SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against judgment dated 12.1.1999 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he convicted appellants Surjit Singh, Satwant Kaur and Gurpartap Singh under Section 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. The period of detention already undergone by them during the trial, was ordered to be set off from the substantive period of sentence.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Gurdip Singh, father of deceased Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple (PW 2) given to Gurmail Singh, Assistant Sub -Inspector (PW 8) at Saggo Chowk, Ludhiana. His statement is Exhibit PF. He stated before Gurmail Singh, Assistant Sub -Inspector (PW 8) that he had three sons and one daughter. He is doing the business of tailor -master in Ghumar Mandi. His two elder sons Balwinder Singh and Narinder Singh are married. His daughter Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple (deceased; was married on 2.12.1995 with appellant Gurpartap Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of G.T.V. Senior Secondary School, Street No. 2, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana. He had given dowry according to his capacity. After about 20 days of the marriage of his daughter, she (Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple) came to the house of Gurdip Singh (PW 2) and told him that her father -in -law Surjit Singh and her mother -in -law Sukhwant Kaur are harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Appellant Gurpartap Singh was also toeing the line of his parents as he was under their influence. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) explained to his daughter Jatinderjit Kaur that he had given them (her in -laws) enough dowry and then sent her back to her in -laws' house. After about two months of the marriage, Gurdip Singh along with son Narinder Singh went to the house of appellant Surjit Singh. At that time, appellants Surjit Singh, Satwant Kaur and son Gurpartap Singh were present in the house. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) said that he could not give them more dowry as he did not have the capacity to do so and not to harass his daughter. Appellants Surjit Singh and Sukhwant Kaur told Gurdip Singh (PW 2) to give Rs. 50,000/ - to their son Gurpartap Singh, so that he could enhance his business. They would only rehabilitate his daughter if Rs. 50,000/ - was given to them. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) showed his inability and he along with his son Narinder Singh came back. After about one month, his daughter Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple again came to the house of her father and complained that her father -in -law, mother -in -law and husband were still harassing her. Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple stayed for about one week with her father and went back to her in -laws' house. On 25.5.1996 in the morning, Jatinderjit Kaur along with her husband Gurpartap Singh came to the house of Gurdip Singh. Gurpartap Singh went away, after some time, leaving Jatinderjit Kaur in the house of her father. He came 4 -5 times during the day stating that money should be arranged. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) gave no reply. Appellant Gurpartap Singh then came to the house of Gurdip Singh at 8.00 p.m. After taking dinner, Jatinderjit Kaur @ Dimple and Gurpartap Singh went to the roof of the house. Gurdip Singh's wife was also present on the roof of the house. At about 12 O'clock in the night, appellant Gurpartap Singh told Jatinderjit Kaur to prepare tea for him. Jatinderjit Kaur came down to the kitchen. She brought three cups of tea to the roof of the house. One cup was handed over to Gurpartap Singh, another cup was handed over to her mother Sukhwinder Kaur and the third cup was retained by Jatinderjit Kaur herself. After taking tea, Jatinderjit Kaur and Gurpartap Singh came down to sleep. After some time, appellant Gurpartap Singh told Narinder Singh, who was sleeping in the adjoining room, that something had happened to Dimple. Narinder Singh then came to Gurdip Singh (P.W. 2) and told him, that something has happened to Dimple. They went to see Dimple and saw that she was throbbing on the bed and froth was coming out from her mouth. She was immediately taken by him and Narinder Singh to Daya Nand Medical College Hospital, Ludhiana, in a car. On examining her, the doctor declared her dead. It has been further stated in the First Information Report, Exhibit PF/2 that appellant Gurpartap Singh bad given some poisonous substance to Dimple in the cup of tea. She had died due to this. Appellants Surjit Singh, Sukhwant Kaur and Gurpartap Singh were harassing Jatinderjit Kaur that she had brought less dowry.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has stated that appellants Surjit Singh and Satwant Kaur were residing separately in B -11 -1145, Kashmir Gali, Deepak Cinema Chowk, Ludhiana, while appellant Gurpartap Singh had purchased a house in Shimla Puri, Gali No. 2, Ludhiana, which he purchased from Ved Ram. Gurdip Singh (PW 2) has stated in his cross -examination that Dev Raj had executed an agreement to sell his house to accused Gurpartap Singh before the occurrence had taken place.