Malwinder Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Learned State counsel has filed affidavit dated 14.3.2012 of Sh. Rajan Kapoor, PPS, Officiating Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) in Court today which is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties.

The Crl. Misc. application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) during the pendency of the appeal.

The applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala for the offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Mewa Singh whose daughter Satwinder Kaur (deceased) was married to applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1). According to the complainant Mewa Singh, the applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) demanded a colour T.V. which demand he fulfilled. Thereafter, applicant Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) raised new demands. In this regard the complainant Mewa Singh talked to his brother-in-law (wife''s brother) Avtar Singh who stated that he would talk to the applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1). It is alleged that despite the assurance given by Avtar Singh, the daughter of the complainant namely Satwinder Kaur used to tell her father that the accused were harassing her and demanding more dowry. On 31.7.2004 at 7.30 a.m. the complainant Mewa Singh received a telephone message from his brother-in-law Avtar Singh that the applicant Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) had demanded a big generator to be used with the tractor. Avtar Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant had informed the complainant Mewa Singh that he had told the accused that it was difficult to purchase the said generator, but he could arrange the generator on the rent basis. The complainant Mewa Singh also spoke to Malwinder Singh (applicant/appellant No. 1) on telephone regarding the said demand, but the applicant Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) spoke in an angry tone. After sometime Satwinder Kaur talked to her father Mewa Singh, complainant on telephone and informed him that her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law had maltreated her and had beaten her for not fulfilling the demand of generator. After sometime, the complainant received a telephone call from applicant Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) that Satwinder Kaur had suddenly fallen ill. The complainant wanted to talk to his daughter but the applicant Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) told him that she was in the washroom. The complainant suspected some mischief, however, due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not go to village Rohar. After sometime, Avtar Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant informed the complainant that the applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) had brought Satwinder Kaur to his village Mehon in a critical condition. Avtar Singh, brother-in-law also informed the complainant that Satwinder Kaur had told him as to why she was got married in such a greedy family. Due to non-fulfilment of demand of the accused, she had been forced to die. She also told him that on the said day her mother-in-law Sukhpal Kaur, brother-in-law Parminder Singh and her husband Malwinder Singh (applicant/appellant No. 1) had forced her to commit suicide and she could not bear the pressure. Therefore, she had taken such an extreme step.

Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant No. 1 has submitted that the demand of generator would not be covered within the definition of dowry in terms of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In support of his contention, learned counsel cites Appasaheb and another v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 747 (SC). Therefore, it is submitted that the offence u/s 304-B IPC cannot be said to be made out against the applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) and Satwinder Kaur on her own had committed suicide without there being any instigation or abetment on the part of the applicant/appellant No. 1.

In response, learned State counsel and the counsel for the complainant have submitted that the applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) is the main accused. It is submitted that the testimonies of Mewa Singh, complainant and his brother-in-law Avtar Singh clearly establish that the applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) was demanding a generator and the death of Satwinder Kaur had occurred in her matrimonial home within the seven years of her marriage and it is established that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and other relatives and in connection with demand for dowry by way of a generator said. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No. 1 is not liable to be suspended.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. The contentions as raised by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties would require consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. In terms of the affidavit of Sh. Rajan Kapoor, PPS, Officiating Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, the applicant-Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) has undergone imprisonment of three years, one month and three days as on 13.3.2012 out of the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment that has been imposed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. It is to be considered whether a demand of generator that is said to have been raised would fall within the ambit of dowry so as to record a finding of conviction for the offence u/s 304-B IPC. In the circumstances, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant Malwinder Singh (appellant No. 1) shall, during the pendency of the appeal, remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala.