Harjit Kaur vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is Criminal Misc. No. 5307M of 1999 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, whereby Harjit Kaurpetitioner herein has claimed direction to the respondents to release her prematurely in view of the instructions dated 15.8.1998 Annexure P1 of the Govt. She has prayed that the order Annexure P2 refusing her release prematurely be quashed being discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal.

Facts :

Petitioner, her husband, two sons and three daughters were arrested in case FIR No. 2 dated 6.5.1992 registered under Sections 302/307/498A/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Payal. After the trial, she, her husband and her two sons were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. She has undergone 6 years, 5 months and 15 days actual sentence including undertrial period. She has earned remissions to the tune of 5 years and 3 months. She has thus undergone 11 years 8 months and 15 days total sentence. In view of the instructions dated 15.8.1998 Annexure P1 issued by the Governor, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 161 of the Constitution of India, she is entitled to be released as she has undergone more than 6 years of actual sentence and with remissions more than 10 years. She was convicted not for "dowry death" but for murder. The decision of the Govt. vide Annexure P2 is that she is not entitled to premature release because it was dowry death. Petitioner was not convicted of "dowry death". She was convicted of murder simplicitor.

RespondentState of Punjab contested this prayer urging that the petitioner was convicted of heinous crime i.e. dowry death as she had murdered her daughterinlaw alongwith coaccused by pouring kerosene on her for dowry. Her case is not covered by Annexure P1. She is required to complete 8 years actual sentence under the Govt. instructions dated 8.7.1991.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG for the State of Punjab and have gone through the record.

Perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (Annexure R3) shows that insufficient dowry was at the root of the ills of Smt. Parminder Kaur. Smt. Parminder Kaur was married to Sukhjit Singh. Smt. Harjit Kaur is Sukhjit Singh''s mother i.e. she is motherinlaw of said Smt. Parminder Kaur. As per the prosecution case, Risaldar Niranjan Singh was informed by the father of the deceased Smt. Parminder Kaur regarding the demand of dowry and maltreatment being given to her by her husband and the other members of his family. Risaldar Niranjan Singh also stated that Smt. Parminder Kaur''s father Bikkar Singh also informed him about the complaint made to SSP, Jagraon. Risaldar Niranjan Singh PW3 stated that he was present at the time of settlement arrived at between the parties which was reduced into writing which is Ex.PD. Shri Bikkar Singh, who is Parminder Kaur''s father stated that he gave dowry beyond his means in the marriage of Parminder Kaur to Sukhjit Singh. He stated that one month after her marriage, her inlaws, husband, brotherinlaw and three sistersinlaw started maltreating her and laying demand for Rs. 10,000/. He sold shop for Rs. 8,000/ and paid amount of Rs. 10,000/ to Sukhjit Singh. Smt. Parminder Kaur conceived but she was taken to a doctor at Khanna and underwent abortion. In August, 1991, he took Panchayat to village Sihaura. Sukhjit Singh and his father were reprimanded by the Panchayat of village, Sihaura and were asked to bring Smt. Parminder Kaur to the matrimonial home. After about a month, Sukhjit Singh and his father Charan Singh came to village, Mullanpur and told the Panchayat that they would not rehabilitate Parminder Kaur into the matrimonial home. Smt. Parminder Kaur moved application for maintenance and complaint to SSP, Jagraon. Compromise took place which is Ex.PD. Bikkar Singh stated that maltreatment to Smt. Parminder Kaur did not stop. Smt. Parminder Kaur was MA B.Ed.

At the cost of repetition, I must say that dowry was the root cause of the ills of Parminder Kaur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dowry was not the root cause of the death of Smt. Parminder Kaur and in fact Smt. Parminder Kaur was pregnant even before her marriage from her brotherinlaw. and her pregnancy acquired prior to marriage was the root cause of her friction with her husband and his family. It was submitted that demand for dowry soon before death was not proved and therefore the learned Additional Sessions did not hold that any offence defined in Sections 498A/304B IPC stood proved against the accused. It was submitted that he simply convicted Charan Singh, Gurjit Singh, Sukhjit Singh and Harjit Kaur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code simplicitor and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/ each. Instructions embodied in Annexure P1 providing for the premature release of certain convicts will not apply to the following categories of the prisoners :

"(i) If the prisoner is involved in ghastly murder/double murder involving extreme brutality bestiality in which the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life or if he is involved in the crime connected with terrorism in the State.

(ii) If the sentence of death has been computed (commuted ?) into one of imprisonment for life either under Section 433 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 72/161 of Constitution of India.

(iii) to (ix) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx".

Smt. Parminder Kaur made dying declaration which was recorded in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana by SDM, Ludhiana. In that dying declaration she stated that at about 2.00 A.M. midnight, she was asked to prepare tea. She stated that it was too early for preparing tea. She was forced to go to the kitchen. There kerosene was poured on her by her motherinlaw and fatherinlaw. She tried to run away but was stopped there by her sisterinlaw and husband. Cloth was put in her month by her husband. Her husband and sistersinlaw put her ablaze with match stick. She became unconscious thereafter. She regained consciousness at Patiala. She also stated that she was MA B.Ed. Her inlaws used to maltreat her on account of insufficient dowry. In her dying declaration, which was relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, she had stated that she was alive and kerosene was poured on her and she was set ablaze.

Now the question arises what is a ghastly murder or murder involving extreme brutality ? Ghastly as defined in Chamber''s Twentieth Century Dictionary means deathlike, hideous, deplorable. Brutality is behaviour of a brute. Bestiality means "savagery, animallike".

Death of Smt. Parminder Kaur was ghastly involving brutality/beastiality. If a civilized person has to commit murder, he will not commit murder in such a foul and cruel manner. If it was not a dowry death as defined in Section 304B IPC, it was murder where dowry was the root cause. Murder committed was foul involving brutality beastiality. Petitioner was not entitled to premature release in view of subclause IV (i) or subclause (iii) of Clause A of instructions Annexure P1.

In view of what, I have said above, this criminal misc. petition fails and is dismissed.