JASPAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Jaspal Singh son of Gurdial Singh against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. On the former charge, the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for four years. On the latter charge, he was ordered to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Two co -accused of the Appellant, namely his brother Sukhbir Singh and mother Tejinder Kaur were, however, acquitted.

(2.) THE deceased Surinder Kaur was the wife of Jaspal Singh Appellant. The case rests on circumstantial evidence and the various links which constitute the chain of circumstance are these. The deceased was married to the Appellant about three years prior to the occurrence. After the marriage the Appellant had been making a grievance against the deceased for having brought insufficient dowry in their marriage. He was maltreating the deceased and was coercing her to bring a motor cycle for his use. from her parents. About a week before her death, the deceased visited her parents and told them about the ill -treatment by her husband. Rajinder Singh Sarpanch of Village Santokhpura went to the house of the Appellant and enquired from him as to why he had been maltreating the deceased on account of her inability to get a motor cycle for him from her poor father. The Appellant, however, did not admit his fault. Rajinder Singh left the house advising the Appellant to improve his behavior towards the deceased failing which he would collect the Panchayats of both the villages for considering the matter. The Appellant retorted that the Panchayats could not interfere in his personal affairs and that he would get rid of his wife by taking action through the Court. It is alleged that after Rajinder Singh left the place the Appellant strangulated Surinder Kaur to death and set her body on fire in a pyre made of cow -dung cakes and firewood in a room At about 2 or 3 p. m. on the same day, Jagpal Singh and Harpal Singh came to enquire about Surinder Kaur and found her lying dead inhalf -burnt condition. It transpires that the Appellant also made an extra -judicial confession regarding his guilt On the basis of this material, the Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced as already noticed.

(3.) IN so far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution has placed on the record sufficient material in the shape of testimony of various witnesses to show that the Appellant was not happy with the dowry received by him and had made grievance about the same. On that score, he was also maltreating the deceased Amar Kaur (P. W 5) is the aunt of the deceased. According to her, five or six days before her death, she had gone to see the deceased at Dhindsa where she found the Appellant present along with the deceased. The Appellant addressed the witness as Masi Ji and complained to her that she had played a fraud on him and his family He made a particular reference to the short stature of the deceased who was not presentable in their house. He also made a grievance that in view of no dowry having been given, his family could not show their faces in the village. The Appellant further threatened that he would get rid of the deceased. The witness, however, tried to soften down the Appellant by telling him that it was all pre -ordained and nothing could be done by her. The mere fact that the witness is the aunt of the deceased, would not make her testimony in any way unreliable. She has stood well the test of lengthy cross -examination. Apart from the above witness, there is the statement of Rijinder Singh (P.W. 7) who is a Member Panchayat of Village Suntokhpura The witness knew the father of the deceased and about this marriage of the deceased with the Appellant. According to him about a week prior to the death, the deceased bad come to their village and the witness had been called at the house of Jagpal Singh father of the deceased. In the presence of everybody the deceased told that her husband i. e., the Appellant, his younger brother Sukhbir Singh and their mother Tejinder Kaur had been torturing her for having brought insufficient dowry. She also mentioned about the demand of the Appellant for a motor cycle at the cost of her parents, and that she had been maltreated by the Appellant. Jagpal Singh father of the deceased requested that a Panchayat should be constituted which should go to the house of the Appellant to advise him not to maltreat the deceased. Nirbhai Singh Sarpanch who was also present at that time, however, suggested that as he was busy for about five or seven days, he would join the Panchayat thereafter. The deceased then returned to the house of the Appellant. On March 9, 1981, the witness went to see bis daughter in another village and on way back he came to Village Dandrala in order to meet the deceased. He reached the village at about 9 or 10 a. m. where he found the Appellant and the deceased present in their house. On enquiry from the Appellant as to why he had been maltreating the deceased if she was unable to arrange for a motor cycle from her parents, the Appellant denied having made this demand the deceased then burst out weeping and stated that every day the Appellant had been torturing her for bringing a motor cycle. The witness then told the Appellant that it was not proper for him to misbehave and that a Panchayat of respectable of both the villages would come and meet him. To this the Appellant retorted that he would obtain a decree of divorce from the Court. When the witness returned to his village, Jagpal Singh father of the deceased met and told him that he had gone to see his daughter and had found her dead body in half -burnt condition in kacho room of the house of the Appellant. He further informed that he had left Harpal Singh at the house of her in -laws as he suspected foul play. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police. Rajinder Singh P.W. was cross -examined in respect of his above testimony which remained untainted.