Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
Date of Decision:04.10.2008
1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh, 2- Surjit Singh son
of Harnam Singh, 3- Karnail Singh son of Surjit Singh, all
residents of village Golewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
.... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab
.... Respondent
2. Crl. Revision No. 698-SB of 1992
Nachhatar Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Bathinda
Road Hindaiya District Sangrur.
... Petitioner
Versus
1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Harnam
Singh, 2- Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, and 3- Karnail
Singh son of Surjit Singh, residents of village Golewala.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate
for the appellants,
in Crl. Appeal No.363-SB of 1992.
Mr. S.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent
in Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992.
Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner in
Crl. Revision No. 698 of 1992.
Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate
for the respondents,
in Crl. Revision No. 698 of 1992.
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
--2--
---
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No.
363-SB of 1992 filed by Mukhtiar Kaur, Surjit Singh and
Karnail Singh, accused ( now appellants ), vide which they
were convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, for
the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, and sentenced as under:-
1- Karnail Singh RI- 5 years
Fine- 5000/-
In default- RI, 6 months
2- Surjit Singh RI- 3 years
Fine- 5000/-
In default- RI, 6 months
3- Mukhtiar Kaur RI- 3 years
Fine- 5000/-
In default- RI, 6 months
and Criminal Revision No. 698 of 1992, filed by Nachhatar
Singh, complainant/revision-petitioner, for enhancement of the
substantive sentence and awarding compensation.
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–3–
2. The facts, in brief, are that Amarjit Kaur
( now deceased ) daughter of Sadhu Singh, was married to
Karnail Singh, accused of village Golewala on 05.03.1983.
Sadhu Singh gave dowry, in the marriage, to Karnail Singh,
accused, as per his financial status. Karnail Singh, his mother
Mukhtiar Kaur and father Surjit Singh, were not happy with the
dowry brought by Amarjit Kaur, at the time of marriage. A few
days after the marriage, they started maltreating her. 1-1/2
years after the marriage, Amarjit Kaur gave birth to a son.
After the birth of a son to her, Karnail Singh, Mukhtiar Kaur
and Surjit Singh, demanded customary gifts, given at the time
of birth of a child, (shushak) from the parents of Amarjit
Kaur. They gave the customary gifts (shushak) as per their
financial status. The accused were, however, not satisfied with
the quantum of the customary gifts, brought by Amarjit Kaur.
Nachhatar Singh and Baljinder Singh, brothers of Amarjit
Kaur, came to village Golewala and requested Karnail Singh,
his father and mother that they should not maltreat Amarjit
Kaur. Six months prior to 19.06.1989, Karnail Singh’s elder
brother, was married. His wife brought a lot of dowry, in the
marriage. After the marriage of Karnail Singh’s elder brother,
the demands of Karnail Singh, his father, and mother assumed
greater proportions, and they became harsh towards Amarjit
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–4–
Kaur and started treating her with extreme cruelty. They asked
her to bring more dowry. Thereafter, Amarjit Kaur along with
her child came to village Handiaya, in the house of her
parents. Thereafter, Sadhu Singh, his son Nachhatar Singh and
Nachhatar Singh’s brother-in-law Darshan Singh of Gulab-
Garh and the husband of the sister of father of Nachhatar
Singh (phuphar) namely Darshan Singh came to Golewala
along with Amarjit Kaur and her child. They requested the
accused that they should not maltreat her. Surjit Singh and
Mukhtiar Kaur, demanded Colour TV, VCR and Refrigerator.
They, in clear-cut terms, stated that, in case, these items were
not provided, in the shape of dowry, then they should take
back Amarjit Kaur, or she could go and die as they did not
need her and would marry Karnail Singh again elsewhere.
Nachhatar Singh and Sadhu Singh, agreed to give Colour TV,
Refrigerator and VCR to the accused and left Amarjit Kaur, in
her matrimonial home.
