Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2007

RANJIT SINGH ...APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 17th January, 2007 passed by the Division

Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

in Criminal Appeal No. 303DB of 2006. By its impugned

judgment the Division Bench while acquitting one of the

accusedBaldev Kaur, motherinlaw of the deceased, of the

charges framed against her, affirmed the sentence awarded

by the Additional Session Judge, Barnala against the

appellant under Section 304B, 498A IPC.

The accusedappellantRanjit Singh has been sentenced

to undergo RI for life under Section 304B IPC and further

sentenced to undergo RI for two years with a fine of

Page 2

2

Rs.2,000/, in default thereof to go RI for a further

period of six months under Section 498A IPC.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal

are as follows:

The informant Bahadur Singh got recorded his

statement on 30th May, 1996 to ASI Gurcharan Singh, Police

Station Tapa to the effect that he had performed marriage

of his daughter Jaswinder Kaur with Ranjit Singh @ Makhan,

son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Roorki Kalan in the

month of January, 1996. He gave 14 tolas gold, Rs.55,000/

cash, one scooter, fridge, cooler, sofa set, bed, almirah,

etc. as dowry. In total he spent 1.5 lakh in the said

marriage and fulfilled all the demands so raised by

Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw of his daughter. After about

7 days of marriage, his daughter came to her parents

house, she complained about the demand of money as

“Shagun”, upon which he handed over a sum of Rs.8,000/

to her daughter which she handed over to her husband

Ranjit Singh (appellant herein). The complainant Bahadur

Singh in his statement further narrated as to how and when

his daughter again came to them after 20 days of marriage

and told about the demand made by her inlaws and pursuant

Page 3

3

thereto he again purchased articles worth Rs.1500/ and

sent to her daughter's matrimonial house at Roorki Kalan.

The complainant further stated that even thereafter also

demands were made by her daughter's inlaws asking for

articles of good quality as the earlier purchased articles

were not upto their satisfaction. The complainant, Bahadur

Singh further mentioned the episode of 29th May, 1998 when

his wife Gurmail Kaur went to her daughter’s matrimonial

house at Village Roorki Kalan where her daughter narrated

her about the harassment made by her inlaws on account of

demand of a car. She further informed her mother that she

apprehended that she might be killed by herinlaws and

requested to take her alongwith her. However, his wife

consoled her daughter and went back to her house at

village Kale Ka. On 30th May, 1996, at about 3.30P.M.,

they came to know about the death of their daughter

Jaswinder Kaur and on reaching village Roorki Kalan they

found their daughter Jaswinder Kaur lying on a cot in the

courtyard of her inlaws house with injuries on her

person. The complainant suspected that Raghbir Singh,

fatherinlaw, Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Raj Kaur,

Page 4

4

sisterinlaw and Ranjit Singh, husband of his daughter

murdered her.

3. On the basis of the statement, FIR No. 60 dated 30th

May, 1996 (Ex.PE) for an offence under Section 304B/34

IPC was registered at Police Station Tapa, District

Sangrur.

4. The Police Office Gurcharan Singh, ASI (PW6) reached

the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex.PC) of the dead

body of Jaswinder Kaur. He took the dead body to Civil

Hospital, Barnala for postmortem examination where Dr.

Bhalinder Singh(PW2) conducted the postmortem

examination and by report (Ex.PA), he noticed as many as

six injuries on the dead body and opined that the cause of

death was due to asphyxia by throttling.

5. Gurcharan Singh, ASI(PW6) recorded the statement of

the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were

arrested and thereafter on completion of usual formalities

of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

was filed against Raghbir Singh, Baldev Kaur and Ranjit

Singh for trial. In the absence of any evidence against

Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw of the deceased, her case was

dropped.

Page 5

5

6. After commitment of the case, the Trial Court framed

charges against the accusedappellant for commission of

an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the

alternative charges under Section 304B read with Section

34 IPC and under Section 498A as well.

7. The prosecution in all, examined as many as six

witnesses viz. Gurjant Singh, son of Pritam Singh as PW1,

Dr. Bhalinder Singh as PW2, Dev Raj, Draftsman as PW4,

Bahadur Singh, Gurmail Kaur, father and mother of the

deceased as PW4 and PW5 respectively and Gurcharan Singh

as PW6.

8. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Their

stand was that the deceased, in a disturbed mental state

committed suicide by hanging herself. On behalf of the

defence as many as five witnesses were examined. Rajinder

Singh, constable as DW1, Jagtar Singh @ Avtar Singh as

DW2, Gurcharan Singh son of Harchand as DW3, Major

Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh as DW4 and DSP Darshan Singh

as DW5.

9. The Trial Court on conclusion of its trial, vide its

judgment dated 26.11.1998 convicted and sentenced the

accused Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Ranjit Singh, husband

Page 6

6

and Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw for commiting an offence

under Section 304B IPC. Pursuant to an order passed in

criminal appeal No. 563DB of 1998 filed by the accused in

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Division Bench

by its order dated 1st February, 2006 set aside the

conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court,

remanded back the case to the Trial Court with direction

to proceed with the trials from the stage of Section

235Cr.P.C. and to pass order afresh in accordance with

law. Separate Criminal Appeal as well as revision petition

preferred by the State of Punjab and the complainant were

dismissed by the same order, for having become

infructuous.

10. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the

matter was again taken up by the Trial Court and during

the rehearing of the case before the Trial Court,

accused Raghbir Singh was reported to have died on 19th

April, 2003 and thereby the proceedings were abated

against him by order dated 25th March, 2006.

11. Thereafter, on appreciation of evidence led by the

prosecution, the Trial Court held both Baldev Kaur,

motherinlaw and Ranjit Singh, husband, guilty of offence

Page 7

7

under Section 304B read with Section 34 and Section 498A

IPC and sentenced as noticed earlier. On appeal, the

Division Bench of the High Court by impugned judgment

acquitted Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw but affirmed the

judgment passed by the Trial Court so far as it relates to

appellantRajnit Singh, husband of the deceased.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that in the

FIR, no specific allegation about the demand of dowry or

harassment or cruelty was made against the appellant,

Ranjit Singh, husband of the deceased. Even during the

trial, the demand for dowry was not attributed to the

appellant. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court

considered the defence evidence which appellant produced

to rebut the presumption. Further, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that

Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the

present case. Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw of the deceased

has been acquitted considering the same evidence as is

available in the case of Ranjit Singh,husband and the same

cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty. It

was also alleged that the prosecution witnesses made major

Page 8

8

improvements in their evidence and Trial Court failed to

notice the defence evidence which is more probable.

13.Gurjant Singh,PW1 stated that the deceased Jaswinder

Kaur, daughter of his sister was married to Ranjit Singh

at Kaleke in January, 1996. On the date of occurrence i.e.

30th May, 1996 he had gone to visit at the house of

accused Ranjit Singh where all family members including

Jaswinder Kaur were present there. They were openly

threatening Jaswinder Kaur since she had not brought

maruti car in dowry. They started abusing her followed by

Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw who took her into a room by

holding her from her neck. Ranjit singh, husband caught

hold of her legs and Raghbir Singh , fatherinlaw

exhorted them to kill her by pressing her neck and similar

exhortation was also given by Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw and

in his presence all of them strangulated her to death.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that

Gurjant Singh(PW1) is a maternal uncle of the deceased

and, therefore, his statement was not worthy of any

credence as he would not allow anybody to commit such

crime in his presence. If he would have present there at

Page 9

9

that time, he must have intervened to save his niece or

raised an alarm which he admitted that he did not do so.

14. Bahadur Singh(PW4) is the father of the deceased,

Jaswinder Kaur. He stated that on 30th May, 1996 at about

3.30P.m., he received information of his daughter's death

at her inlaw's house at Village Roorki Kalan. He along

with others visited the Village where he found his

daughter, Jaswinder Kaur was lying dead on a cot then he

visited Police Station Tapa and lodged an FIR. He stated

that on demand of the accusedRaghvir Singh, fatherin

law, he spent Rs, 1,50,000/ on the marriage of her

daughter. She was given 14 tolas of gold, scooter and

Rs.55,000/ in cash. In addition to it he gave cooler,

fridge, dressing table, etc. as dowry to his daughter.

