Gurpreet Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Accused Gurpreet Singh and Harmohinder Kaur were convicted u/s 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of Manpreet Kaur (deceased) was solemnized on 12.12.2005 with accused Gurpreet Singh. PW-1 Surjit Singh was father of the deceased. He had given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage of his daughter Manpreet Kaur. Accused Harmohinder Kaur was mother-in-law of the deceased. Accused were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage. They started maltreating her for having not brought sufficient dowry. They demanded scooter, television and fridge. The deceased narrated the demand raised by the accused to her father Surjit Singh and her mother PW-2 Baljinder Kaur. About three months prior to the occurrence, both the accused gave beatings to Manpreet Kaur and sent her to her paternal house. PW-2 and PW-3 having persuaded Manpreet Kaur after her stay for about four days in the parental house, took her to her in-laws'' house and advised the accused not to maltreat her.

On 22.3.2007 at about 3 AM, accused Gurpreet Singh telephonically informed PW-1 that Manpreet Kaur had consumed something and was admitted to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. PW-1 and PW-2 descended on the emergency ward of the hospital at 9 AM on 22.3.2007. Manpreet Kaur informed them that her husband and mother-in-law forcibly administered some poisonous substance to her having mixed the same in milk. Thereafter, she became unconscious. PW-1 and PW-2 returned to their house at Nabha. They having received a telephonic message that Manpreet Kaur had died, came down to the hospital. PW-1 lodged a complaint with the police. A formal First Information Report was registered by PW-9 ASI Balwinder Singh.

PW-3 Dr. Manjinder Kaur admitted Manpreet Kaur for treatment on 22.3.2007 at about 2.27 AM. The patient was alleged to have consumed Sulpha tablets. PW-4 Dr. Smiley Joshi found that Manpreet Kaur was not in a fit condition to make statement throughout the period of her treatment. Manpreet Kaur expired on 23.3.2007 at 1.30 AM. PW-5 Dr. Gurpreet Kaur, Medical Officer attached to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manpreet Kaur on 23.3.2007 at about 4.30 PM. The viscera was sent for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner submitted a report that the viscera was found to contain Chloro-compound group of insecticide. Based upon the report of the Chemical Examiner, PW-5 has opined that the death of Manpreet Kaur was caused due to poisonous substance found in the viscera which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

PW-9 ASI Balwinder Singh having completed the investigation, laid final report as against the accused.

Accused have contended in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that Manpreet Kaur who was under depression on account of the fact that accused Gurpreet Singh had borrowed loan and solemnized the marriage of his sister, took Sulpha tablets by mistake and as a result of which she died.

Trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 in the background of the medical evidence available on record, returned a finding that the accused committed an offence u/s 304-B IPC.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently submit that the alleged dying declaration suffered by Manpreet Kaur to PW-1 and PW-2 is quite unbelievable as the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Smiley Joshi would go to show that Manpreet Kaur was not fit to make any statement throughout the period of her treatment. PW-1 and PW-2 were not present at 9 AM on 22.3.2007 as contended by PW-1 and PW-2. There was no necessity for accused Gurpreet Singh to make a demand for refrigerator, motor-cycle and television set. It is his submission that there is also an improvement in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 as regards the forcible administration of poison laced with milk.

We heard the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, supporting the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

PW-1 Surjit Singh and PW-2 Baljinder Kaur were father and mother of the deceased Manpreet Kaur. They have come out with a version that the victim Manpreet Kaur suffered an oral dying declaration before them at about 9 AM on 22.3.2007. Very strangely, they have deposed that they left the hospital on the said day by noon for taking money from their home and thereafter, they reached the hospital only on receipt of intimation regarding death of their daughter.

The evidence of PW-4 Dr. Smiley Joshi completely demolishes the version of PW-1 and PW-2 that Manpreet Kaur was capable of speaking when they arrived at the hospital. PW-4 Dr. Smiley Joshi was categoric that throughout her treatment at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Manpreet Kaur was not in a fit condition to make any statement.

The above medical evidence is also corroborated by PW-9 ASI Balwinder Singh who would depose that he could not also record the statement of Manpreet Kaur as she was totally unfit, as per opinion of the doctor, to give any statement.

In view of the above evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that Manpreet Kaur was not in a fit state of mind to give any statement.

We really doubt the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 on 22.3.2007 at about 9 AM at the hospital. Firstly, we find that PW-9 ASI Balwinder Singh has categorically deposed that neither the father nor the mother of Manpreet Kaur was present at the hospital to enable him to record their statement. Had they been present, they would have definitely suffered a statement setting the law in motion. PW-1 and PW-2, the parents of Manpreet Kaur, had allegedly proceeded to their town for taking money for treatment of Manpreet Kaur when their daughter was in a death bed. It is quite strange that the parents had not chosen to set the law in motion even after the culprits were known to them. Further, no parents would have left their daughter in such a pitiable condition just to take money from their house. Either they would have been present sending one of their relatives to bring money or at least one of them would have proceeded to bring money leaving the other to take care of their daughter. But in our view, the parents who were informed about admission of their daughter in hospital, would not have come down to the hospital without taking money.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we come to a definite conclusion that PW-1 and PW-2 were not at all present on 22.3.2007 and the victim had also not suffered any dying declaration to them. In all probability, they would have come to the hospital only after receiving the death intimation of Manpreet Kaur.

Just because the material witnesses have come out with some embellishment in their anxiety to strengthen the case, we cannot ignore their evidence in toto. PW-1 and PW-2 were very categoric that there had been persistent demand of dowry, namely, refrigerator, motor-cycle and TY set. It is true that PW-1 would admit that old motor-cycle and TV set were possessed by the accused but they did not have a refrigerator. PW-2 would also admit that the accused possessed refrigerator and TV set. It may be a case where the accused thought it fit replace the old TV and refrigerator. The categoric version of PW-1 and PW-2 that Manpreet Kaur was harassed by accused Gurpreet Singh, husband of Manpreet Kaur, who demanded dowry, cannot be simply ignored. Further, about two or three months ago, Manpreet Kaur had been sent to her parental house. PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed that they had to take back Manpreet Kaur and admonish accused Gurpreet Singh that he should not harass Manpreet Kaur by demanding dowry. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we come to the conclusion that there was a demand of dowry just before her death and she was harassed to meet the demand.

The entire evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the star witnesses in this case, was thoroughly perused by us. We find that it was only accused Gurpreet Singh who had demanded dowry and harassed Manpreet Kaur. There is no convincing evidence that accused Harmohinder Kaur demanded dowry harassing Manpreet Kaur. Further, we find that accused Gurpreet Singh could not come out with any explanation for the consumption of poisonous substance at his house by Manpreet Kaur which resulted in her death. The defence set up by Gurpreet Singh that the deceased Manpreet Kaur accidentally consumed Sulpha tablets is found to be totally unbelievable. As the prosecution has established that the accused had demanded dowry and meted out harassment to the deceased just before the occurrence, we presume that the death was only due to demand of dowry and harassment meted out to Manpreet Kaur. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed as against appellant No. 2 Harmohinder Kaur stands set aside. She is acquitted of the charge u/s 304-B IPC. She is ordered to be set at liberty if her custody is not required in connection with any other case. The judgment of conviction u/s 304-B IPC passed as against appellant No. 1 Gurpreet Singh stands confirmed but the sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to that of seven years rigorous imprisonment. With this modification in sentence, the appeal qua appellant No. 1 Gurpreet Singh stands dismissed and the appeal qua Harmohinder Kaur is allowed in part.