Jitendra Chauhan, J.@mdashThis appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.05.2001 (hereinafter as `impugned judgment), whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter as `trial Court''), has convicted and sentenced the Appellants, as under:
Bua Singh To undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months u/s 304-B IPC.
To undergo two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further for a period of 1-1/2 months u/s 498-A IPC.
Hazura Singh, To undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months u/s 304-B IPC.
Jagir Kaur @ Jagiro and Baljit Kaur To undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further for a period of 1-1/2 months u/s 498-A IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Palwinder Kaur d/o Buta Singh resident of village Khokhar, Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, was married with Bua Singh son of Ajit Singh, resident of village Nano Nangal about 8 months prior to 7.11.1998. On 7.11.1998, on receipt of questy message from Police Station City Gurdaspur, to the effect that Palwinder Kaur w/o Bua Singh, resident of village Nano Nangal was admitted in civil hospital Gurdaspur with burn injuries. ASI Paramjit Singh along with alongwith other police officials had reached civil hospital Gurdaspur, after obtaining chit No. 1202 dated 7.11.1998 from P.S. City Gurdaspur. An application was moved before the doctor soliciting opinion regarding the fitness or otherwise of Palwinder Kaur to make statement and the doctor vide his endorsement had opined Palwinder Kaur to be unfit to make the statement. Rupinder Singh brother of Palwinder Kaur had met with ASI and made statement Ex. PB which was recorded by the ASI. He stated therein, that he had two brothers and three sisters and that his sister Palwinder Kaur was married with Bua Singh about 8 months back and that much dowry was given at the time of marriage of Palwinder Kaur; that just sometime after the marriage, the in-laws of Palwinder Kaur had started harassing Palwinder Kaur on the score that she had not brought sufficient dowry. They started raising the demand of Maruti car; that Palwinder Kaur was given severe beating by her inlaws and was sent to her parents house and Palwinder Kaur had narrated the tale of her sufferings to them there, stating that her husband Bua Singh, his brother Hazur Singh, Jagir Kaur w/o Hazoor Singh and Baljit Kaur wife of other brother of Bua Singh used to beat her and used to raise the demand of Maruti car; that they had consoled Palwinder Kaur assuring that they will make some contribution for the purchase of the car after selling the paddy crop and Palwinder Kaur was left in her in-laws house by them; that as and when he and his father used to visit Palwinder Kaur in her matrimonial home, Palwinder Kaur used to weep bitterly and tell them that her husband Bua Singh, his brother Hazur Singh, brother''s wife Jagir Kaur and other brother''s wife Baljit Kaur always used to harass her and that they had made requests to all the members of the in-laws family of Palwinder Kaur with the assurance that they will render the help whatever they could after selling the paddy crop, but that the in-laws of Palwinder Kaur were bent upon getting Maruti Car from them; that on 6.11.1998, he and his father Buta Singh had gone to the house of Rur Singh, his father''s sister''s husband at village Sirkian and they had spent the night with him at village Sirkian and that on the next morning after taking the breakfast, they along with Rur Singh had gone to the matrimonial home of Palwinder Kaur at village Nano Nangal. They had reached there at about 7.30 PM and had seen Bua Singh, Hazur Singh, Jagir Kaur and Baljit Kaur catching hold of Palwinder Kaur in a residential room and Bua Singh putting kerosene oil on Palwinder Kaur from a canee and setting her on fire; that Hazur Singh, Jagir Kaur alias Jagiro and Baljit Kaur were helping Bua Singh for setting Palwinder Kaur on fire; that on seeing them, all of them had taken to their heels and the fire had fully engulfed Palwinder Kaur by that time; that immediately then, they arranged for a vehicle and brought Palwinder Kaur to civil dispensary Dina Nagar, but the doctor there had referred Palwinder Kaur to civil hospital Gurdaspur. It was, thus, stated by Rupinder Singh that his sister Palwinder Kaur had been set on fire by Bua Singh, Hazur Singh, Jagir Kaur and Baljit Kaur. In the meantime, chit Ex. PL was received from the doctor by the ASI to the effect that Smt. Palwinder Kaur had succumbed to the injuries. Endorsement Ex. PB/1 was made by ASI on that statement and it was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. Formal FIR Ex. PB/2 was registered. ASI Paramjit Singh carried out the spot inspection. One match box and one cane plastic of kerosene oil were taken into possession. The accused were arrested. The offence u/s 302 of IPC was added later on.