After 78days of marriage, Jaswinder Kaur came to Vilage

Kaleke to meet her parents and told them that the accused

were demanding more money as dowry and they also demanded

the amount of “Shaguns”. On this, he gave Rs.8,000/ as

an amount of “Shaguns” to his daughter which she handed

over to her husbandRanjit Singh who had accompanied

Jaswinder Kaur to Kaleke. After about 20 days, when he

brought her daughter in Kaleke, she informed that herin

Page 10

10

laws were demanding more dowry. She further informed that

she was being harassed by the accused. All the accused

including Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw, were demanding dowry

articles of good quality. Gurmel Kaur(PW5), mother of

the deceased went to her daughter’s matrimonial home one

day prior to the date of occurrence of death when her

daughter narrated her woeful stories and requested her

mother to take her back as she was apprehending death

from the accused. She further informed that the accused

was demanding Maruti Car as dowry. Gurmail Kaur(PW5)

assured her daughter to she would tell the entire story to

her father and she came back in the evening of the same

day at Village Kaleke. Bahadur Singh(PW4) further stated

that his brotherinlaw (wife's brother) went to meet

Jaswinder Kaur at about 12/12.30 P.M. on the day of

occurrence and saw that all the accused including Raj

Kaur, sisterinlaw were scolding Jaswinder Kaur as she

had not brought Maruti Car for them.

15. Gurmail Kaur(PW5), mother of the deceased, deposed

in her statement that her daughter was married to

accusedRanjit Singh about 4 months before the date of the

occurrence of her death. Sufficient dowry was given in

Page 11

11

the marriage as per the demand of the accused. She had

gone to the Village Roorki Kalan to meet her daughter

where she told her that she was being maltreated by her

inlaws as they were demanding Maruti Car and the demand

was made by Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Ranjit Singh,

husband, Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw and Raj Kaur,

sisterinlaw of the deceased. She also told her mother

that they were threatening to kill her in case she did not

bring Maruti car. She requested her mother to take her

back to Kaleke as she apprehended danger to her life at

the hands of the accused. She consoled her daughter and

assured her that she would narrate the matter to her

father. She came to the Village Kaleke and narrated the

entire matter to Bahadur Singh(PW4). Next day at about

3.30 P.M. they received a message that their daughter had

been killed by herinlaws.

16. Dr. Bhalinder Singh(PW2) conducted the post mortem

examination on the dead body of Jaswinder Kaur @

Baljinder Kaur w/o Ranjit Singh @ Makhan Singh, R/o

Roorke. The deceased was shown aged about 30 years.

The following injuries were found on the body of the

deceased:

Page 12

12

1. Abrasion on the right side of neck 1x.25 cm in size 8cm away from right angle of mouth 0.5 cm away from right ear. Horozontal in position. 2. Contusion on right side of neck measuring 5x1½cm, 1cm below injury no. 1 and oblique in position.

3. Contusion on right side of neck measuring 5x1½cm ½cm below injury no. 2.

4. Contusion on right side of neck measuring 4x1½cm ½cm below injury no. 3.

5. Contusion on left side 3x2cm in the middle.

6. Upper eyelid of left eye was swollen and blushed. On dissection of neck soft tissue ecchomised.

He stated that Hyoid bone was fractured. Right lung

and left lung were congested with punctiform hemorrhage.

Right heart contained blood and left heart was empty.

Pericardium was congested. Doctor opined that the cause of

death was due to asphyxia by throttling.

17.In his crossexamination, he also stated that there is

a possibility that if a ligature like a Parna was used for

hanging through ling it would cause ligature marks.

18.Dev Raj (PW3) draftsman prepared a site plan for the

same.

19.Gurcharan Singh(PW6), ASI, P.S. Kotwali, Barnala who

was the AIO, recorded the FIR and stated that he

Page 13

13

inspected the spot and prepared the rough site of the spot

(Ex.PK) with correct marginal note. Cot on which the dead

body was lying was also taken into possession vide memo

(Ex.PF). On 31st May, 1996, he arrested the accused;

Baldev Kaur, Raghbir Singh and Ranjit Singh. He recorded

the statement of Bahadur Singh(PW4) as (Ex.DA)and Gurmail

Kaur(PW5) as (Ex.DB) without any omission or addition.

He noted down the brief according to the facts contained

in the FIR.

It was given in the evidence of PW4 that one day

before the death of Jaswinder Kaur, Gurmail Kaur(PW5)

mother of the deceased went to meet her daughter where she

expressed her apprehension of threat to her life and

requested to take her alongwith her (Gurmail Kaur PW5).

