Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 1388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL, AMARJOT BHATTI, JJ.
Jagsir Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D No. 216 of 2009, CRR No. 2816 of 2008
Decided On : 05-07-2024
For the Appellants : Mohit Garg, R.V.S. Chugh
For the Respondent: Deepak Grewal
Husband's conviction for dowry death upheld due to established demand for dowry and harassment, meeting necessary legal standards for presumption under Sections 304-B, IPC and 113-B, Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-B and 498-A - Death of married woman within five months of marriage - Conviction of husband for dowry death - Key evidence includes demand for dowry and maltreatment by in-laws. (Paras 1, 9, 18)
(B) Presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requires prosecution to establish necessary ingredients of the offence; rebuttal by accused is essential. (Paras 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
Complainant's daughter married Jagsir Singh was pressurized for dowry and faced maltreatment, resulting in her unnatural death soon after marriage. The complainant alleged murder due to dowry-related harassment.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved the case of dowry death and maltreatment, leading to conviction for life imprisonment under Section 304-B, and three years for Section 498-A, though fine under 304-B was adjusted.
Issues: Core issues included proving dowry death linked with maltreatment within the matrimonial home and rebutted presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction upheld as the appellant failed to provide an explanation for the victim's death and prosecution's evidence established guilt for dowry-related offence.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction of Jagsir Singh upheld, but sentence modified to life imprisonment only.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint hearing of related cases (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background leading to fir (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on conviction and acquittal (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. defense arguments regarding dowry demand (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. post-mortem findings and implications (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. court's decision on conviction and acquittal (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. dismissal of both appeal and revision (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. Both the cases i.e. CRA-D No. 216-DB of 2009 and CRR No.2816 of 2008 arising out of common judgment of conviction, order of sentence qua appellant Jagsir Singh and acquittal of Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad are taken up together with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and revisionist.
2. Appellant/convict, Jagsir Singh has filed appeal against judgment of conviction dated 09.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 10.09.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in Sessions Case bearing No. 119 of 2005 dated 26.09.2005, titled as State Vs. Jagsir Singh and Others vide which appellant Jagsir Singh is sentenced as under :-
| Offence U/s | Sentence (Rigorous Imprisonment) | Fine | In default of fine (Rigorous Imprisonment ) |
| 304-B | Life imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | 3 -1/2 years |
| 498-A | Three years | Rs.5,000/- | Nine months |
Mahender Singh filed criminal revision against acquittal in favour of Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur respondents No. 2 and 3 vide abovesaid judgment dated 09.09.2008.
3. Brief facts as per prosecution case are that on 06.07.2005 SI Kanwar Singh along with the police party was present on Kundel Barrier in connection with routine checking. Mahender Singh complainant came and got his statement recorded. He stated that he is resident of village Jaglan and an agriculturist by profession. He was blessed with three children i.e. two sons and a daughter. His daughter Sajandeep Kaur aged about 19 years was married to Jagsir Singh s/o Baldev Singh resident of Udaipur according to Hindu rites and he had given dowry articles beyond his means. Sajandeep Kaur was sent to her matrimonial home for leading a happy married life. However, when his daughter returned to parental house she disclosed to him, his wife and his son that Balwinder Kaur-mother-in-law, Baldev Singh-father- in-law and Jagsir Singh-husband were pressurizing her to bring a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car and they openly proclaimed that she would be rehabilitated only when their demand was satisfied. He persuaded his daughter and told her that he would make her in-laws understand. He along with Sukhpal Singh and Nachhatar Singh visited house of accused in village Udaipur and requested them not to harass his daughter. They openly raised demand of Rs.2 lakhs for purchasing a car. The complainant expressed his inability to satisfy this demand as he was a poor person. They threatened not to rehabilitate his daughter. Thereafter, they returned to their village Jaglan. He again persuaded Jagsir Singh and others and ultimately, they took his daughter back to matrimonial home. On 06.07.2005, complainant received telephonic call from Baldev Singh-father-in-law that his daughter Sajandeep Kaur had expired. On receiving this information, he along with many other persons of his village came to Udaipur and saw dead body of his daughter. The complainant alleged that Jagsir Singh had murdered his daughter by strangulating her. She was maltreated in the matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry. With these allegations present FIR was registered under Section 498-A, 304-B/34 IPC. Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of formal FIR.
4. Investigation of this case was initiated. Niab Tehsildar Malor Singh was requested to join the investigation. Photographer Naresh Kumar of Kapoor Photo Studio, Jakhal was called who took photographs of deceased victim from different angles in the presence of Niab Tehsildar and the Investigating Officer. Inquest proceedings we
