RANJIT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2007 RANJIT SINGH       ...APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB   ...RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This   appeal is directed against   the judgment and  order   dated   17th   January,   2007   passed   by   the   Division  Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh  in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   303­DB   of   2006.   By   its   impugned  judgment the Division Bench while acquitting one of the  JUDGMENT accused­Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law of the deceased, of the  charges framed against her, affirmed the sentence awarded  by   the   Additional   Session   Judge,   Barnala   against   the  appellant under Section 304­B, 498­A IPC.    The accused­appellant­Ranjit Singh has been sentenced  to undergo RI for life under Section 304­B IPC and further  sentenced   to   undergo   RI   for     two   years   with   a   fine   of  Page 1 2 Rs.2,000/­,   in   default   thereof   to   go   RI   for   a   further  period of six months under Section 498­A IPC. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal 

are as follows:­ statement on 30th May, 1996 to ASI Gurcharan Singh, Police  Station Tapa  to the effect that he had performed marriage  of his daughter Jaswinder Kaur with Ranjit Singh @ Makhan,  son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Roorki Kalan   in the  month of January, 1996. He gave 14 tolas gold, Rs.55,000/­  cash, one scooter, fridge, cooler, sofa set, bed, almirah,  etc. as dowry.   In total he spent 1.5 lakh in the said  marriage   and   fulfilled   all   the   demands   so   raised   by  Raghbir Singh, father­in­law of his daughter.  After about  JUDGMENT 7   days   of   marriage,     his   daughter   came   to   her   parents  house,   she   complained   about   the   demand   of   money   as  “Shagun”,   upon which he handed over a sum of Rs.8,000/­  to   her   daughter   which   she   handed   over   to   her   husband­ Ranjit Singh (appellant herein). The complainant Bahadur  Singh in his statement further narrated as to how and when  his daughter again came to them after 20 days of marriage  and told about the demand made by her in­laws and pursuant  Page 2 3 thereto he again purchased articles worth Rs.1500/­   and  sent to her daughter's matrimonial house at Roorki Kalan.  The complainant further stated that even thereafter also 

were not upto their satisfaction. The complainant, Bahadur  Singh further mentioned the episode of 29th May, 1998 when  his wife Gurmail Kaur went to her daughter’s matrimonial  house at Village Roorki Kalan where her daughter narrated  her about the harassment made by her in­laws on account of  demand of a car. She further informed her mother that she  apprehended that she might be killed by her­in­laws and  requested to take her alongwith her.   However, his wife  consoled   her   daughter   and   went   back   to   her   house   at  JUDGMENT village Kale Ka.   On 30th May, 1996, at about 3.30P.M.,  they   came   to   know   about   the   death   of   their     daughter  Jaswinder Kaur and on reaching village Roorki Kalan they  found their daughter  Jaswinder Kaur lying on a cot in the  courtyard   of   her   in­laws   house   with   injuries     on   her  person.   The   complainant     suspected   that   Raghbir   Singh,  father­in­law,   Baldev   Kaur,   mother­in­law,   Raj   Kaur,  Page 3 4 sister­in­law   and   Ranjit   Singh,   husband   of   his   daughter  murdered her. 3. On the basis of the statement, FIR No. 60  dated 30th 

Sangrur. 4. The Police Office Gurcharan Singh, ASI (PW­6) reached  the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex.PC) of the dead  body of Jaswinder Kaur.   He took the dead body to Civil  Hospital,   Barnala   for   post­mortem   examination   where   Dr.  Bhalinder   Singh(PW­2)   conducted   the   post­mortem  examination and by report (Ex.PA), he noticed as many as  six injuries on the dead body and opined that the cause of  death was due to asphyxia by throttling.   JUDGMENT 5. Gurcharan Singh, ASI(PW­6)  recorded the statement of  the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were  arrested and thereafter on completion of usual formalities  of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.  was filed against Raghbir Singh, Baldev Kaur and Ranjit  Singh for trial. In the absence of any evidence against  Raj   Kaur,   sister­in­law   of   the   deceased,   her   case   was  dropped. Page 4 5 6. After commitment of the case,  the Trial Court framed  charges   against   the   accused­appellant   for   commission   of  an   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   IPC   with   the 