3. On completion of the investigation, the accused, namely, Bua Singh, Hazura Singh, Jagir Kaur and Baljit Kaur (herein Appellants) were charge-sheeted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 304-B and 498-A of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman, as PW1; Rupinder Singh as PW2; Rur Singh as PW3; Dr. Vasdev Sharma, who proved post-mortem report, Ex.PA, as PW4; H.C. Shiv Kumar as PW5; Constable Manohar Lal as PW6; Dr. Maninderjit Singh as PW7 and ASI Paramjit Singh, Investigating Officer, as PW8.
5. The accused were examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded their statements wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. In defence, the accused examined Dr. B. S. Bajwa, Medical Officer, Incharge, Civil Hospital, DinaNagar, as DW1, Amrik Singh as DW-2 and Jarnail Singh as DW3.
6. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the learned trial Court, the present Appellants have preferred this appeal which was admitted on 19.06.2001 by this Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that there are no specific allegations against the accused other than the Appellant-Bua Singh. Jagir Kaur and Baljit Kaur, sisters-in-law, are similarly placed and have the same status in the family. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged demand of dowry is of a car. Learned Counsel has argued that the demand of car would rather go against the interests of Appellants-Jagir Kaur and Baljit Kaur, they being similarly placed and the same demand could also have been raised from them subsequently. Therefore, they cannot be said to be a party to the alleged demand. Moreover, they were not beneficiaries in any manner, even if the demand had been met.
8. The accused were originally charged u/s 302 IPC but the learned trial Court has disbelieved the version regarding occurrence u/s 302 IPC. Therefore, the learned Counsel has argued that if the case of the prosecution is not proved u/s 302 IPC, then the Appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence u/s 304B IPC on the same set of allegations and evidence as well. It is further argued that in order to prove the guilt against the Appellants, other than the husband, u/s 304B IPC, there has to be a specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry, which is missing in the instant case.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submits that the demand of dowry is proved. The death has occurred within seven months of marriage. The learned trial Court has considered all aspects of the matter and evidence on record. Therefore, he has prayed for maintaining the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Court.
10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
11. Appellant No. 1 Hazoor Singh and Appellant No. 3 Jagir Kaur are brother and sister-in-law of Appellant No. 2, respectively. They have taken a specific stand that they are maintaining a separate household and residing separately from Appellant Bua Singh. In the same manner, Appellant No. 4 Baljeet Kaur is wife of the other brother of Bua Singh, Appellant No. 2. The allegation is of demand of Maruti Car. Jagir Kaur and Baljit Kaur being daughter-in-law did not have a better position in the family as compared to the deceased. Appellant No. 4 Baljit Kaur, could not have supported the demand of Maruti Car for the reason that the same demand could be raised from her family, coupled with the fact that no specific role has been attributed to them by Rupinder Singh, PW2 and Rur Singh, PW3 except the Appellant Bua Singh. The case of the prosecution comes doubtful qua these Appellants.
12. As per the assertion of Appellant No. 2, Bua Singh, he took the deceased to the hospital. However, no entry in this regard is reflected in the record of Civil Hospital as is clear from the statement of Dr. B.S. Bajwa, DW-1. This fact is not mentioned in the Bed Head Ticket This statement has come with the rider that sometimes patient when a patient is serious no entry is made in the record. Therefore, in the instant case, no light has been thrown by the prosecution to prove the fact that as to who removed the injured to the hospital in the first instance.
13. There is no allegation of demand being raised at the time of marriage. Even if the demand had been made as alleged by the prosecution that would not have made any difference to the Appellant No. 1 Hazoor Singh, his wife Jagir Kaur, Appellant No. 3 and Baljit Kaur, Appellant No. 4 as Appellant No. 2 Bua Singh in that case would be beneficiary. Therefore, in my considered view, the demand of dowry and allegation of involvement of Appellants Hazur Singh, Jagir Kaur and Baljit Kaur in eliminating the deceased is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
14. In view of the above, the present appeal qua the Appellants, Hazura Singh, Jagir Kaur and Baljit Kaur, is allowed. However, the appeal qua Bua Singh, husband of the deceased, is dismissed. As the death has taken place 7 months after the solemnization of marriage, therefore, the prayer for taking a lenient view for reducing the sentence of imprisonment from 10 years to 7 years is also declined.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is party allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.05.2001 passed by the learned trial Court stands modified to the extent indicated above.
16. Since the main appeal is decided, therefore, the misc. application pending, if any, also stands disposed of.
