CRA No.326-DB of 1998 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.326-DB of 1998
Date of decision: 18.7.2008
Tarlochan Singh & others ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.
Gurbachan Singh, his wife Agya Kaur, their sons Mohinder
Singh and Tarlochan Singh and their daughter-in-law Harjinder Kaur
were convicted and sentenced by the court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian
Penal Code (for short “IPC”). Gurbachan Singh and Agya Kaur were
sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence under
Section 304-B IPC and for three years rigorous imprisonment for offence
under Section 498-A IPC and fine of Rs.2000/- each. Other accused i.e.
Mohinder Singh, Tarlochan Singh and Harjinder Kaur were sentenced to
life imprisonment for offence under Section 304-B IPC and three years
rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 498-A IPC and fine of
Rs.2000/- each, in default whereof RI for another three months.
Gurbachan Singh and Agya Kaur have filed Crl. Appeal
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 2
No.560-SB of 1998. However, Mohinder Singh, Tarlochan Singh and
Harjinder Kaur have preferred a separate appeal i.e. Crl. Appeal No.326-
DB of 1998. Both the appeals are being taken up together by this court
for disposal as they emanate from the same judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana
on 15.6.1998.
More than one year after the marriage i.e. on 6.12.1996,
Jasbir Kaur had to be admitted in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana with 95%
burns. On receiving a telephonic message, the police reached the
hospital. Father of the deceased i.e. Mehtab Singh was present there.
His statement was recorded by the police. Mehtab Singh made a detailed
statement wherein he inter alia mentioned that his daughter was
maltreated due to demand of dowry. This is despite the fact that he had
spent sufficient amount at the time of marriage. Yet demands for cash,
furniture, refrigerator, sofa-set, colour TV. etc. continued. His daughter
had been telling him about all these demands, some of which was met by
him from time to time. Mehtab Singh and his wife had last gone to the
house of in-laws of deceased Jasbir Kaur on 1st December, 1996 when
again a demand for refrigerator and sofa-set was made. However, they
expressed their inability to meet this demand due to financial constraints.
Thereafter, on 6th December, 1996 at 3.00 P.M. when Mehtab Singh was
in his office on duty, his son Tarminder Singh informed that Mohinder
Singh, brother-in-law of the deceased had come and told that Jasbir Kaur
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 3
was admitted in the hospital in burnt condition. Immediately thereafter,
Mehtab Singh along with his wife had reached the hospital and found
deceased Jasbir Kaur lying in the hospital badly burnt. The entire
statement of Mehtab Singh is on record as Ex.PB. The police thereafter
started investigation and came to the conclusion that all the accused were
guilty of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The charge
was, thus, laid under these Sections. The case was committed to the
Sessions Court for trial on 11.4.1997.
The accused were charge-sheeted. They, however, pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove their case.
The defence, on the other hand, examined four witnesses.
After recording the evidence and conclusion of trial, the trial
Court came to the conclusion that all the accused were guilty of offences
under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and awarded them sentences, as
mentioned in the opening paragraph. The said judgment convicting the
accused and sentencing them for offences under Sections 498-A & 304-B
IPC has been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on
various grounds.
The Additional Advocate General, Punjab has, however,
contended that the accused have been rightly convicted by the trial Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the evidence on record.
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 4
Learned counsel for the appellants has mainly stressed that
the question of demand of dowry did not arise as it had come on record
that the girl being very beautiful, the accused had brought her in one
‘Chuni’ only and no dowry was demanded. Moreover, there was nothing
on record to show that the deceased ever complained regarding demand
of dowry. According to the counsel, even on the date of occurrence, she
was taken to the hospital by Mohinder Singh, elder brother of her
husband.
Apart from this, the learned counsel has argued that
Mohinder Singh and his wife Harjinder Kaur were living separately and
there was no question of their involvement in this entire case. He has
referred particularly to Ex.D1 in this regard i.e. the application for
admission of his son Navjot Singh in Golden Public School Society,
Jamalpur, Ludhiana, wherein address is given as “C-7, Labour Colony,
Jamalpur, Ludhiana”. He has also contended that a perusal of the
statement of Investigating Officer would also show that the residence of
Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur was separate from that of Tarlochan
Singh. This apart, there was no specific allegation in the FIR against the
elder brother and sister-in-law i.e. Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were not made out and as there was
nothing on record to show that the deceased was harassed due to demand
of dowry. Learned counsel has also argued that Jasbir Kaur was, in fact,
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 5
under depression due to the death of Manmohan Singh, another son of
Gurbachan Singh as she had a liking for him.
Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand,
has contended that the statement of Mehtab Singh PW2 clearly shows
that there were demands of dowry by the accused and the deceased was
being continuously harassed due to that reason. Learned State counsel
also submitted that the deceased Jasbir Kaur had died an unnatural death
within seven years of marriage and thus Section 304-B IPC was clearly
attracted. According to the learned State counsel, there was sufficient
evidence on record to show that the accused were guilty of offences
under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. They had, thus, been rightly
convicted by the trial Court.
We have seen the statement of Mehtab Singh PW2. He has
narrated at length the entire story regarding marriage of his daughter to
Tarlochan Singh and later on her harassment at the hands of her in-laws.
He has also furnished a list of dowry articles, which is Ex. PD. He also
produced some receipts of purchase of certain articles given to his
daughter on demand of the dowry. These receipts are exhibited on
record.
This witness was cross-examined by the defence and a
suggestion was put to him regarding his daughter being in depression due
to the death of Manmohan Singh, the other son of Gurbachan Singh.
However, he denied this suggestion. He was also asked whether Agya
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 6
Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased lived separately from Tarlochan
Singh. This suggestion was also denied by him. Another question was
put to him whether elder brother of Tarlochan Singh, namely Mohinder
Singh lived separately. To this, this witness replied that after the
occurrence (death of his daughter), Mohinder Singh had started living
separately. He had shifted to Labour Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana after
the episode.
Mehtab Singh PW2 also tendered in evidence a letter written
by his daughter Jasbir Kaur, since deceased, on 5th June, 2005 Ex. PE.
The said letter is being reproduced hereunder. Though the translation of
the same may not be entirely grammatically correct, yet it is being
reproduced as available on record:-
"Dear Daidy and Mammi Ji and Baba Ji 5-6-05
Sat-Sri-Kal.
We all are quite well, and we expect you welfare
always from god. I further request that what Sute you have
sewn of my mother-in-law. Her neck is to be lengthened
from 1″ or 1½”. The Assan of salwar is to be lengthened 14
or 14½. Daidy Ji I further request that what you require to
send me, you should send me after checking properly. You
should send me Bed, Dressing table and the Sofa with a
table. You should also send me all the remaining utensils
together. Daidy Ji incomplete and a little goods are not in
proper tune in taking or in giving. One thing more the stand
of the cooler must be 2¼” long. Now you should not send
any utensils of brass. Daidy Ji you must give me one new
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 7
prant of the brass. The prant which you sent that is old and
that is also stained. Now you should me send the goods new
after being checked. The utensils and the goods which you
are required to send I am sending you in writing as under:-
1.Prant of brass, 2. Patila Steel and aluminium big, 3.Balti of
steel, Chakla-Velna of Steel, Karahi of 3 or 4 Kilos of
aluminum, 4. Fry-Pin (non-stick), Six Thal of Steel and six
tumbler, and six plates Rice-Tray, Tawa, Chah-Poni (Steel)
Cooker for preparing tea. Two pressure cookers (5 liters), 6.
Cups of Bone China, One serving Tray, One Jug and two
laddles, one tiffen big of three dabbas. One big Dolu, two
paltas, 3. Serving Dongas and steel dongas, service spoon,
Nimbu crasher of silver One set biscuite of container, All
these articles may be sent at one time, it is my request to
you. Daidy Ji possible you must send a washing machine,
but nothing more Daidy Ji, all is well. I am closing my
letter. This goods may become late, but it should come
collectively. Daidy Ji washing machine should of Samrat.
Yours daughter,
Jasbir Kaur Arora.”
We have also perused vernacular version of this letter
written on 5.6.2005. Contents of this letter very clearly show that Jasbir
Kaur was under stress due to demand of dowry from her in-laws and she
had been beseeching her father to meet these demands.
This apart, another witness Harjit Singh PW4, who was the
mediator at the time of marriage between Tarlochan Singh and Jasbir
Kaur, also stepped into the witness-box. This witness clearly stated that
on 2.5.1995, father-in-law of the deceased had complained to him that
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 8
Mehtab Singh, father of the deceased, had not given dowry as per their
standards and that he had many offers from well placed families for
marrying his son, which he had declined and settled for daughter of
Mehtab Singh. He had shown his dissatisfaction to PW4, the mediator.
This witness again met father-in-law of the deceased on 2.6.1995, who
again complained about the same issue. However, this witness assured
him that their demands would be met. Later on, this witness, namely
Harjit Singh prevailed upon Mehtab Singh to give more dowry articles
from time to time. This witness had also met Jasbir Kaur, who had
requested him to send her brother Tarminder Singh to meet her. She had
also delivered a letter through this witness. Harjit Singh also deposed
that in October, 1995, there was dispute among the parties over the
dowry articles and the accused had beaten Jasbir Kaur.
On certain aspects of his deposition, the prosecution
requested the trial Court to allow it to cross-examine this witness (Harjit
Singh) PW4, which request was accepted and this witness was cross-
examined by the prosecution. In cross-examination, he admitted the fact
that deceased Jasbir Kaur had told him that her in-laws had demanded
various articles such as TV, refrigerator etc. and also that she was being
humiliated and harassed.
The evidence of other witnesses have also been perused by us.
PW1 has proved a bill regarding sale of a music deck to Mehtab Singh.
The said bill is Ex. PA. PW3 has also proved sale of certain articles to
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 9
Mehtab Singh such as trunks etc. The bills are also exhibited. Another
witness has deposed regarding sale of certain clothes to Mehtab Singh.
Bills in that respect have also been exhibited. PW5 Elisheb Sharma has
deposed regarding the admission of Jasbir Kaur on 6th December, 1996 in
CMC Hospital, Ludhiana at 2.25 P.M. PW6 Mohd. Yamin has stepped
into the witness-box and deposed regarding sale of certain ornaments to
Mehtab Singh. He has proved a bill, which is Ex.PW6/A, regarding sale
of golden ornaments weighing about 45.620 grams. PW7 Baljit Singh,
who owns a furniture shop, has shown sale of certain furniture to Mehtab
Singh on 21.7.1995, vide bill Ex.PW7/A. PW8 Harminder Singh
Draftsman prepared the site plan Ex. PW8/A. PW9 is the doctor who
conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of Jasbir Kaur
on 7.12.1996 and found 95% burns on her body. This witness described
the injuries on the dead-body in detail. PW10 is Wariam Singh ASI, who
conducted the investigation. He has deposed regarding the investigation
and fully supported the prosecution case. He has also shown certain
recoveries of dowry articles, all of which have been exhibited. This
witness also stated that Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur were not
traced for quite some time and were declared proclaimed offenders by
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. However, later on they were found
and their police remand was obtained. Mohinder Singh later made a
disclosure statement regarding some golden ornaments and a ring. His
statement was recorded as PW10/K, on the basis of which recovery of
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 10
these articles was effected. The articles were taken into possession vide
recovery memo Ex.PW10/L. A similar disclosure statement was made by
Harjinder Kaur regarding a locket, clothes and utensils, which were
concealed by her. These articles were recovered vide memo Ex.PW10/M
and taken into possession. The site plan in this respect was also drawn
vide Ex.PW10/O. All these articles were identified by Mehtab Singh.
This witness was cross-examined by the defence but nothing substantial
could be elicited.
The defence examined DW1 Principal of Golden Public
School, Ludhiana in order to prove that Mohinder Singh was living
separately i.e. in Labour Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana. However, except
Ex.D1, the Principal did not bring any other documents i.e. register of
admission etc. to support her deposition. On the other hand, she admitted
that Ex.D1 was not filled up in her presence. She even admitted that
Ex.D1 was not even signed by her or any other official of the school and
on the form Ex.D1 there was no order passed to admit the child in the
said school. Another witness DW2 stepped into the witness-box and
deposed that Mohinder Singh lived about 1 K.M. away from the house of
Tarlochan Singh, in Labour Colony. However, this witness did not know
where Tarlochan Singh lived. He was not able to specify the street or the
house number. He further stated that he had never visited the house of
Tarlochan Singh or Mohinder Singh. Another defence witness is DW3,
who is father-in-law of Mohinder Singh accused. This witness stated
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 11
that Jasbir Kaur remained in depression after death of Manmohan Singh
and she had committed suicide. In his cross-examination, however, this
witness stated that he was not present when Jasbir Kaur allegedly
committed suicide. This witness also stated that he had made
representation to higher authorities regarding false implication of the
accused. However, this witness was not able to produce any such
application or receipt in that regard. Another witness DW4 is Girdhari
Lal, who used to work with Tarlochan Singh on his embroidery shop.
This witness only stated that he had been working at the shop for last
about five years and he had seen Manmohan Singh brother of Tarlochan
Singh committing suicide by taking some pills. This witness did not
know the nature of the pills and stated that neither any inquiry nor a
postmortem was conducted on the body of Manmohan Singh.
After going through the entire evidence on record, we are of
the view that the accused have been rightly convicted under Section
498-A and 304-B IPC. As regards the contention of the counsel for the
appellants that there was no demand of dowry and the girl was brought in
one ‘Chuni’, the same does not impress us. Sufficient evidence has come
on record in the shape of evidence of Mehtab Singh PW2 and other
witnesses, which shows that not only there was demand of dowry from
the in-laws of Jasbir Kaur but she was also harassed for the same. The
letter Ex. PE, reproduced above, coupled with other evidence on record,
goes to show that Jasbir Kaur was under constant pressure for more
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 12
dowry and she was being continuously harassed for the same by the
accused.
As regards the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants that Mohinder Singh, elder brother of Tarlochan Singh, and
his wife were living separately, we are not convinced. The reliance
basically is on Ex.D1, which is the application for admission of Navjot
Singh son of Mohinder Singh in Golden Public School Society,
Jamalpur, Ludhiana. The Principal, who stepped into the witness-box to
prove this document, was not able to depose anything, which would
inspire confidence. In fact, she stated that she had not brought any other
record to prove the admission form, neither the same had been signed by
her nor by any other official of the School. Thus, this type of weak
evidence, would not go to prove that Mohinder Singh and his wife were
separate in residence and mess from the other accused. In fact, PW2 in
his cross-examination stated that Mohinder Singh had started living
separately only after the occurrence had taken place. This statement of
Mehtab Singh appears to be correct as the defence did not produce any
concrete evidence such as ration-card, telephone bill, electricity bill or
any other document to show that Mohinder Singh and his wife were
living separately from Tarlochan Singh and other co-accused. Had that
been the case, some concrete evidence would definitely have been
available to prove the factum of separate residence of Mohinder Singh
along with his wife.
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 13
The defence witnesses produced i.e. DW1 to DW4 miserably
failed to prove the factum of separate residence of Mohinder Singh and
his wife.
It may be noticed that all the accused are closely related and
PW2 Mehtab Singh has clearly deposed that all of them had been making
demands for more dowry. The version put forward regarding separate
residence of Mohinder Singh and his wife is not believable from the facts
of the case and the evidence on record. The same, therefore, deserves to
be rejected.
As regards the role of Mohinder Singh in the entire episode,
his name figures again and again at various places and even certain
recoveries of dowry articles were made from him and his wife. Thus, it
is not possible for this Court to hold that Mohinder Singh and his wife
Harjinder Kaur were living separately and had no role to play in the
crime.
As regards the role of the rest of the accused, the same has
been proved beyond doubt as we have already arrived at a conclusion
that Jasbir Kaur was being continuously harassed for dowry and she had
died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage to Tarlochan
Singh. The evidence of Mehtab Singh, father of Jasbir Singh, has been
corroborated by other prosecution witnesses such as the mediator PW4,
the Investigating Officer PW10 and the other prosecution witnesses, who
proved various bills by which various dowry articles were bought.
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 14
The accused Gurbachan Singh and Agya Kaur i.e. parents of
Tarlochan Singh, have preferred a separate appeal i.e. Crl. Appeal
No.560-SB of 1998. However, we have been informed that Gurbachan
Singh has expired. Therefore, appeal qua him stands abated. As regards
Agya Kaur, since we have already arrived at a conclusion that all the
accused are closely related and were guilty of harassing Jasbir Kaur
resulting in her death within seven years of her marriage to Tarlochan
Singh, the conviction of Agya Kaur is maintained.
We are, therefore, of the confirmed view that no interference
is called for in the impugned judgment as regards conviction of the
accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
However, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently
argued that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon accused
Tarlochan Singh, Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur is very harsh. The
evidence was of such a nature where the possibility of the deceased
setting herself on fire could not be ruled out. The counsel argued that on
the question of sentence, a lenient view be taken as Section 304-B
provides for a minimum sentence of seven years and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there being a possibility that Jasbir Kaur had
set herself on fire, the minimum sentence provided in the said Section be
awarded. This argument of the counsel is acceptable in the entire facts
and circumstances of the case and we modify the order of sentence and
reduce it to seven years.
CRA No.326-DB of 1998 15
Thus, judgment of conviction is confirmed. Sentence of
appellants Tarlochan Singh, Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur is
reduced to seven years. Rest of the sentences to remain intact.
(UMA NATH SINGH) (RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
July 18, 2008
'rajpal'