3. On 18.06.1989, Nachhatar Singh and his
brother-in-law Darshan Singh came to village Golewala, to
enquire about the welfare of Amarjit Kaur. They asked the
accused about Amarjit Kaur and her child. The accused, did
not give them any satisfactory reply. They felt that Amarjit
Kaur and her child had been murdered by the accused. From
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–5–
village Golewala, they returned to village Handiaya, and
narrated the entire episode, to the inmates of the house. They,
then searched Amarjit Kaur, in their relations, but she was not
available.
3-A. On 20.06.1989, Nachhatar Singh and his
father Sadhu Singh came to Police Station, Sadar, Faridkot.
Nachhatar Singh lodged FIR Ex.PJ. The Police, Nachhatar
Singh and Sadhu Singh searched Amarjit Kaur and when they
came just near the gate of the Police Station, the husband of the
sister of the father of Nachhatar Singh, namely Darshan Singh
met them and told that the dead body of Amarjit Kaur, had
been found near the bridge of canal, in the area of village
Machaki Mal Singh. They along with the Police then went to
the spot. Dead body of Amarjit Kaur was lying on the bank of
the canal. By the side of the dead body, Balwinder Singh son
of Sadhu Singh and Darshan Singh, brother-in-law of
Nachhatar Singh, were found present.
3-B. Karnail Singh, was earlier engaged in
village Handiaya to the daughter of Zora Singh. The marriage
party came back from village Handiaya, without the bride, as
some dispute had arisen there. Cloth was purchased from M/s
Kaur Sain Jagan Nath of Barnala for the marriage of Amarjit
Kaur. Other articles and ornaments were also purchased from
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–6–
various shops. Later on, the dead body of the child of Amarjit
Kaur was also recovered, from the canal.
3-C. Post-mortem examination, on the dead body
of Amarjit Kaur was performed by Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior
Lecturer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guru Gobind
Singh Medical College, Faridkot, on 20.06.1989 at 1.30 PM.
In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia as
a result of drowning which was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The time that lapsed between the
injuries and death, was within few minutes and between the
death and post-mortem was within 48 to 72 hours.
3-D. On 22.06.1989, at about 9.00 AM, the
doctor performed post-mortem examination on the dead body
of Soni son of Karnail Singh, aged about 4-1/2 years. In the
opinion of the doctor, the death of the child was due to
aphsyxia, as a result of drowning which was sufficient to cause
death, in the ordinary course of nature. The time that lapsed
between the injuries and death was within few minutes and
between the death and post-mortem was within 3 to 5 days. It
was further opined by the doctor that drowning was ante-
mortem in nature, in both the cases. The accused were
arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded.
After the completion of investigation, the accused were
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–7–
challaned.
4. On their appearance, in the Court, the
accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon
by the prosecution. Charge under Section 304-B of the IPC,
was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed judicial trial.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case,
examined Dr. K. K. Aggarwal, Senior Lecturer, department of
Forensic Medicine, GGS Medical College, Faridkot, (PW-1),
Surjit Singh, Patwari, Halqa Machaki Mal Singh, (PW-2),
Nachhatar Singh, (PW-3), Zora Singh, (PW-4), Bhim Singh,
(PW-5 ), Tek Chand, (PW-6), Jaswant Singh, ( PW-7 ),
Darshan Singh, ( PW-8 ), Gurcharan Singh, ( PW-9 ) , who
was wrongly mentioned as PW-10, Harbans Lal, ( PW- 10 ),
who was also wrongly mentioned as PW-11, Manohar Lal,
( PW- 11 ), who was wrongly mentioned as PW-12, and
Raghbir Singh, Inspector, ( PW- 12 ), who was wrongly
mentioned as PW-13. Thereafter, the Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
6. The statements of the accused, under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were
recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances,
appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–8–
pleaded false implication. It was stated by Mukhtiar Kaur
that marriage of co-accused Karnail Singh, took place on
04.03.1982. She further stated that Karnail Singh was never
engaged to the daughter of Zora Singh. It was further stated
by Mukhtiar Kaur that Amarjit Kaur was of queer habits. She
was stiff necked and was non-cooperative with other ladies of
the house. It was further stated by her that Amarjit Kaur
wanted to live separate from the parents of Karnail Singh,
which he refused to do. Amarjit Kaur became frustrated and
there arose tension in her mind. It was further stated by her
that for that reason, she left the house, in their absence, along
with the child. It was further stated by her, that they searched
Amarjit Kaur and the child and informed the police also.
They also sent information to Sadhu Singh and his son
Nachhatar Singh i.e. the complainant. It was further stated by
her that the members of the complainant family came there
and they also searched along with them Amarjit Kaur and the
child. It was further stated by her that, later on in connivance
with the police, the instant case was planted against them.
7. Surjit Singh and Karnail Singh, accused, in
their statements took up the same pleas, as were taken up by
Mukhtiar Kaur, accused, in her statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–9–
8. In defence, the accused examined Baljit
Singh, Record Keeper, Market Committee, Bhucho, DW-1,
Iqbal Singh, Clerk, SDM’s office, Muktsar, DW-2, Pritpal
Singh, Clerk, Market Committee, Bhucho, DW-3, Gajja
Nand, Ahlmad, Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot,
DW-4, Tarsem Singh son of Hakem Singh, DW-5, and
Karnail Singh, accused, himself appeared as his own witness
as DW-6. He in his defence evidence, also tendered birth
entry Ex.DA/1. Thereafter, they closed the defence evidence.
9. After hearing the Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on
going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court came to
the conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 304-
B of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused.
Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, as
stated hereinbefore.
10. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of
conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial
Court, the instant appeal, and the revision petition were filed.
11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties,
and have gone through the evidence and record of the case,
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–10–
carefully.
12. The Counsel for the appellants, at the very
outset, submitted that no offence under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code was constituted, from the facts
circumstances and the evidence, produced by the prosecution.
He further submitted that from the evidence, on record, it was
proved that the parents of the deceased, promised that they
would give Colour TV, Fridge, and VCR. He further
submitted that when they promised to give the same, as
allegedly demanded by the accused, there was no question of
torturing the deceased by the accused, and, as such, it could
not be said that they abetted the alleged commission of
suicide by the deceased. The submission of the Counsel for
the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.
Abetment has been defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code, which reads as under:-
“107 . Abetment of a thing. A person abets the
doing of a thing, who
First, Instigate any person to do that thing; or
Secondly- Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–11–
doing of that thing; or
Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.”
“Explanation 1. A person, who by willful
misrepresentation or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of commission of an act does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said
to aid the doing of that act.”
Sufficient evidence was produced by the prosecution, to
prove that the deceased was being maltreated by the accused,
who are none-else than the husband, mother-in-law and
father-in-law respectively, in connection with the demand of
more dowry, from time to time. Nachhatar Singh, PW-3, is
the star witness of the prosecution. He is brother of the
deceased. He stated that the accused were not happy with
the dowry, given by them, at the time of marriage of his
sister with Karnail Singh, accused and as such they
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–12–
maltreated her. He further stated that after some days of the
marriage, they started maltreating his sister. He further
stated that 1-1/2 years after the marriage, his sister Amarjit
Kaur gave birth to a male child, and, on this occasion, all the
accused demanded customary gifts (Shushak) from them.
He further stated that, as per their financial status, they gave
them the customary gifts (Shushak). However, the accused
were not at all happy. No only this, from the statement of
Nachhatar Singh, it was further proved that about six
months, before the occurrence, the elder brother of Karnail
Singh, accused, was married and a lot of dowry was given
by his in-laws. On seeing that, a lot of dowry had been
given, at the time of the marriage of their elder son, the
parents of Karnail Singh, as also Karnal Singh, became more
furious, and started perpetrating extreme cruelty against the
deceased, asking her to bring more dowry. It was, at that
occasion, that she came to her parents and told the entire
story to them. It was thereafter that Nachhatar Singh, brother
of the deceased, Sadhu Singh, father of the deceased, and
Darshan Singh, brother-in-law of Nachhatar Singh, came to
village Golewala along with Amarjit Kaur, in the house of
her in -laws. At that time, they requested the accused that
they should stop maltreating her. At that time also, the
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–13–
accused demanded Colour TV, VCR and Refrigerator. They
also told them that, in case, they were unable to give those
articles, in the shape of dowry, then they could take back
Amarjit Kaur, or she may go wherever she liked or die.
They further told that they would not keep her, in their
house, and perform the marriage of Karnail Singh
somewhere else. It was, at that juncture, that the parents of
the deceased agreed to give colour TV, VCR and
Refrigerator. Amarjit Kaur was left in the house of her in-
laws and Nachhatar Singh and others came back.
Immediately thereafter on 18.06.1989, when Nachhatar
Singh and his brother-in-law Darshan Singh, went to the
house of her in-laws, to enquire about her welfare, she was
not available there. Ultimately, the dead bodies of Amarjit
Kaur and her minor child were found on the bank of the
canal. The death, as stated above, as per the opinion of the
doctor, was on account of drowning, which was ante-
mortem, in nature. The accused are greedy persons, as is
proved from the statement of Nachhatar Singh, PW3.
Nachhatar Singh, PW-3, in clear-cut terms, stated that earlier
Karnail Singh, accused, husband of Amarjit Kaur, deceased,
was engaged in their village to the daughter of Zora Singh
and the marriage party had been sent back without the bride,
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–14–
as there was some dispute over the dowry. From this
incident, it could be well imagined, how greedy the accused
are. No doubt, promise by the parents of the deceased had
been made, for giving the aforesaid articles, in the shape of
dowry, to the accused, yet they had not yet fulfilled that
demand. Had the demand been fulfilled, the matter would
have been different. Since the demand was still unfulfilled,
the greedy persons like the accused, could go to any extent,
to create such adverse circumstances, for the deceased,
forcing her to commit suicide, alongwith her minor child. If
a person is continuously tortured and subjected to cruelty of
extreme degree, it is not at all possible for her/him, to
tolerate the same. It was, thus, the continuous torture and
cruelty having been caused to the deceased, by the accused,
that she was compelled to take an extreme step, to end her
life, and the life of her minor child. Otherwise, a lady
having a male child of the age of about 4-1/2 years, in her lap
would certainly entertain high hopes, to lead a very happy
married life. Had she been not treated with extreme cruelty,
referred to above, she would have been the last lady, even to
think about the commission of suicide. The evidence of
Nachhatar Singh, PW-3, was duly corroborated by the
evidence of Zora Singh, PW-4, with whose daughter, Karnail
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–15–
Singh was earlier engaged, but the marriage party had to be
sent back, as there was some dispute over the dowry. From
the statements of Jaswant Singh, PW-7, and Darshan Singh,
PW-8, it was also proved that the accused abetted the
commission of suicide, by Amarjit Kaur and her minor son.
As such, the ingredients required for constituting the offence,
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,
were duly proved. The trial Court was right in coming to the
conclusion, that the accused committed the offence,
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The conclusion arrived at, by the trial Court, is based on the
correct appreciation of evidence and warrant no interference.
The conclusion of the trial, in this regard, is affirmed.
13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the
appellants, that Amarjit Kaur and her minor child were found
dead on 18.06.1989, and it was in the knowledge of
Nachhatar Singh and his parents, but for two days, the FIR
was not lodged. He further submitted that there was delay of
two days in lodging the FIR, which resulted into concoction
of story, false implication of the accused, and introduction
of false witnesses. The submission of the Counsel for the
appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.
When Nachhatar Singh along his brother-in-law went to the
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–16–
house of the in-laws of the deceased on 18.06.1989, they
found that she ( deceased ) and her child were not present
there. They asked the accused about the whereabouts of
Amarjit Kaur and her minor child, but they could not give
any satisfactory reply. Naturally, before proceedings further,
as it was a very sensitive matter, they were required to
conduct search of Amarjit Kaur, and her minor son.
