Gurjit Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J.

This appeal and the Criminal Revision No. 207 of 1991, is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The three appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 87DB of 1991 namely Gurjit Singh, his father Avtar Singh along with his mother Motia (now dead) stand convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment each, besides payment of Rs. 5000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months each.

It is an unfortunate case in which a young lady named Jasvinder Kaur lost her life on the intervening night of 30.4.1988/1.5.1988 in the house of the present appellants who were charged with the offence of cruelty and causing the death of a woman, in their house within 7 years of her marriage as contemplated under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. On a supplementary challan filed against them, they were charged with the offence of murder as well under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B but were convicted and sentenced for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also had a thoughtful consideration over the record of the case.

On the trial of the case, the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, concluded that;

"There is no admissible evidence on the record to say that Jasvinder Kaur was pressing upon Ravel Singh to pay back a huge amount to Gurjit Singh, relating to their business of cloth. Undoubtedly, Avtar Singh was assisting his son in his cloth business. Since Gurjit Singh was not getting his huge money from Ravel Singh and the latter was putting him off by making false promises of payment, causing difficulty for him in relation to his obligations in the market, as stated by Gurjit Singh, it is only reasonable to presume that Gurjit Singh and his parents nourished a feeling to finish away the life of Ravel Singh''s daughter to teach him a lesson for bungling with the accused and become a rich man at their expenses. To my mind, there can be no other inference in the circumstances of this case, so far as motive of the accused for the crime is concerned...... The accused were the only persons who were living with the deceased in their house and had opportunity not only to administer poison to her but also to do further mischief of strangulating her. The type of injuries and poison noticed in the medical evidence leaves no doubt in my mind that the offence was committed not by one but by at least three persons. There is no other person suggested or proved other than the three accused persons who could have done away with the life of Jasvinder Kaur, particularly because all the three of them were together in the house and have motive to commit the offence.... I have absolutely no doubt that in furtherance of their common intention which was to commit murder, all the three accused are proved to have committed the murder of Jasvinder Kaur."

The sailent features of the prosecution case against the three appellants who will be referred to as accused Nos. 1 to 3, henceforth, for the sake of convenience in the judgment, are that accused No. 1 was the husband of the deceased Jasvinder Kaur and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were her father and motherinlaw respectively. It is not in dispute that all the accused were living in the same house situate at Urban Estate, Ludhiana, in the State of Punjab.

The case as set out by the prosecution is that some four years earlier to the date of the occurrence, the deceased Jasvinder Kaur got married with accused No. 1 Gurjit Singh on 7.11.1984 and one male child namely Viney was born from their wedlock, who is aged 21/2 years, in General Hospital, Chandigarh on 31.10.1985. Some 7 to 8 months after her marriage, Jasvinder Kaur started telling her father Ravel Singh P.W. 6, that he had given her in the hands of butchers and that her motherinlaw Motia (accused No. 3) was taunting and scolding her by saying that her parents had not given anything to her in the marriage and that if she wanted to live with them she should bring cash, V.C.R. and other valuable articles.

The prosecution on the above allegations contained in Ex. PJ made by Ravel Singh P.W. 6 by way of his statement recorded by Bakshish Singh, ASI at 6.45 a.m. on 1.5.1988 near the Gurdwara of Urban Estate, Ludhiana, registered a case vide Ex. PJ/2 at 7.05 a.m. under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused. On completion of the investigation, the accused were committed to the court of Sessions and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Mr. P.S. Singal, vide his order dated 1.9.1988 chargesheeted the accused under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. However, on the subsequent challan on 14.12.1988, he further chargesheeted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As many as 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case.

On trial, the learned trial Judge found that offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, were not proved against the accused and therefore, acquitted them but held them guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them as referred to above.

At the trial, the prosecution interalia relied upon the following circumstances with a view to connect the accused with the crime :

Motive

Two letters one Ex. PH dated 19.8.1987 written by the deceased to her father from Ludhiana and posted to Chandigarh and the other Ex. PE dated 28.4.1988 sent by the complainant Ravel Singh to his son at Madras.

Medical evidence.

Conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence.

The accused when examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, denied their involvement in the occurrence and stated that they were not present when the occurrence had taken place.

The learned trial Judge did not accept the prosecution version that the murder of the deceased was committed for want of dowry but he held that motive for the accused to commit the crime was that the father of the deceased (complainant Ravel Singh) who had some business transactions with regard to the sale of cloth with his soninlaw accused No. 1, was not able to pay the huge amount of Rs. 1,90,917.30 to the said accused and was putting off by making false promises of payment to him as a result of which he was not able to discharge his obligations in the market. He, therefore, held and found reasonable to presume that all the three accused nourished a grudge against the complainant and in pursuance of that illwill wanted to teach him a lesson for having bungled with the accused and becoming a rich man at their cost and, therefore, killed his daughter.

In the light of the above observation of the learned Trial Judge, two rival contentions arise for our determination :

Whether the deceased Jasvinder Kaur died a homicidal death on 30.4.1988 between 9 to 10 p.m. or whether she had committed suicide ?

If it is held that the deceased died a homicidal death, whether the accused or any one of them can be held guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for murdering the deceased or for some other offence other than the murder ?

So far as the nature of the death of the deceased is concerned, it is to be appreciated in the nature of medical evidence recorded in the case whether the death of the deceased was a homicidal or she had committed suicide. In this regard it is very important to note that Dr. Sukhraj Singh Brar, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, on 1.5.1988 at 2.30 p.m. found 12" x 1" ligature mark around the neck of the body of the deceased starting from the back of left ear going around the neck upto the right ear obliquely placed on the neck. Eccymosis was present under the ligature mark and there was fracture of thyroid cartiage and hyoid bone. However, at the instance of P.W. 6, a Medical Board of four doctors was constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana, and the second post mortem was conducted on the dead body of Jasvinder Kaur on 2.5.1988 at 10.15 a.m. They noticed similar symptoms as found by Dr. Brar vide his report Ex. P.W. 8/A; some contents of the stomach, parts of liver, kidney and spleen were taken and sent for Chemical Analysis. It was opined by the Board on the consideration of the Chemical Report that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging and Organo Phosphorous Poisoning was the contributary cause of death.

In view of that medical evidence read with the Chemical report it is ruled out that the deceased had committed suicide, for no evidence whatsoever is available on the record to establish that she committed the suicide by hanging.

The learned trial Judge for various reasons recorded in his judgment found that the two letters Ex. PH and Ex. PE were doubtful for the fact that the letter Ex. PH was brought in use by the complainant on 8.9.1988 when the trial judge had refused to frame the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. It was on the basis of this letter Ex. PH that a supplementary challan was presented before the committal court who sent it up to the trial court. He did not believe the story that the deceased was being harassed for the dowry. In this regard the learned trial Judge took the view that the deceased had the separate account in the State Bank of India, was holding a driving licence Ex. P. 34 and she was habitual of wearing modern clothes like Jeans and Top. She never wrote to any relation about the physical assault used on her by accused No. 1 and neither filed a complaint in any court. It was opined that the complainant P.W. 6 never convened a Panchayat at Chandigarh or at Ludhiana to assert some influence or pressure over the accused impressing upon them not to harass the lady for dowry and neither made any complaint with any authority against the accused persons. Besides, the trial court had found that the accused were financially sound and there was no need for them to ask for money.

Although the letter Ex. PH was written by the deceased to her father on 18.9.1987 but he did not mention its contents to anybody till 28.4.1988 i.e. two days earlier when the death of the deceased took place. It is surprising that in his letter Ex. PF sent by him to his son at Madras he had mentioned that his grandchildren were successful in the examination although their results were declared afterwards in the month of June. The handwriting of the deceased on the letter Ex. PH was found doubtful by the Expert and on that score as well it was not found reliable and taken into consideration for the purposes of evidence that the deceased was being harassed by the accused for want of dowry.

There is no justifiable evidence available on the record to show that ever the deceased was harassed by the accused for want of dowry rather it emerged from the statement of accused No. 1 which fact could not be controverted by the complainant P.W. 6 as well that there was some business transactions between the two with regard to which an amount of Rs. 1,90,917.30 were due from P.W. 6 to accused No. 1, which were not paid to him, as a result of which he had some problems in the business circle.

The entire fabric of the prosecution case in this regard rests on the evidence of the complainant Ravel Singh P.W. 6. May be this conduct of P.W. 6 offended the ego of the deceased so much that it lowered her prestige and status in the family as a result of which she thought to do away with her life and took some poison. Once she was likely to die, the accused in order to save themselves from the charge of murder, strangulated or hanged her so as to give it colour of suicide by hanging and took her to hospital for treatment but there she was found dead. They did not tell the doctor to make any report to the police and the accused No. 2 father of the accused No. 1 did not like to make it a police case. From such conduct of the accused the inference drawn is that the accused did away with the life of the deceased who had already taken poison. There is not an iota of evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the motive of the accused to do away with the life of the deceased was to teach a lesson to the complainant P.W. 6 who had usurped huge amount of money in connection with the sale of cloth supplied to him by the accused No. 1.

The trial judge has recorded his finding on the point of motive on surmises without any evidence to prove that the motive for the murder was to wreak vengeance on the deceased for her father P.W. 6 had become rich at the cost of the accused No. 1. There is clinching evidence as stated by P.W. 6 that he met the accused No. 1 in the Jail during trial of the case which shows that he met him with an intention to persuade him to give up his claim for money which was due from him to the accused No. 1 and in return he could soften the prosecution case against him. The trial court has gone astray in saying that P.W. 6 who in the past has remained as a lawyer and a Minister and was Income Tax Payee was supposed to show the amount in his record. In the same breath the trial court has rightly said that such a matter could be looked into by a competent court of civil jurisdiction only. In a murder case based on circumstantial evidence every circumstance of the case is to be proved in right perspective without taking refuge under surmises or suspicion. There is no doubt that there was a business transaction between the accused No. 1 and P.W. 6 who owes good amount of money to the accused No. 1 and in the ordinary course of life he might have been scolding his wife for such a lapse of her father and she having felt ashamed of the act of her father took poison and once she became partly dead, the accused in order to save themselves of being involved for murder strangulated/hanged her showing that it was a case of suicide. There was no premeditated conspiracy or intention of the accused to commit murder of the deceased rather once they found her in the state of unconsciousness or in a way that she was dying for having taken poison, they made a short cut way to save themselves by strangulating her to show it that she died of hanging by way of suicide. However, actually medically it was found that she died as a result of hanging and Organo Phosphorous poisoning which was contributary cause of death. There had been no enmity between the deceased and the accused and it was a sudden and unpremeditated act of the accused to hang/strangulate her. The act of the accused was done with the knowledge that they were likely to cause death and not with an intention to cause death, to show that she committed suicide although main cause of death was poisoning.

Where the case is on the border line between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder and in that case the accused can ordinarily be convicted for an offence under Section 304 IPC.

We are fully in agreement with the medical evidence recorded in the case that the death of the deceased had taken place due to hanging by way of strangulation and poisoning was the contributary cause of death. No evidence whatsoever has been collected by the prosecution to show that the poison was administered to the deceased by the accused before she was killed. The prosecution did not care to investigate in the matter as to whether poison was administered to her by the accused and if so when and in what manner. Once there is no evidence available that the poison was administered to her by the accused, the trial court could not of his own say that she was administered poison by the accused.

There is presumptive evidence on the record to show that she was strangulated or hanged because accused No. 1 in the action appeared to have received injuries on his face, forearm and neck and the same were likely to have been sustained by him from the nails of the deceased who possessed a strong physique and could give resistance even in semiunconscious state of mind. This is the contributary factor in support of the circumstance that the deceased was strangulated or hanged and the accused No. 1 had sustained certain abrasions, which were corelated with the time as per the opinion of the doctor when the occurrence took place. There is no evidence available on the part of the accused that they were not available in the house when the occurrence took place. Once the deceased died in the house of the accused and no other person was available when the occurrence took place. The deceased was quite hale and hearty and last seen in the company of the accused. They can safely be held to have killed her though without intention to cause the death. Therefore, in all probabilities and the circumstances of the case, it is they and they alone who did away with the life of the deceased with a motive to show that it was a case of suicide when actually they committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There is every likelihood and possibility that the deceased who was upset with the conduct of her father and being an educated girl, modern in nature felt ashamed of the act of her father and took the poison to do away with her life but while she was dying the accused thought that they might be involved for an offence of murder, they did away with her life by hanging/strangulation making the people to believe that she killed herself by hanging.

In the circumstances of the case as discussed above, we are satisfied that the accused have committed the death of the deceased by hanging with the knowledge that it was likely to cause her death but without premeditating intention to cause her death. Therefore, the accused were liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and not for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC. Hence, the conviction of the accused from murder is changed to culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As such they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 8 years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ each, in default of which they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. In case they have already undergone the said term of imprisonment, they shall be released forthwith.

Criminal Appeal No. 87DB of 1991 and Criminal Revision No. 207 of 1991 are decided accordingly.

Criminal A. No. 379DBA of 1991.

State of Punjab v. Gurjit Singh

M.L. Koul, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1988/ST 29/29.3.1989, by which the accusedrespondents have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate judgment of today passed in Criminal Appeal No. 87DB of 1991 and Criminal Revision No. 207 of 1991, we have upheld the findings recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, regarding the acquittal of the respondents from charge under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

For those reasons, we hold that the appeal of the State is without substance. Accordingly, it is dismissed.