SHORT NOTE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Inderjit Singh, J.
Kartar Singh and others —Appellants
versus
State of Punjab —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.S-283-SB of 2003
Decided on 4.10.2013

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 304B/34—Dowry death—Conviction of husband and his parents—Appeal—Deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substances in matrimonial home —Deceased was married to appellant about 3-1/4 years ago from date of occurrence and had given birth to a female child some time before—No cogent evidence to support defence version that she had desired to give birth to a male child and committed suicide as female child was born—Evidence of father of deceased showed that there was demand of Rs.10,000 by husband and deceased was being maltreated on account of non-fulfillment of said demand—No cogent explanation from accused why deceased remained at her parental house for one year—Accused husband had gone to father of deceased two days before occurrence to demand Rs.10,000—Presumption under Section113B of Evidence Act against appellant husband was not rebutted by any material—Conviction of appellant husband was liable to be upheld—Allegations against other appellants were vague and general—Their conviction was liable to be set aside.

       Held: From the evidence on record, I find that Paramjit Kaur (deceased) was married with Harbhajan Singh about 3¼ years ago from the date of occurrence. About five months prior to the occurrence, she gave birth to a female child. There is no cogent evidence on record to support the defence version that she committed suicide as she desired to give birth to a male child instead of female child except the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is nothing to corroborate this defence version. Therefore, defence version of the accused is not proved by bringing cogent evidence. Otherwise also, female child was born about five months prior to the occurrence then what was the reason for her to commit suicide on that day.

       The statement of complainant Karnail Singh (PW1).father of deceased Paramjit Kaur, shows that there was demand of Rs.10,000 from the side of husband Harbhajan Singh and Paramjit Kaur was maltreated and harassed in her matrimonial house due to non-fulfillment of said demand. She remained at her parental house for one year as per statement of PW1 Karnail Singh. There is no cogent explanation from the accused side as to why Paramjit Kaur (deceased) remained at her parental house for one year. PW1 Karnail Singh has deposed consistently as per prosecution version.

       He has stated that two days earlier to the occurrence, accused Harbhajan Singh came to him and demanded a sum of Rs.l0,000 from him.

       There is no material contradictions or material improvements in the statement of PW1 Karnail Singh.

       There is also nothing in his cross-examination which may make his statement unreliable.

       From the evidence on record, I find that PW1 Karnail Singh is truthful, trustworthy and reliable witness and the Court can safely place reliance on his statement.

       His statement is duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and investigation of the case.

       Otherwise also, there is nothing on the record to show as to why PW1 Karnail Singh would depose falsely against accused Harbhajan Singh, husband of Paramjit Kaur (deceased).The version given by DW1 Hari Singh and DW 2 Avtar Singh that in Bauria caste, no dowry is exchanged also extends no benefit to the accused in the present case.

       The demand was of Rs.10,000, in cash and these DWs have not filed any representation or passed any resolution in Gram Panchayat or made any complaint regarding false implication of the accused.

       Both these DWs belong to the village of accused Harbhajan Singh and, therefore, they seem to be procured witnesses.

       The prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence against appellant Harbhajan Singh, husband of Paramjit Kaur (deceased).He is to rebut the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act by producing the evidence but he has not led any evidence to rebut the same.

       Paramjit Kaur died within seven years of marriage and the occurrence took place in her matrimonial house.

       The fact that two days prior to the occurrence also demand of dowry was raised by accused Harbhajan Singh supports that maltreatment and harassment on the ground of demand of dowry had been given soon before the occurrence.

       Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal qua appellant Harbhajan Singh.

       As regarding appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur, I find that there are vague and general allegations against them regarding maltreatment and harassment. No specific instance of maltreatment or harassment and how it was given by appellants Tej Kaur and Kartar Singh to Paramjit Kaur (deceased) has not been given either in the FIR or in the statement of complainant Karnail Singh in the Court.

       PW3 Gurbachan Singh, Draftsman, who prepared scaled site plan Ex. PD, has shown two courtyard in the same house, one belonging to Paramjit Kaur (deceased) wife of accused Harbhajan Singh and other to Tej Kaur and her two sons. The statement of PW3 Gurbachan Singh creates doubt in the prosecution version regarding the fact whether Tej Kaur and Kartar Singh were residing with accused Harbhajan Singh or not.

       Further, DWs have also deposed that parents of Harbhajan Singh were residing separately from Harbhajan Singh.

       This is further supported from the fact that during investigation accused Tej Kaur was found innocent and was kept in column No.2.

       As there are only vague and general allegations without any specific particulars or specific instances regarding harassment or demand of dowry against appellants Tej Kaur and Kartar Singh and in view of the fact that demand ofRs.10,000/- was made by accused Harbhajan Singh prior to the occurrence and in view of the fact that reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version whether accused Tej Kaur and Kartar Singh were residing jointly or separately from Harbhajan Singh, a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version regarding the involvement of appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur and the benefit is to go to them.

       Hence, giving benefit of doubt to appellants Kartar Singh and Tej Kaur, they are acquitted of the charges, as framed against them.