellant, were acquitted of the said charge.
Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 2
Prosecution case, in brief, may be narrated as under :-
Harjit Singh complainant, resident of Village Bal Kalan made
statement Ex.P-B to SI Harbhajan Singh on 06.02.2001 at 07:30 P.M. in the
area of Village Udhonangal. It was stated that complainant’s youngest sister
Manjit Kaur aged 18-19 years was married with Ranjit Singh appellant
about five months before the occurrence. Customary dowry was given in
the marriage, but her in-laws used to taunt her for bringing less dowry and
used to remark that they would allow her to settle in the matrimonial home
only when she would bring more dowry from her parents. On 06.02.001, at
about 06:00 P.M., complainant Harjit Singh and his mother Dharam Kaur
went to the house of the appellant situated in the fields in Village
Udhonangal to meet Manjit Kaur. They saw that the appellant and his
parents were beating Manjit Kaur and were repeating that she had brought
less dowry from her parents and that she would be allowed to settle only if
she would bring more dowry. The appellant strangulated Manjit Kaur by
pressing her throat. Resultantly, Manjit Kaur died. The complainant and
his mother Dharam Kaur witnessed the occurrence. Leaving Dharam Kaur
at the spot, the complainant left for Police Station for lodging report. On
the way, police party headed by SI Harbhajan Singh of Police Station
Mehta, District Amritsar met the complainant, who thereupon made
statement Ex.P-B to SI Harbhajan Singh, who made his endorsement Ex.P-
B/1 on it and sent it to Police Station, where FIR Ex.P-B/2 was registered
on its basis.
SI Harbhajan Singh went to the spot, where dead body of
Manjit Kaur was lying in a room. Harbhajan Singh prepared inquest report
Ex.P-C and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination with request
Ex.PW-7/A. On 07.02.2001, Dr. Amarjjit Singh and Dr. R. K. Nadda
conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manjit Kaur and
Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 3
found the following ligature mark :-
“A reddish brown colour, hard with parchment
like consistency, encircling, ligature mark sparing 5 cm
on left side of neck 7.5 cm below left ear lobule was
present around the neck at the level of thyroid on front
and just below posterior hair line on the back of neck.
Ecchymosis was found present at the margins of
ligature mark.”
On dissection, brain and its membranes, pleurae, both lungs,
liver, spleen and both kidneys were found congested along with other
consequences of strangulation. Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia as
a result of ante-mortem strangulation, which was sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. Probable duration between injury and death was
within few minutes.
SI Harbhajan Singh inspected the spot and prepared rough site
plan Ex.PW-7/B. On 07.02.2001, clothes of the deceased given by the
doctor in sealed parcel were seized vide memo Ex.PW-7/C. Appellant
Ranjit Singh was arrested on 28.03.2001, whereas his parents Swaran Singh
and Harjinder Kaur were found innocent during investigation. Accordingly,
on completion of investigation, only Ranjit Singh was sent for trial.
However, on prosecution application under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short – the Cr.P.C.) during trial, Swaran Singh and
Harjinder Kaur, parents of the appellant, were also summoned as additional
accused.
Charge under Section 304-B IPC against Ranjit Singh and
under Section 304-B/34 IPC against his parents and in the alternative,
charge under Section 302 IPC against Ranjit Singh and under Section
302/34 IPC against his parents was framed. They pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 4
In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses. Rishi Ram Draftsman (PW-1) stated that he prepared scaled site
plan Ex.P-A after inspecting the spot. Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2)
(brother of the deceased) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) (mother of the
deceased) have broadly stated according to the prosecution version narrated
above. They also added that eight days prior to the occurrence, the
deceased had been sent to her parental house by the accused telling her that
she should bring more dowry and thereafter, these witnesses had taken the
deceased to her matrimonial home and left her there and even at that time,
the accused demanded more dowry. Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-4) stated about
post-mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Manjit Kaur.
Constable Mohinderpal (PW-5) and HC Manjit Singh (PW-6) tendered their
respective affidavits Ex.P-G and Ex.P-H in evidence being formal
witnesses. Retired SI Harbhajan Singh (PW-7) stated about investigation of
the case conducted by him.
The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. His parents alleged that
they were residing with family of their other son, separately from the
appellant and his wife, who were residing in the fields. No evidence was
led by the accused in their defence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their assistance.
Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3)
brother and mother respectively of the deceased have fully supported the
prosecution case. Their statements could not be shaken in their lengthy
cross-examination. They did make improvement regarding the version that
the deceased had come to the parental family eight days prior to the
occurrence. However, even if this improvement in their statements is
Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 5
ignored altogether, guilt of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The deceased died in the matrimonial home just about five months after her
marriage. It is admitted case of the appellant that he was residing with the
deceased, as suggested to Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam
Kaur (PW-3) in their cross-examination. Death of Manjit Kaur by
strangulation is proved from the testimony of Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-4). In
cross-examination, he stated that there was no possibility of hanging in this
case. Thus, it was homicidal death and not suicidal one. FIR was also
lodged very promptly. The occurrence took place at about 06:00 P.M. and
statement Ex.P-B of Harjit Singh along with police endorsement Ex.P-B/1
concluded at 07:30 P.M. and registration of FIR commenced at 07:45 P.M.
and concluded at 08:30 P.M. Special Report reached the Magistrate at
02:30 A.M. It is thus manifest that the FIR was lodged very promptly and
Special Report also reached the Magistrate without delay. It has been
specifically mentioned in the FIR that the accused were demanding more
dowry from the deceased, who was also beaten by the accused. All
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fully established. Appellant is
husband of the deceased. Parents of the appellant have been acquitted and
appellant only has been convicted. The appellant has not come out with any
explanation regarding homicidal death of the deceased or even regarding
her alleged suicidal death. The appellant has not explained as to why
Manjit Kaur died within five months of her marriage with the appellant and
who strangulated her. It thus becomes amply clear that conviction of the
appellant for offence under Section 304-B is well-founded.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that
Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) cannot be said
to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence because according to them, all the
three accused were beating the deceased, but Dr. Amarjit Singh found no
injury caused by any such beating, except the ligature mark. It was also
Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 6
contended that Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3)
made improvement in the witness-box by stating that the deceased was
strangulated with rope, although there is no mention of rope in the FIR. It
was also submitted that Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur
(PW-3) were only chance witnesses and had no occasion to be present at the
spot at the time of occurrence. It was also contended that it was suicidal
death and not homicidal one. Although there is no merit in these
contentions, yet even if these contentions are accepted at their face value,
even then there is no escape for the appellant from conviction under Section
304-B IPC. Even if it was suicidal death and there was no strangulation
with rope and there was no beating and Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2)
and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) had not witnessed the occurrence, even then all
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fully proved against the appellant. It
is undisputed that death of Manjit Kaur occurred about five months after her
marriage with the appellant i.e. within seven years of the marriage. The
death was by strangulation/asphyxia i.e. unnatural death. There was
demand of dowry by the appellant soon before the death of his wife, who
was harassed for the same. Death occurred within five months of the
marriage and therefore, the demand of dowry was obviously soon before the
death. Thus, even accepting the contentions of appellant’s counsel at face
value, there is no escape from the conclusion that guilt of the appellant
under Section 304-B IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt. However,
even aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be
accepted. As noticed herein before, the occurrence took place at 06:00 P.M.
and FIR was lodged by Harjit Singh by making statement to the police at
07:30 P.M. and the FIR was registered at 07:45 P.M. Name of Dharam
Kaur was also mentioned as eye-witness in the FIR. If Harjit Singh
complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) had not witnessed the
occurrence, the FIR could not have been lodged so promptly. In this
Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 7
context, it may be added that Village of Harjit Singh is 30-35 kilometers
from the place of occurrence, as stated by him in the opening line of his
cross-examination. Had the complainant not been present at the spot, and
had he been in his own village at that time, he could not have reached the
spot so soon and would not have been able to lodge the FIR so promptly. It
is thus apparent that Harjit Singh complainant (PW-2) and Dharam Kaur
(PW-3) were eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The fact that no visible
injury caused by beating was found on the dead body, would not make the
version of the eye-witnesses doubtful in any manner because the beating
might not have resulted in any visible injury. As regards non-mentioning of
rope in the FIR, the same is immaterial when it was specifically mentioned
in the FIR that the deceased was strangulated. Harjit Singh complainant
(PW-2) and Dharam Kaur (PW-3) also cannot be said to be chance
witnesses because they had come to see the deceased since she was facing
troubles in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. It was
natural for the brother and mother of the deceased to come to her
matrimonial home to inquire about her well being. Death by suicide is also
ruled out by Dr. Amarjit Singh, who stated in cross-examination that there
was no possibility of hanging in this case. His statement clearly establishes
that it was homicidal death by strangulation. The ligature mark also shows
that it was strangulation by rope.
For the reasons recorded herein above, we find that guilt of the
appellant Ranjit Singh is proved beyond reasonable doubt and his
conviction is, therefore, affirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for reduction in
sentence. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel submitting
that death of Manjit Kaur occurred within five months of her marriage with
the appellant. We have carefully considered the matter. Sentence of life
imprisonment for offence under Section 304-B IPC appears to be excessive.
Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 2004 8
The occurrence had also taken place about eight years ago. Keeping in view
all the circumstances, we reduce the sentence of appellant Ranjit Singh from
life imprisonment to imprisonment for 12 years.
With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the appeal stands
disposed of accordingly. The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender to his bail
bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
( L. N. MITTAL )
JUDGE
March 03, 2009 ( MEHTAB SINGH GILL )
monika JUDGE