7. The   prosecution   in   all,   examined   as   many   as     six  witnesses viz. Gurjant Singh, son of Pritam Singh as PW­1,  Dr. Bhalinder Singh as PW­2, Dev Raj, Draftsman as PW­4,  Bahadur   Singh,   Gurmail   Kaur,   father   and   mother   of     the  deceased as PW­4 and PW­5 respectively and Gurcharan Singh  as PW­6.  8. The accused denied the prosecution allegations.  Their  stand was that  the deceased, in a disturbed mental state  committed   suicide   by   hanging   herself.   On   behalf   of   the  JUDGMENT defence as many as five witnesses were examined.  Rajinder  Singh, constable as DW­1, Jagtar   Singh @ Avtar Singh as  DW­2,   Gurcharan   Singh   son   of   Harchand   as   DW­3,   Major  Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh as DW­4 and DSP Darshan Singh  as DW­5. 9. The Trial Court on conclusion of its trial, vide its  judgment   dated   26.11.1998   convicted   and   sentenced   the  accused Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law, Ranjit Singh, husband  Page 5 6 and Raghbir Singh, father­in­law for commiting an offence  under Section 304­B IPC.   Pursuant to an order passed in  criminal appeal No. 563­DB of 1998 filed by the accused in 

conviction   and   sentence   recorded   by   the   Trial   Court,  remanded back the case to the Trial Court with direction  to   proceed   with   the     trials   from   the   stage   of   Section  235Cr.P.C.   and   to   pass   order   afresh   in   accordance   with  law. Separate Criminal Appeal as well as revision petition  preferred by the State of Punjab and the complainant were  dismissed   by   the   same   order,     for   having   become  infructuous. 10. Pursuant   to   the   direction   of   the   High   Court,   the  JUDGMENT matter was again taken up by the Trial Court and during  the   re­hearing   of   the   case   before   the   Trial   Court,  accused Raghbir Singh was reported to have died on 19th  April,   2003   and   thereby   the   proceedings   were   abated  against him by order dated 25th March, 2006. 11. Thereafter,   on   appreciation   of   evidence   led   by   the  prosecution,   the   Trial   Court   held   both   Baldev   Kaur,  mother­in­law and Ranjit Singh, husband, guilty of offence  Page 6 7 under Section 304­B read with Section 34 and Section 498­A  IPC   and sentenced as noticed earlier.   On appeal, the  Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   by   impugned   judgment 

appellant­Rajnit Singh, husband of the deceased. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant  assailed   the   judgment   mainly   on   the   ground   that   in   the  FIR, no specific allegation about the demand of dowry or  harassment   or   cruelty   was   made   against   the   appellant,  Ranjit   Singh,   husband   of   the   deceased.   Even   during   the  trial,   the   demand   for   dowry   was   not   attributed   to   the  appellant.   Neither   the   Trial   Court   nor   the   High   Court  considered the defence evidence which appellant produced  JUDGMENT to   rebut   the   presumption.   Further,   learned   counsel  appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   submitted     that  Section 113­B of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the  present case.   Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law of the deceased  has   been   acquitted   considering   the   same   evidence   as   is  available in the case of Ranjit Singh,husband and the same  cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty.   It  was also alleged that the prosecution witnesses made major  Page 7 8 improvements in their evidence and Trial Court failed to  notice the defence evidence  which is more probable.  13.Gurjant Singh,PW­1 stated that the deceased Jaswinder 

30th   May,   1996   he   had   gone   to   visit     at   the   house   of  accused  Ranjit  Singh  where  all  family members including  Jaswinder   Kaur   were   present   there.   They   were   openly  threatening   Jaswinder   Kaur   since   she   had   not   brought  maruti car in dowry. They started abusing her followed by  Baldev  Kaur,  mother­in­law  who  took  her  into  a  room  by  holding her from her neck. Ranjit singh, husband caught  hold   of   her   legs   and   Raghbir   Singh   ,   father­in­law  exhorted them to kill her by pressing her neck and similar  JUDGMENT exhortation was also given by Raj Kaur, sister­in­law and  in his presence all of them strangulated her to death.       On   behalf   of   the   appellant   it   was   contended   that  Gurjant Singh(PW­1) is a maternal uncle of the deceased  and,   therefore,   his   statement   was   not   worthy   of   any  credence   as   he   would   not   allow   anybody   to   commit   such  crime in his presence. If he would have present there at  Page 8 9 that time, he must have intervened to save his niece or  raised an alarm which he admitted that he did not do so. 14. Bahadur Singh(PW­4) is the father of the deceased, 

at her ­in­law's house at Village Roorki Kalan. He along  with   others   visited   the   Village   where   he   found   his  daughter,  Jaswinder Kaur was lying dead on a cot then he  visited Police Station Tapa and lodged  an FIR.  He stated  that   on   demand   of  the  accused­Raghvir  Singh,   father­in­ law,   he   spent   Rs,   1,50,000/­   on   the   marriage   of   her  daughter.   She   was   given   14   tolas   of   gold,   scooter   and  Rs.55,000/­   in   cash.   In   addition   to   it   he  gave   cooler,  fridge,   dressing   table,   etc.   as   dowry   to   his   daughter.  JUDGMENT After 7­8days of marriage, Jaswinder Kaur came to Vilage  Kaleke to meet her parents and told them that the accused  were demanding more money as dowry and they also demanded  the amount of “Shaguns”.   On this, he gave Rs.8,000/­ as  an amount of “Shaguns” to his daughter   which she handed  over   to   her   husband­Ranjit   Singh   who   had   accompanied  Jaswinder Kaur to Kaleke.   After about 20 days, when he  brought her daughter in Kaleke, she informed that her­in­ Page 9 10 laws were demanding more dowry.  She further informed that  she was being   harassed by the accused. All the accused  including   Raj   Kaur,   sister­in­law,   were   demanding   dowry 

day   prior   to   the   date   of   occurrence   of   death   when   her  daughter narrated her woeful   stories and requested her  mother   to take her back as she was apprehending death  from the accused. She further informed that the accused  was demanding Maruti Car as dowry.     Gurmail Kaur(PW­5)  assured her daughter to she would tell the entire story to  her father and she came back in the evening of the same  day at Village Kaleke.  Bahadur Singh(PW­4) further stated  that   his   brother­in­law   (wife's   brother)   went   to   meet  JUDGMENT Jaswinder   Kaur   at   about   12/12.30   P.M.   on   the   day   of  occurrence   and   saw   that   all   the   accused   including   Raj  Kaur, sister­in­law   were scolding Jaswinder Kaur as she  had not brought Maruti Car for them. 15. Gurmail Kaur(PW­5), mother of the deceased, deposed  in   her   statement   that   her   daughter   was   married     to  accused­Ranjit Singh about 4 months before the date of the  occurrence of her death.   Sufficient dowry   was given in  Page 10 11 the marriage as per the demand of the accused. She had  gone   to   the   Village   Roorki   Kalan   to   meet   her   daughter  where she told her that she was being maltreated by her­

husband,   Raghbir   Singh,   father­in­law   and   Raj   Kaur,  sister­in­law of the deceased. She also told her mother  that they were threatening to kill her in case she did not  bring  Maruti   car.  She  requested   her   mother   to  take   her  back to Kaleke as she apprehended danger to her life at  the hands of the accused. She consoled her daughter and  assured   her   that   she   would   narrate   the   matter   to   her  father.   She came to the Village Kaleke and narrated the  entire matter to Bahadur Singh(PW­4).   Next day at about  JUDGMENT 3.30 P.M. they received a message that their daughter had  been killed by her­in­laws. 16. Dr. Bhalinder Singh(PW­2) conducted  the post mortem  examination   on   the     dead   body   of     Jaswinder   Kaur   @  Baljinder   Kaur   w/o   Ranjit   Singh   @   Makhan   Singh,   R/o  Roorke. The deceased was shown aged about 30 years.      The following injuries were found on the body of the  deceased: Page 11 12

4.       Contusion on right side of neck measuring  4x1½cm ½cm below injury no.  3. 5.               Contusion   on   left   side   3x2cm   in   the  middle. 6.      Upper eye­lid of left eye was swollen and  blushed.     On   dissection   of   neck   soft   tissue  ecchomised. He stated that Hyoid bone was fractured.  Right lung  and left lung were congested with punctiform hemorrhage.  Right   heart   contained   blood   and   left   heart   was   empty.  Pericardium was congested. Doctor opined that the cause of  JUDGMENT death was due to asphyxia by throttling.   17.In his cross­examination, he also stated that there is  a possibility that if a ligature like a Parna was used for  hanging  through ling it would cause ligature marks. 18.Dev Raj (PW­3) draftsman prepared a site plan for the  same.  19.Gurcharan Singh(PW­6), ASI, P.S. Kotwali, Barnala who  was   the     AIO,   recorded   the   FIR   and   stated   that   he  Page 12 13 inspected the spot and prepared the rough site of the spot  (Ex.PK) with correct marginal note. Cot on which the dead  body was lying was also taken into possession vide memo 

the statement of Bahadur Singh(PW­4) as (Ex.DA)and Gurmail  Kaur(PW­5)   as   (Ex.DB)   without   any   omission   or   addition.  He noted down the brief according to the facts contained  in the FIR.   It   was   given   in   the   evidence   of   PW­4   that   one   day  before   the   death   of   Jaswinder   Kaur,   Gurmail   Kaur(PW­5)  mother of the deceased went to meet her daughter where she  expressed   her   apprehension   of   threat   to   her   life   and  requested to take her alongwith her (Gurmail Kaur PW­5).  JUDGMENT She also conveyed that there was a demand of Maruti Car  from the accused for which Gurmel Kaur (PW­5) assured her  daughter that she would bring the matter to the notice of  Bahadur   Singh(PW­4),   father   of   the   deceased.   The  statements of PW­4 and PW­3(parents of the deceased) were  duly corroborated with respect to the demand of dowry and  harassment immediately prior to the date of occurrence and  the event of her visit a day prior to her death.   They  Page 13 14 were   subjected   to   lengthy   cross   examination.   Apart   from  minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the  case,   their   statements   are   corroborated   on   material 

the   series   of   incidents   forming   part   of   the   same  transaction   which   culminated   in   the   death   of   Jaswinder  Kaur. The deceased was disrespected by her­in­laws right  from the very beginning and from time to time was being  harassed   on   demand   of   dowry.   The   sequence   of   events,  discussed above, suggested that cruelty and harassment on  account of such demands were present till her death.  20. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   laid   much   stress  that there is no independent eye witness to corroborate  JUDGMENT the statements of PW­4 and PW­5 who are closely related to  the deceased.  The contention is again meritless.  It is,  but   natural,   that   instance   of     cruelty,   harassment   of  demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal  knowledge of  near relations  and they would be the best  persons to depose about the same.  Therefore, the evidence  of physical and mental torture of the deceased from the  Page 14 15 accused   is   not   to   be   discarded   simply   on   the   score   of  independent corroboration.   21. One   of   the   stand   taken   by   the   appellant   that   no 

of PW­4 and PW­5 who are material witnesses.   About the  harassment meted to a girl normally in Indian family, the  matter is first reported to the parents and not to the  Panchanayat.     It   is   not   necessary   that   such   matter   is  required to be reported to the Panchayat.  22. From the statements of Dr.Bhalinder Singh(PW­2), it is  apparent that the death of Jaswinder Kaur   was caused by  bodily   injury   which   is   otherwise   than   under   the   normal  circumstances. The death took place within few months of  JUDGMENT the   date   of   marriage   i.e.     much   before   seven   years   of  marriage. It is shown that soon before her death she was  subjected   to   cruelty   and   harassment   by   her   husband   in  connection   with   the   demand   of   dowry.     Therefore,   the  present case squarely falls within the meaning of dowry  death   for   the   purpose   to   attract   Section   304­B   IPC.  Section 113­B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the  presumption of “dowry death” and proclaims that when the  Page 15 16 question is whether a person has committed a dowry death  of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death,  such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or 

death”. It can, therefore, be understood that irrespective  of the fact whether the accused  had any direct connection  with   the   death   or   not,   he   shall   be   presumed   to   have  committed   the   “dowry   death”   provided   the   other  requirements mentioned above are satisfied.  23. In   the   present   case,   we   have   noticed   that   the  prosecution   has   successfully   proved   the   ingredients  necessary to attract the Provision of Section 304B IPC.  Such ingredients   having been proved,   Section 113­B of  JUDGMENT the Indian  Evidence  Act automatically comes into play.   In the facts and circumstances, the death of Jaswinder  Kaur   had   taken   place   just   within   four   months   of   her  marriage. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on  the  evidence of PW­4 and PW­5, parents of the  deceased. They  have   made   statements   that   even   at   the   time   of   marriage  they spent Rs,1,50,000 and even after 7­8 days of marriage  when   Jaswinder   Kaur   came   to   their   parents   house   and  Page 16 17 conveyed   that   the   accused   were   demanding   dowry   as   the  amount of “shagun” for which Rs.8,000/­ was given her to  hand­over   to   her   husband   who   accompanied   her.     Their 

spent  by PW­4 for purchase of certain articles, which his  daughter took  to her matrimonial home in a tractor. Just  a day before the death, she informed her mother Gurmail  Kaur(PW­5)   that   the   accused   were   torturing   her   and  demanding Maruti Car. 24. The   statement   of   the   accused   corroborates   the  materials   particularly   in   relation   to   harassment   and  demand of dowry and death by torture. The accused being  the husband and direct beneficiary of the said demand of  JUDGMENT Maruti   Car,   we   find   no   reason   to   differ   with   the  conclusion of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate  Court that the appellant is guilty   of the offence under  Section 304B IPC. 25. At the end of the argument, learned counsel for   the  appellant made an alternative submission and requested  to  take a lenient view in view of the fact that after the  death of Jaswinder Kaur (first wife),   the appellant got  Page 17 18 married second time and from his second wife he has three  children   out   of   which   one   son   is   handicapped   and   his  mother   is   also   paralysed.   Taking   into   consideration   the 

under   Section   304B   IPC     to   seven   years   alongwith   the  sentence of two   years   imposed under Section 498­A IPC  and fine of Rs.2,000/­ as imposed by the Trial Court and  affirmed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   with  direction   that   both   sentences     shall   run   concurrently.  Bail   bonds   of   the   appellant   are   cancelled   and   he   is  directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out  the remainder of the sentence.  JUDGMENT ……………………………........………………..J.                        (A.K.PATNAIK) ………........……………………………………….J.                       (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, JULY 3, 2013. Page 18