High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside conviction under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death and sentenced appellants under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, concluding appellants tried to save the victim.
Conviction under Section 304-B IPC set aside; conviction under Section 306 IPC upheld; sentence reduced.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001 Date of Decision: December 15, 2010
Gurbhajan Singh and others
........Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ........Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present : None for the appellants.
Mr. J.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
SABINA, J.
The appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') vide judgment dated 23.2.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Vide order of the even date, they were Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each . Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.
Prosecution case, as reproduced in paras 1 and 2 of the impugned judgment, reads as under:-
“Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that Smt. Gurmit Kaur deceased daughter of PW Kartar Singh was married with the accused Gurbhajan Singh son of Pritam Chand accused, caste Ad-dharmi, resident of village Jalala Police Station Mukerian on 9th February, 1994. At the time of the marriage, PW
Kartar Singh gave dowry articles to the accused as pr his capacity. Out of the wedlock of Gurmit Kaur with Gurbhajan
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001
2
Singh, one male child was born who was of the age of about one year and six months at the time of the occurrence. Soon after the marriage, accused Gurbhajan Singh husband of Gurmit Kaur, Simro Devi mother-in-law and Pritam Chand father-n-law started demanding dowry and they were maltreating Gurmit Kaur. A panchayat was convened and a compromise was effected and PW Kartar Singh has sent his daughter to the house of her in-laws. On 6.9.1997 PW Kartar Singh went to village Jalala Police Station Mukerian to meet his daughter. During night time, Gurmit Kaur told her father Kartar Singh that the accused were asking her to bring Rs.5000/- from her parents. PW Kartar Singh is alleged to have advised the accused that he is a poor person and they should not maltreat his daughter and even then he would arrange an amount of Rs.5000/- and send the same to the accused. On 8.9.1997 but PW Kartar Singh could not arrange for the amount of Rs. 5000/-. On 9.9.1997 at about 11.00 A.M. PW Kartar Singh has received a telephonic message from his brother Hazara Ram that Gurmit Kaur was set on fire by all the accused after sprinkling kerosene oil and she is lying admitted in Civil Hospital, Mukerian. On this, PW Kartar Singh alsongiwth Purna Devi Sarpanch of his village went to Mukerian and seen that his daughter Gurmit Kaur was lying unconscious in a burnt condition. The accused have set on fire Gurmit Kaur for not bringing sufficient dowry. On the basis of the statement made by PW Kartar Singh at about 3.00 PM on 9.9.1997, the present case FIR was registered against the accused.
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001
3
None has appeared on behalf of the appellants. On the last date also none had appeared on behalf of the appellants.
" 304-B Dowry death .- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be les than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life]”
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under :-
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001
4
“Presumption as to dowry death: When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
This is yet another case of dowry death. In order to admit the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC,the prosecution has to prove the following facts:-
“ 1. that the death of the woman took place due to burns or the bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
I have gone through the record of the case carefully with the able assistance of the learned State counsel.
The present case relates to a case of dowry death. PW 5 Kartar Singh, father of the deceased (Gurmit Kaur) deposed that he had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter with the appellant Gurbhajan Singh. His daughter gave birth to a child who was aged about
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001
5
1 ½ years at the time of occurrence. All the appellants were residing together. After one week of the marriage appellants started demanding more dowry and cash from the deceased. On 3-4 occasions Panchayats were convened and the deceased used to be sent to her in-laws house with the intervention of the Panchayats. On 6.9.1997 he had gone to the matrimonial home of his daughter. His daughter started weeping and told him that the appellants Pritam Chand and Gurbhajan Singh were demanding ` 5,000 from her. He told all the accused that he would arrange for the money and would send the same on 8.9.1997. On 9.9.1997 at about 11 A.M. Hazara Ram (his brother) informed him on telephone that his daughter had been burnt to death by the appellants by pouring kerosine oil on her. They rushed to the Civil Hospital, Mukeria where his daughter was admitted for treatment. At that time his daughter was lying unconscious. He further deposed that on 9.9.1997 at about 8.00 A.M. he had gone to the house of Pritam Chand where he saw that Pritam Chand was holding a can of kerosine oil and Gurbhajan Singh had held Gurmit Kaur from her arms and legs and Simro Devi was holding a match box. They all set Gurmit Kaur on fire.
