Nachhattar Singh vs Charan Singh

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that Smt. Chhinderpal Kaur was married to Charan Singh in the year, 1991. She had a son from this marriage who was about 18 months old in October 1994, she was carrying another child in her womb. On 26.10.1994, Chhinderpal Kaur''s brother Nachhattar Singh and uncle Partap Singh went to village Dhaleke which is the village of her (Chhinderpal Kaur) inlaws to bring her to their village Baghelewala for delivery. At the house of her inlaws her motherinlaw Gurmail Kaur met them and she told that her husband Hardial Singh was not there in the house and they would send Chhinderpal Kaur after consulting him. Gurmail Kaur asked them to stay over there for the night. They accordingly stayed there in the house of Chhinderpal Kaur''s inlaws for the night. Gurmail Kaur and Charan Singh told them that they had not given them anything on the birth of first child and Chhinderpal Kaur would be sent only if they agreed to give them television and fridge. Nachhattar Singh told them had given them gold kara and Rs. 10,000/ at the time of the birth of child earlier and they would do their best this time also and give them to the utmost of their capacity. In the meantime Nachhattar Singh''s MASAR Hardial Singh also reached there. After taking their meals they went to their room for sleeping. At about 12.00 midnight, they heard the cries of Chhinderpal Kaur. She was raising raula "Na Maro, Na Maro". Thereupon, Nachhattar Singh and his uncle Partap Singh went to the room from where Chhinderpal Kaur''s cries were being heard. Electric bulb was on in the room. She had only a jumper on the lower portion of her body and had no other cloth. They saw Gurmail Kaur catching hold of Chhinderpal Kaur by her arms and Charan Singh dealing injuries with a screw driver in her vagina (private parts). Bleeding started and she was about to deliver child. Charan Singhaccused was carrying screw driver and a vial containing some substance like acid and went out of the room. Chhinderpal Kaur was wearing no salwar at that time. When Nachhatar Singh and Partap Singh went to the room, they found Chhinderpal Kaur lying unconscious on the bed. Nachhatar Singh and Partap Singh were to take Chhinderpal Kaur to hospital, she had been brought in the verandah where she breathed her last. Nachhattar Singh left Partap Singh at the spot and himself came to Baghelewala. He alongwith Sarpanch Bikkar Singh were going to the Police Station to lodge report. Police met them near Police Post, Bhadana. According to the prosecution Smt. Chhinderpal Kaur was done to death brutally by Charan Singh and Gurmail Kaur because of her parents side''s inability to fulfil their demand for dowry with the connivance of Hardial Singh. Matter was reported to the police of which case FIR No. 117 dated 27.10.1994 was registered under Sections 302/304B/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Mallanwala. After investigation, Charan Singh and Gurmail Kaur were challaned. Hardial Singh was shown in column No. 2 of the challan. Case was committed to the Court of Session.

Vide order dated 22.5.1995 learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur charged Charan Singh, Gurmail Kaur and Hardial Singh under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He charged Charan Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while he charged Gurmail Kaur under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He charged Charan Singh, Gurmail Kaur and Hardial Singh under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

On the conclusion of the trial, vide order dated 18.8.1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur acquitted Charan Singh, Gurmail Kaur and Hardial Singh of the said charge.

Aggrieved from the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur acquitting Charan Singh, Gurmail Kaur and Hardial Singh of the murder/dowry death of Chhinderpal Kaur, Chhinderpal Kaur''s brother Nachhattar Singh has knocked the door of this Court through this revision.

I have heard Shri S.C. Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.S. Ghai, learned Senior Counsel for the respondentsaccused and have gone through the record.

The prosecution case rests upon an eye witness account given by Nachhattar Singh and Partap Singh PWs. Question that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether eye witness account has been appreciated by the Additional Sessions Judge in correct perspective and they have justifiably been not believed.

As per Nachhattar Singh and Partap Singh, Charan Singh, his father Hardial Singh and mother Gurmail Kaur were not satisfied with the dowry given in marriage of Chhinderpal Kaur with Charan Singh by them. They were not satisfied with what had been given by way of "Chhuchhak" on the occasion of the birth of first child to Chhinderpal Kaur by them, though they had given gold kara and Rs. 10,000/ on that occasion. As per them on the fateful day, they had gone to take Chhinderpal Kaur to their village for delivery because she was in family way and they were told that they would decide whether Chhinderpal Kaur was to be sent with them to village Baghelewala for delivery after consulting Hardial Singh and they stayed for the night in the house of Charan Singh. Smt. Chhinderpal Kaur''s death took place in the house of her inlaws within 7 years of her marriage and it was brutal death.

The case of the accused was that on the night of 26.10.1994, Smt. Chhinderpal Kaur started suffering from labour pains. Midwife was called by Charan Singh who could not handle the case properly and his wife died. Information was sent by him to his inlaws. His inlaws reached his house and they implicated falsely.

Medical Board, consisting of Dr. Charanjit Singh etc. which performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Chhinderpal Kaur on 28.10.1994 at 8.30 A.M. found the following injuries :

Brownish black corrosive patch 5.5 cm x 4.00 cm on the inner side of left thigh in the inguinal and adjoining perineal area 2 cms from the left pubic tubercle.

Brownish black corrosive patch on the inner side of left thigh just below and inner to injury No. 1.

Brownish black corrosive area 2 cm x 1.5 cm in size present in the left perineal area 1 cm from the labia majora.

4 cm x 2 cm brownish black corrosive area in the right perineum 3.5 cm below and right to labia majora.

Multiple brownish black excoriations 7 in number ranging in size from 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 1 cm x 0.3 cm present in the right side of perineum.

1 cm x 0.5 cm brownish black corrosive patch with peeling off the epidermis present 2 cm right to anus.

Multiple brownish black corrosions 8 in number present on the outer side of upper part of left thigh 9 cm from the anterior superior iliac spine.

Multiple brownish black excoriations 5 in number on the outer side of left knee ranging in size from 0.5 x 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm.

Multiple brownish black corrosions 10 in number ranging in size 0.5 cm to 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm on the front and inner side of left lower leg and knee in his upper half.

A punctured lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on the posterior vaginal wall. Clotted blood was present.

On dissection, the posterior vaginal mucosa, soft tissue and the anterior wall of rectum found lacerated. Clotted blood was present.

A punctured lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on the posterior fornix. Clotted blood was present.

On dissection the posterior vaginal fornix, the soft tissue and the uterine wall, placenta, found lacerated. Blood stained liquor amonii found coming from the uterus.

On opening the peritoneal cavity, subcutaneous haematoma found in the region of right hypochondrium umbilical and left subchondrium. The peritoneal cavity contained 1.5 lts. of fluid and clotted blood. The liver shows multiple laceration on its superior surface, clotted blood was present at the lacerations. The mesentry also found to be lacerated at places and clotted blood was present.

Reddish blue bruise 3 cm x 2 cm present on the right side of neck 6 cm behind the angle of mandible.

Reddish blue bruise 2 cm x 1.5 cm present on the right side of neck at the level of thyroid cartilage, 3 cm from the mid line. The uterus contained dead female foetus measuring 42.5 cm crown feet length.

The cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

In crossexamination, Dr. Nirmal Dass, who was one of members of team which performed post mortem examination stated that blood in the peritoneal cavity was result of laceration of liver and laceration of the mesentry. Lacerations to the liver were caused as a result of blunt trauma from the front of the abdomen. If a untrained DAI puts pressure on the uterus, there can be no laceration to the liver. Dr. Charanjit Singh PW1 stated that injuries No. 10 and 11 could be possible with screw driver Ex. P1. Injuries No. 1 to 9 may be caused by acid.

Chemical examiner found human blood on Tauliya and Kachha. Chemical Examiner could not find origin of blood on the screw driver as the blood stains had disintegrated. Concrete/cement and pillow were found stained with human blood. Screw driver was also stained with blood.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Nachhattar Singh petitioner that for disbelieving Nachhattar Singh and Partap Singh, Additional Sessions Judge has observed that their presence at the spot was unnatural as if the accused were to commit murder of Chhinderpal Kaur, they would not have committed her murder in the presence of her brother and uncle and they would have committed her murder prior to their arrival or after their departure. To say the least, this observation by the Additional Sessions Judge is against the very basics of criminal jurisprudence. No body knows how the mind of the accused works. Eye witness account finds corroboration from the ocular account.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that another reason given by the Additional Sessions Judge is that if they had been present in village Dhaleke, they would have brought this matter to the notice of someone in village Dhaleke. Suffice it to say, who would have listened to them in village Dhaleke when Charan Singh etc. hail from that village and Nachhattar Singh and Partap Singh were strangers. Nachhattar Singh and Partap Singh having gone to village Dhaleke to take Chhinderpal Kaur to their village for delivery when she was in advanced stage of pregnancy was not unnatural and improbable. It is the feeling of the parents of a woman that they can provide her more care and looking after during delivery visavis which might be provided to her by her inlaws.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the presence of injuries on the vaginal region etc. of Chhinderpal Kaur corroborates the ocular account given by Nachhattar Singh and Partap Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a careful perusal of the evidence on record leaves this impression on one''s mind that the Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate evidence in correct perspective and while appreciating evidence he has ignored the basic principles governing the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. Nonappreciation of evidence in correct perspective and according to the principles of criminal jurisprudence has brought about serious and manifest injustice in the case. Additional Sessions Judge has conjectured in his approach far from the realities of life.

To my mind the acquittal is not based on appreciation of evidence in correct perspective.

For the reasons given above, this criminal revision is accepted and the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated 18.8.1998 is set aside. Learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur will take this case on his own file and will decide it afresh after hearing the learned Counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant''s counsel, if any. Learned Sessions Judge will appreciate evidence denovo keeping in view the salutary principles of criminal jurisprudence. Learned Sessions Judge will decide the case afresh dispassionately.

Revision allowed.