However, they could not succeed in searching Amarjit Kaur,
and her son and ultimately when the dead bodies of Amarjit
Kaur and her child were found, the FIR was lodged. The
brother and parents of Amarjit Kaur, since deceased, must
be perplexed and puzzled, on account of the disappearance
of Amarjit Kaur and her minor child. Their first concern
was to search them. If a man is put in such a condition, he is
not able to act swiftly, in the matter of lodging the report. It
was, under these circumstances, that delay occurred, in
lodging the First Information Report. The aforesaid
circumstances explain the delay in lodging the FIR. Even
otherwise, mere delay in lodging the FIR, in itself, is not
sufficient to throw away the case of the prosecution. In the
face of delay in lodging the FIR, the Court is required to
scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to come
to the conclusion, as to whether the same is reliable. If the
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–17–
Court, after such scrutiny, comes to the conclusion that the
same is reliable, then delay pales into insignificance. The
evidence produced by the prosecution is reliable. The delay,
if any, thus pales into insignificance. On account of such
delay, there was neither false implication of the accused, nor
concoction of false story, nor introduction of false
witnesses. In this view of the matter, the submission of the
Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail,
and the same stands rejected.
14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the
appellants, that Nachhatar Singh, PW-3, during the course of
cross-examination, stated that when they went to the house
of the accused, Karnail Singh, did not make any demand. He
further submitted that he also stated that, at that time, only
the demand of dowry was made by Mukhtiar Kaur and her
husband. He further submitted that Karnail Singh was, thus,
not responsible for the commission of any offence. The
submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard,
does not appear to be correct. The evidence of the witnesses,
is required to be read, as a whole, and not by tearing the
same into pieces. When the evidence of Nachhatar Singh,
PW-3, is read as a whole, then only one and one inescapable
conclusion,that can be arrived at, is that all the three accused
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–18–
from time to time subjected Amarjit Kaur to cruelty in
connection with the demand of dowry. If, on one occasion,
Karnail Singh, did not demand the articles in the shape of
dowry, then that does not absolve him of his earlier demands
made by him, in connection therewith, from the deceased and
her parents. In this view of the matter, the submission of the
Counsel for the appellants, therefore, being without merit,
must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. The defence version and the defence
evidence were duly noticed and discussed by the trial Court
in paras 22 to 26 of its judgment. Ultimately the trial Court
came to the conclusion that the defence evidence did not
prove the innocence of the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, the trial Court, on appreciation of the defence
evidence came to the conclusion that no offence punishable
under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was made out,
as it was not proved that the death of the deceased did take
place within seven years of her marriage. This Court, after
reappraisal of the evidence, also comes to the same
conclusion.
16. Now coming to the revision petition, it may
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–19–
be stated here, that the same is liable to be dismissed, for the
reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The trial Court, after due
appreciation of the evidence, on record, awarded adequate
sentence to the accused. The sentence awarded by the trial
Court is commensurate with the gravity of offence. The
Counsel for the revision-petitioner could not point out any
circumstance, showing that the sentence awarded was
shockingly on the lower side. No ground is made out for the
enhancement of sentence.
17. Award of compensation was also prayed for,
in the revision petition. It may be stated here, that besides
awarding substantive sentence, to the accused, the trial Court
also imposed the sentence of fine upon them. According to
the provisions of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., if the fine forms
part of the sentence, then no compensation can be awarded.
The trial Court, however, rightly came to the conclusion that
the amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid, in its entirety,
to the parents of the deceased. Under these circumstances,
this prayer also does not merit acceptance.
18. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel
for the parties.
19. In view of the above discussion, it is held
that the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence,
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–20–
rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct
appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do
not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be
upheld.
20. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the
appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence dated 19.09.1992, are upheld. If the
appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
21. Criminal Revision Petition No. 698 of 1992
is also dismissed, being devoid of merit.
22. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take
necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to
comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in
view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The compliance report be sent
immediate thereafter.
(SHAM SUNDER)
JUDGE
October 04, 2008
dinesh
Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992
–21–
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 698-SB of 1992
Date of Decision:04.10.2008
Nachhatar Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Bathinda
Road Hindaiya District Sangrur.
… Petitioner
Versus
1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Harnam
Singh, 2- Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, and 3- Karnail
Singh son of Surjit Singh, residents of village Golewala.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate
for the respondents.
---
For orders , see detailed reasons in Crl. A.
No. 363-SB of 1992, titled as Mukhtiar Kaur and others vs.
The State of Punjab, decided on even date.
04.10.2008 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge