JAGDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against their conviction under Section 304-B/498-A of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 4.7.1998 and order dated 4.7.1998 imposing sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.03.1997, a case was registered on the statement of Gurcharan Singh complainant to the effect that his daughter, namely, Simarjit Kaur was married with appellant No.1 Jagdev Singh 13 months prior to her death and she was blessed with a daughter aged about three months at the time of occurrence. It is stated in the complaint that though sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but despite that the appellants-accused were not satisfied with the same and they started harassing and maltreating the deceased for bringing more dowry. Simarjit Kaur usually told her parents that she was not happy in her matrimonial home. The appellants-accused demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash from him but he (complainant) requested the appellants that he was a poor person and was not in a position to fulfill their demand but the appellants were adamant about the same. On 05.03.1997, Nachhatar Singh, his nephew informed the complainant about the burning of his daughter Simarjit Kaur and her minor daughter Gurpreet Kaur and about their admission in Civil Hospital, Bathinda. Police took the investigation in its hand and SI Harpal Singh visited the spot and got the place of occurrence photographed and also recorded his statement. Thereafter, Simarjit Kaur and her daughter Gurpreet Kaur succumbed to their injuries in the hospital. On completion of necessary investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial of the appellants. The appellants were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) PROSECUTION had further examined Gurcharan Singh complainant as PW2 who had stated that his daughter Simarjit Kaur was married to appellant Jagdev Singh 13 months ago prior to the occurrence in question and at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given but inspite of that the appellants were not satisfied and they all started demanding more dowry including Rs. 20,000/- in cash but he failed to fulfill their demand. He had further stated that whenever her daughter visited them she always complained about the harassment and maltreatment given to her by the appellants for bringing insufficient dowry. He further stated that 6-7 days prior to the occurrence in question, he along with his father-in-law Gurbachan Singh and nephew Nachattar Singh visited Simarjit Kaur and she told them that she is being harassed and maltreated by the accusedappellants for not fulfilling their demand of Rs. 20,000/-. He further stated that Simarjit Kaur told him that if the demand of Rs. 20,000/- was not fulfilled, then he would only see her dead body. Nachhatar Singh had also corroborated the statement of PW2 Gurcharan Singh (complainant). PW4 Constable Joginder Singh was a formal witness who had delivered the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. PW5 Sub Inspector Harpal Singh was the Investigating Officer and he had deposed about the investigation conducted by him. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded wherein they denied all the allegations of the prosecution and took the plea of alibi and stated that they were not present at the time of occurrence in question at the place of crime. They all denied the allegation of the prosecution that any demand of dowry was made. They all stated in their statements that the marriage was very simple one and no dowry was given in the marriage and deceased Simarjit Kaur was never harassed for bringing any dowry. They all took a specific plea in their defence that one child, namely, Jagsir Singh son of Bakhtaur Singh, aged 6 years died suddenly in their neighbourhood and due to the visiting of the relatives of Bakhtaur Singh in condolence, deceased Simarjit Kaur felt depression and under depression she had committed suicide and not on account of the dowry demanded by them. Appellant Jagdev Singh specifically stated that on the day of incident, he had left the house for work at Dabwali at about 8.00 A.M. and about the incident in question he had received the message in the evening. Similar plea was taken by the appellants, namely, Sohan Singh and Balbir Kaur.