She also conveyed that there was a demand of Maruti Car

from the accused for which Gurmel Kaur (PW5) assured her

daughter that she would bring the matter to the notice of

Bahadur Singh(PW4), father of the deceased. The

statements of PW4 and PW3(parents of the deceased) were

duly corroborated with respect to the demand of dowry and

harassment immediately prior to the date of occurrence and

the event of her visit a day prior to her death. They

Page 14

14

were subjected to lengthy cross examination. Apart from

minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the

case, their statements are corroborated on material

particulars so far as the demands of harassment to

Jaswinder Kaur is concerned. Their statements indict

the series of incidents forming part of the same

transaction which culminated in the death of Jaswinder

Kaur. The deceased was disrespected by herinlaws right

from the very beginning and from time to time was being

harassed on demand of dowry. The sequence of events,

discussed above, suggested that cruelty and harassment on

account of such demands were present till her death.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant laid much stress

that there is no independent eye witness to corroborate

the statements of PW4 and PW5 who are closely related to

the deceased. The contention is again meritless. It is,

but natural, that instance of cruelty, harassment of

demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal

knowledge of near relations and they would be the best

persons to depose about the same. Therefore, the evidence

of physical and mental torture of the deceased from the

Page 15

15

accused is not to be discarded simply on the score of

independent corroboration.

21. One of the stand taken by the appellant that no

Panchayat was convened and the matter was not reported to

the police cannnot be the ground to discard the evidence

of PW4 and PW5 who are material witnesses. About the

harassment meted to a girl normally in Indian family, the

matter is first reported to the parents and not to the

Panchanayat. It is not necessary that such matter is

required to be reported to the Panchayat.

22. From the statements of Dr.Bhalinder Singh(PW2), it is

apparent that the death of Jaswinder Kaur was caused by

bodily injury which is otherwise than under the normal

circumstances. The death took place within few months of

the date of marriage i.e. much before seven years of

marriage. It is shown that soon before her death she was

subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband in

connection with the demand of dowry. Therefore, the

present case squarely falls within the meaning of dowry

death for the purpose to attract Section 304B IPC.

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the

presumption of “dowry death” and proclaims that when the

Page 16

16

question is whether a person has committed a dowry death

of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death,

such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or

harassment, for or in connection with demand of a dowry,

the Court shall presume that such person had caused “dowry

death”. It can, therefore, be understood that irrespective

of the fact whether the accused had any direct connection

with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have

committed the “dowry death” provided the other

requirements mentioned above are satisfied.

23. In the present case, we have noticed that the

prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients

necessary to attract the Provision of Section 304B IPC.

Such ingredients having been proved, Section 113B of

the Indian Evidence Act automatically comes into play.

In the facts and circumstances, the death of Jaswinder

Kaur had taken place just within four months of her

marriage. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the

evidence of PW4 and PW5, parents of the deceased. They

have made statements that even at the time of marriage

they spent Rs,1,50,000 and even after 78 days of marriage

when Jaswinder Kaur came to their parents house and

Page 17

17

conveyed that the accused were demanding dowry as the

amount of “shagun” for which Rs.8,000/ was given her to

handover to her husband who accompanied her. Their

statement further suggested that upon subsequent visit of

their daughter after about 20 days, a sum of Rs.1500 was

spent by PW4 for purchase of certain articles, which his

daughter took to her matrimonial home in a tractor. Just

a day before the death, she informed her mother Gurmail

Kaur(PW5) that the accused were torturing her and

demanding Maruti Car.

24. The statement of the accused corroborates the

materials particularly in relation to harassment and

demand of dowry and death by torture. The accused being

the husband and direct beneficiary of the said demand of

Maruti Car, we find no reason to differ with the

conclusion of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate

Court that the appellant is guilty of the offence under

Section 304B IPC.

25. At the end of the argument, learned counsel for the

appellant made an alternative submission and requested to

take a lenient view in view of the fact that after the

death of Jaswinder Kaur (first wife), the appellant got

Page 18

18

married second time and from his second wife he has three

children out of which one son is handicapped and his

mother is also paralysed. Taking into consideration the

aforesaid fact, we affirm the conviction under Section

304B IPC and 498A IPC and reduce the sentence awarded

under Section 304B IPC to seven years alongwith the

sentence of two years imposed under Section 498A IPC

and fine of Rs.2,000/ as imposed by the Trial Court and

affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court with

direction that both sentences shall run concurrently.

Bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled and he is

directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out

the remainder of the sentence.

……………………………........………………..J. (A.K.PATNAIK)

………........……………………………………….J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 3, 2013.