LAWS(P&H)-1998-1-134

RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On January 22, 1998
RANJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgement and order dated 4th August, 1997 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, who convicted the appellants Ranjit Singh, Inder Singh and Swinder Kaur - under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and each one of them was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In dafault of payment of fine each of the appellants was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for allegedly committing dowry death with regard to Smt. Harjinder Kaur.

(2.) RANJIT Singh, his father Inder Singh and his mother Smt. Swinder Kaur faced charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on the night intervening 15/16th September, 1992 in the area of village Dehar they caused the death of Smt. Harjinder Kaur (wife of Ranjit Singh appellant), who died under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and she has subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of the demand of dowry.

(3.) HE stated that Smt. Harjinder Kaur deceased was his sister. She married Ranjit Singh about 3 1/2 years back. The other appellants are the parents of said Ranjit Singh. All the appellants used to torture Smt. Harjinder Kaur and they started treating her with cruelty after six months of the marriage by making a demand of coloured T.V. For this alleged reason Smt. Harjinder Kaur was turned out from the house three-four times as she was unable to manage a coloured T.V., demand of which was made by the three appellants. It has been further stated by Shri Baldev Singh that he and his other brothers persuaded the deceased to go to the house of her in-laws. On their persuasion, she started living in the house of her in-laws. Bachan Singh mediator also tried to intervene to rehabilitate the deceased and it was promised to the appellants that their alleged demand of coloured T.V. would be met in due course of time. Out of the wedlock of Smt. Harjinder Kaur and Ranjit Singh a female child was born. It has also been averred by the complainant that some dowry articles were also given to her at the time of her marriage. On the death of Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Tota son of Mehanga Ram approached the complainant and his brothers and delivered the message about the death of Smt. Harjinder Kaur. On coming to know the death of Smt. Harjinder Kaur, the complainant along with Bhajan Singh, Jagir Singh Sarpanch and Kundan Singh went to the house of the appellants. The complainant party was threatened to accept a compromise with the accused party. When the former did not agree and appeared before the S.S.P., the Police came into action and finally the statement (Exhibit PA) was recorded on 21st September, 1992. The Thandedar made an endorsement Exhibit PA/1 underneath it and on the basis of it formal F.I.R. Exhibit PA/2 was recorded. Exhibit PB is the inquest report, which was prepared on the dead body of the deceased on 16th September, 1992. Exhibit PJ is the request for conducting post-mortem examination, which was sent along with the dead body for post-mortem examination. The doctor was even advised to preserve the viscera, which was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, who found aluminium phosphide in the contents of the viscera, as certified in the report Exhibit PG. The post-mortem report on the dead body of Smt. Harjinder Kaur was taken. It is Exhibit PH and at first point of time the cause of death was deferred till the report of the Chemical Examiner was received. All the three accused were taken into custody and were sent to the Court of Illaqa Magistrate to face the trial under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 4th September, 1993 the learned Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Session to face the trial. Formal charge under section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, was framed against the appellants on 3rd November, 1993. The charge was read over and explained to the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.