GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURNAM Singh appellant herein has called in question order of conviction and sentence dated 25th of Feb. 1997 passed by Shri M. S. Garg, Sessions Judge, Ambala vide which he has been held guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life as also under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or in default thereof to further undergo R. I. for three months. He faced trial on two counts as referred to above along with his mother Krishna who was 70 years of age and did not survive the length of trial.

(2.) DEATH of Paramjit Kaur alias Sunita was reported by her brother Parveen kumar on 8-9-1992 at 9. 15 p. m. His statement was recorded by ASI Sagar Chand PW 11. Special report with regard to incident reached Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala at 5. 15 a. m. on 9-9-1992, Parveen Kumar while unfolding the prosecution version stated that he was resident of Karashi Mohalla, Kalka. His father died about eight years age. He had four sisters and one brother. His eldest sister Paramjit kaur alias Sunita aged 25/26 years was married with Gurnam Singh about two years ago according to Hindu rites. They had given dowry in her marriage according to their capacity. a daughter was born to her sister about 11 months age. On that occasion also they had given her several articles including clothes and ornaments according to their prevalent custom but his brother-in-law i. e. appellant and his mother Krishna Devi considering these articles to be inadequate, as per their expectations had passed indecent remarks against him and his sister Parmjit Kaur, Ashok Kumar had, however, pacified them and had assured them to make the deficiency good at proper time. Thereafter, when their demand for more articles could not be fulfilled, they started maltreating his sister Paramjit Kaur. His sister used to tell them about their misdeeds as and when she happened to meet them. He however, while apprising of his poverty to her sister used to tell her to bear all this without protest. His sister Paramjit Kaur had come on the occasion of Rakhi about 25/26 days back to their house at Kalka and told them about the maltreatment being meted out to her by her in-laws. At this he decided not to send Paramjit Kaur to her in-laws. About ten days back his brother-in-law Gurnam Singh had come to Kalka to take his sister Paramjit Kaur along but they refused to send her with him. However, they sent Paramjit Kaur with the appellant on the assurance given by one Prabhu Dayal Sharma of Kalka. About one week back, Krishna Devi had remarked that they would teach them a lesson for this insult. On the day when he lodged the F. I. R. he came to know that his sister Paramjit Kaur had died in PGI Chandigarh due to burn injuries. He was sure that Gurnam Singh and Krishna Devi out of their greed for money and other articles had forced his sister Paramjit Kaur to set herself on fire.

(3.) SHE must have told her mother and brother about maltreatment meted out to her by the accused. The appellant alone had come to take Sunita. He had heard a dispute between Gurnam Singh and Sunita at Kalka at her parents house. He heard from Sunita that she was being maltreated by the appellant and his mother and she also told that she did not want to go with the appellant. Mother and brother of the deceased told the accused that he was wandering without any work and that he should do some job. He intervened in the matter. The appellant had told him that he wanted to run a taxi. However, no amount as such was fixed for the purpose of taxi. He, however, persuaded Sunita to go with the appellant. In cross-examination he stated that he did not remember the date of Rakhi and Sunita may have been married in 1990 or so. No other neighbour had come to intervene. The appellant had come to the house of the brother of Sunita on the day of Raksha Bandhan. He admitted that he had not stated in his statement made before the police that the appellant wanted the money for running the taxi. Radhey Sham a Tailor Master who was examined as PW. 8 stated that on 5-9-1992 at about 4 PM when Balwant Nath and Balwant Kumar were with him and they were talking near the house of the appellant, there was some dispute and people were running around. The dispute was between the appellant and his wife. In fact, a fight had taken place between the two and they intervened and diffused the situation. He, further stated that they had not seen actually any dispute. They reached later on the spot. The appellant was holding a stick in his hand but in his presence no blow was given to Sunita. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination he admitted having made a statement before the police. He stated that his statement was also to the effect that there was alarm raised by the wife of Gurnam Singh and Gurnam Singh was holding the stick. He did not mention that the appellant was running after Sunita with a stick. When confronted with his statement Ex. PH wherein it was so mentioned, he stated that the appellant was running with danda after Sunita so as to best her. In his cross-examination conducted by the Counsel for the appellant he stated that his village was at a distance of about half a kilometer but the shop was near the house of the appellant. He had taken the shop on rent from one Narottam Singh. He, however, could not give the number of the shop that he had occupied at the time of the incident. He, however, stated that several houses and shops were there near the house of Gurnam Singh and that several people had also collected there and were running around. PW 9 Inspector Deep Ram stated that on 9-9-1992 he recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar and Parbh Dayal and arrested appellant and his mother Krishna on 12-9-1992. PW 10 Amrik Singh and Patwari deposed with regard to site plan Ex. PJ that was prepared by him. PW 11 Sagar Chand ASI detailed the steps that he had taken while investigating the case.