PW 6 Hazara Ram has corroborated the statement of PW 5. He further deposed that he had raised alarm but none came at the spot. He returned back and sent a message to Kartar Singh on telephone at about 11.00 A.M.
PW 1 Dr. R.K. Bagga deposed that on 10.9.1997 at about 3.00 P.M. he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Gurmit Kaur. In his opinion the cause of death due to burn injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The burn
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001
6
injuries were ante mortem in nature.
PW 2 Dr. Malkiat Singh deposed that on 9.9.1997 Gurmit Kaur
and Gurbhajan Singh were admitted in the hospital due to burn injuries. He sent information in this regard and also for recording of the statement of Gurmit Kaur. He had also sent information regarding admission of Pritam Chand in the hospital due to burn injuries and for recording of his statement.
The prosecution case so far as it relates to offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, was not believable by the trial Court. The trial Court rightly held that offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out in this case. In this regard the conduct of PW 6 is highly unnatural. It is not believable that PW 6 who is the brother of Kartar Singh PW (father of the deceased) would not have raised hue and cry after watching the appellants setting his niece on fire. Had PW 6 been actually present at the spot, he would have tried to save his niece or at least he would have collected persons from the neighbourhood to help him to save the deceased. PW 6 could have immediately rushed to the police station to seek their intervention. Rather after seeing such a heinous crime, being committed by the appellants, the said witness conveniently went home and just informed his brother on telephone. In normal circumstances the said witness would have first of all tried to save the victim and would have immediately informed the police and would have then rushed to the house of his brother to inform him of the tragic incident. In these circumstances the learned trial Court rightly held that offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out in this case.
The next question that requires consideration as to whether offence under Section 304 B is made out in this case or not. From the
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001
7
statements of the witnesses it transpires that the prosecution case is that the deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. PW 6 Hazara Ram had stated that all the appellants had set deceased Gurmit Kaur on fire by pouring kerosine oil on her. The statements of prosecution witnesses, however, do not inspire confidence so far as offence under Section 304-B IPC is made out. So far as PW 5 Kartar Singh is concerned, he had deposed that demand of ` 5,000 was being made from his daughter by Pritam Chand and Gurbhajan Singh. However, it has come on record that both Pritam Chand and Gurbhajan Singh had suffered burn injuries. Apparently, the said appellants had suffered burn injuries while they were trying to save the deceased. Ex. DA and Ex. DB gives history qua the treatment of appellants Pritam Chand and Gurbhajan Singh and their perusal reveals that both the appellants were admitted with burn injuries in the hospital on 9.9.1997 alongwith deceased and were discharged on 19.9.1997. Thus, both the said appellants remained under treatment for 10 days qua the burn injuries suffered by them. Had the appellants set deceased on fire, they would have not made an effort to save her. Rather both the appellants Pritam Chand and Gurbhajan Singh made effort to save the deceased this leads to the inference that it is not a case of dowry death. It appears to be the case of abatement of suicide.
Section 306 IPC reads as under :-
“Abetment of suicide:- If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Let us examine the facts of the present case as to whether a case
Crl. Appeal No. 230-SB of 2001
8
under Section 306 IPC is made out in this case or not.
From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that deceased was being harassed on some account in her matrimonial home and she proceeded to end her life by setting herself on fire. In normal circumstances, if the bride is being treated well in her matrimonial home by her in-laws she would not end her life and leave behind her minor child. It appears that due to harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellants, she proceeded to commit suicide. There is nothing on record to suggest otherwise. However, it cannot be said in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. Had the appellants been harassing the deceased qua demand of dowry, they would have left her to succumb to her injuries but appellants Pritam Chand and Gurbhajan Singh made effort to save the deceased and as a result of which they also suffered burn injuries. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 304 B IPC is set aside. The appellants are, however, guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and are convicted thereunder.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants to already undergone by them.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
December 15, 2010 Anand
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the facts establish a dowry death under Section 304-B IPC or abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Whether the appellants' attempts to save the deceased negate a claim of murder or dowry death.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurbhajan Singh
Others
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
