State of Punjab vs Tarsem Singh and anr.

S.D. Bajaj. J.

Narinder Kaur Daughter of Gurumukh Singh was married to Hussan Lal respondent No. 2 on November 24, 1985. She died in her matrimonial home in village Raj Gomal, Police Station Nurmahal. District Jalandhar of Punjab State on July 6, 1985 after brief illness. Her parents were duly informed and attended the funeral. Six days thereafter on July, 1986 they took back the articles of dowry etc. etc. On July 17, 1986 father of the deceased named Gurumukh Singh addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar a complaint in writing under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code urging that it was a case of dowry death and the death was caused by throttling the neck of the deceased by respondent No. 2; while respondents No. 1 and 3 father and mother respectively of respondents No. 2 held Narinder Kaur (now deceased) in their grip. All the three respondents were also alleged to have cremated the dead body hurriedly to conceal evidence of their crime with intention of screening themselves from legal punishment for it.

On being charged with the commission of the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, all the three accused pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated November 11, 1986 learned trial court acquitted all the three accused holding that the FIR was much too delayed demands for more dowry stood negatived from letters exchanged between the decease and her sister in her parental house and written by the sister aforesaid to respondent No. 2 and the allegations made in the complaint being an afterthought based on suspicion and hearsay evidence and that there was no occasion for respondent No.s 1 to 3 to make an extra judicial confession of their guilt to the father of the deceased after such a long time when every thing had been amicably settled between the parties.

Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 275 DBA of 1987 in this court.

We have heard Shri S.S. Kang, DAG Punjab for the State, Shri H.S. Sandhu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. S.S. Jolly, Advocate for the respondents and perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

Infirmities adverted to by the learned trial court are being discussed adseriatum hereinafter.

Delay in lodging the FIR

Death occurred on July 6, 1986. Parents of the deceased were duly informed of it and attended the funeral. The complaint is dated July 17, 1986 i.e., 19 days after the occurrence. It was observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501. `Delay of 20 hours in recording the FIR when the place of occurrence is only two miles from the Police Station makes the FIR doubtful.'' In the present case the delay is of 19 days. The whole period of delay appears to have been utilized for coming out with allegations against the three accused on the basis of hearsay suspicion and selfserving extra judicial confession allegedly made by the three accused to the father of the deceased after he had himself laid the deceased to rest by attending her funeral and received back the entire dowry.

Suspicion

Suspicion arising from scratch injuries detected by the mother of the deceased on her neck could be pursued to ascertain the cause of her death by getting an autopsy done. After the cremation of the dead body by the parents themselves together with the three accused, the suspicion aforesaid cannot take the place of proof. Their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637; Gambir v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1982 SC 1157 and Bhugdomal Gangaram and others v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1983 SC 906." In the criminal case, mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof."

There may be suspicion against the accused but the suspicion cannot take the place of evidence.

Any amount of suspicion will not constitute legal evidence for sustaining a conviction.

Similarly hearsay allegedly whispered/dinned into the ears of the mother of the deceased at the time of cremation about the murder of the deceased by the three accused is again wholly valueless and inadmissible in evidence. In Badruddin Rukondolim Korpude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1223 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed, ''Zianabbi (PW 10) went from the place of occurrence and informed the Police Post that `A'' was being belabourred by accused No. 1, 3, 4 and 14. The testimony of Zinnabi (PW 10) to the effect that accused 15 was one of those who gave beating to the deceased appears to be based on hearsay as she admitted in cross examination that by the time she returned from the Patil''s house, the occurrence had finished. Her word must therefore be excluded from consideration. Accordingly, the conviction of accused 15 is held to be ill founded."

In the circumstances it seems highly improbable that the three accused would blurt out an extra judicial confession to the father of the deceased long after her death more so when she had been peacefully cremated, dowry articles returned and there was nothing about the alleged crime worrying the three accused at all. Their lordships of the Supreme Court held in Sonia Bahera v. State of Orissa, 1983(1) RCR(Crl.) 302 (SC) : AIR 1983 SC 491. " The extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the appellant in the circumstances of this case was rightly selected by the Trial Judge and the High Court was not right in relying upon it as a circumstance against the appellant."

It would thus appear that there is no direct evidence against the three accused of their having murdered the deceased or concealed her dead body for screening themselves from legal punishment. Circumstances imported from hearsay, suspicion and extrajudicial confession when perused in the light of inordinately delayed FIR also end in smoke and cannot be made the basis of conviction of the three accused because these are not conclusive on the hypothesis of their guilt nor inconsistent with the innocence of the three accused. In this view of the matter finding of `not guilty'' returned by the learned trial Court qua the three respondents is upheld and affirmed. Appeal filed by the State is wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed.