Satwinder Singh @ Sukha and Another vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—In the present appeal preferred by Satwinder Singh @ Sukha and his mother Jasbir Kaur, challenge is to their conviction and sentence recorded by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar who vide its judgment dated 22.2.2002 holding them guilty of offence u/s 304B IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

On 14.2.1999 Appellant Satwinder Singh was married with Sarabjit Kaur @ Rano. Sarabjit Kaur died on 29.10.1999 in her matrimonial home in Village Khojpur in the circumstances other than normal. The allegations which have surfaced in the prosecution case are that both the Appellants were treating Sarabjit Kaur with cruelty and harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. Criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the statement made by PW2 Nirmal Singh on the basis whereof FIR No. 81 dated 29.10.1999 was registered at Police Station Bhogpur under Sections 304B/34 IPC. Complainant stated that his elder brother Harbhajan Singh had died ten years ago. Harbhajan Singh was having one son and two daughters. Harbhajan Singh''s younger daughter Sarabjit Kaur @ Rano was married with Satwinder Singh according to religious rites. At the time of marriage, the family of the complainant had given dowry according to their capacity. However, mother-in-law Jasbir Kaur and husband Satwinder Singh @ Sukha were not satisfied. After one month of marriage, they started taunting the deceased that she had not brought colour T.V. and a Fridge. Deceased Sarabjit Kaur came to the house of the complainant 1� months before the occurrence. At that time, her mother Charan Kaur, cousin Baldev Singh and Surjit Singh brother-in-law of the complainant were present. At that time Sarabjit Kaur @ Rano while weeping disclosed that her mother-in-law and husband taunt her and demand T.V. and a Fridge. She was sent back with the assurance that the complainant along with other family members will visit her matrimonial home within 2-3 days. Thereafter, the complainant along with Charan Kaur, cousin brother Baldev Singh and brother-in-law Surjit Singh went to the house of the accused and enquired from them about their demand of dowry. They also requested to them that they were poor persons and will not be in a position to fulfill their demand. However, the accused stuck to their demand. It is stated that Sarabjit Kaur on 28.10.1999, a day before the occurrence, gave birth to a female child in the house of her in-laws. On the next day i.e. 29.10.1999 at 10.00 A.M. when the complainant along with family members were sitting, one Balkar Singh son of Karam Chand came and relayed the information that Sarabjit Kaur @ Rano had died at 3.00 A.M. in the night. On receipt of the message, complainant along with Charan Kaur mother of the deceased, Prem Singh Sarpanch and Baldev Singh reached in the house of in-laws of Sarabjit Kaur. At that time dead body of her niece was lying on a cot in the courtyard of the house. On physical examination, injuries were found on the feet of Sarabjit Kaur. Complainant expressed a suspicion in the FIR that deceased Sarabjit Kaur @ Rano had been killed by her in-laws.

The above-said FIR was investigated and report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. The Appellants were charged for offence u/s 304B IPC.

PW1 Dr. D.S. Bimra, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Sarabjit Kaur, aged 20 years. He found burn injuries on the big toe of right foot, first toe and forth toe of right foot. Similar burn injuries were present on the left foot. The doctor also noticed that charring was present on all the burns. According to this witness, the cause of death in this case was asphyxia and was result of electric shock and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The injuries on the person of deceased were ante mortem in nature.

Nirmal Singh complainant appeared as PW2 and proved his statement Ex.PC, on the basis of which FIR was registered. This witness also proved the wedding card Ex.P1 and had also produced photographs of the marriage. The witness denied the suggestion for want of knowledge that after the birth of child the deceased had received the electric current from the electric heater.

Surjit Singh, brother-in-law of complainant Nirmal Singh appeared as PW3 and corroborated his testimony. A suggestion was put to the witness that accused were already having colour T.V. and Fridge before the marriage. This suggestion was also denied for want of knowledge.

Charan Kaur mother of the deceased appeared as PW4 and also supported the version given by PW2 Nirmal Singh.

HC Amarjit Singh PW5 stated that police party had arrested both the Appellants on 31.10.1999. He stated that Satwinder Singh Appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PG, on the basis of which electric wire was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PH.

Venus Saini PW6 had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PJ. In cross-examination he stated that he had not noticed any television in the house.

Constable Sita Ram PW7 had delivered the special report to the senior officers including the Illaqa Magistrate. Dara Singh PW8 proved photographs of the marriage.

Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence and the statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure All incriminating circumstances were put to them and they denied the same. They stated that they have made no demand of dowry. They further stated that death of the deceased was an accident as her feet touched the electric heater.

In defence Piara Singh was examined as DW1. He was posted as Senior Assistant in the office of District Transport Officer, Jalandhar. He stated that he had brought the summoned record and according to the record Satwinder Singh is the owner of Scooter No. PAJ-9517.

Harwinder Pal Singh, a Shopkeeper appeared as DW2 and stated that he had sold a refrigerator Godrej brand to accused Satwinder Singh.

Tarsem Lal DW3 stated that he had sold Videocon T.V. to the accused.

Darshan Lal, Junior Assistant, office of District Transport Officer, Jalandhar appeared as DW4 and stated that in the record of Registration Authority scooter No. PB-08-X-8196 was in the name of Satwinder Singh.

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate has stated that deceased had given birth to a female child on the intervening night of 28/29.10.1999. Therefore, an electric heater was put in the room and accidentally feet of the deceased touched the electric wire.

Sarabjit Kaur @ Rano had died within nine months of her marriage. There are allegations that the accused were demanding T.V., fridge and scooter. Even though the accused have proved that these articles were already owned by them but it cannot be said that they were not repeating the demand as a perusal of evidence of PW2 Nirmal Singh, PW3 Surjit Singh and PW4 Rattan Kaur inspire confidence. Furthermore, the story of electric shock was not divulged by the accused at the earliest. Mere saying that the deceased had received an electric shock accidentally, this Court cannot discard the evidence of witnesses which is trustworthy. Hence, the argument advanced by Mr. Ghai is rejected.

At this stage, counsel for the Appellant has referred to para 2 of the order of sentence and stated that Appellant Jasbir Kaur was aged 66 years at the time of awarding of sentence and now she is more than 75 years of age. Counsel states that at the age of 66 years, a person in the old age is least interested in the house hold articles like scooter, fridge and television. Further it is stated that these articles were already in the house as it is proved from the defence evidence.

In Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , Hon''ble the Apex Court observed as under:

For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.

In Salamat Ali and another Vs. State of Bihar, , Hon''ble Apex Court observed as under:

Uniformly every witness has said that the family members of the husband, i.e. Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in the form of television and scooter. The nature of the demand is some indication. The demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use.

The view propounded in Salamat Ali''s case (supra) has also been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab 2007(2) RCR 665 and another Single Bench of this Court in Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab 2007(3) All LR 181.

Taking into consideration the whole gamut of the case, this Court is of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to Jasbir Kaur, mother-in-law of deceased Sarabjit Kaur @ Rano and accordingly appeal qua her is accepted. She is acquitted of the charge. Her conviction and sentence are set aside. However, conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant Satwinder Singh @ Sukha is maintained and appeal qua him is hereby dismissed.