Jagjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

Jagjit Singh ...Appellant Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State

questioning the judgment of acquittal recorded by Additional Sessions

Judge, Amritsar. The appellant and two others faced trial for alleged

commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC').

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

One Avtar Singh (Complainant) made a statement Ex P.A. before the

police on 18.3.1995 that his daughter Jasprit Kaur aged about 26 years was

married to accused Jagjit Singh on 26.12.1993 at Amritsar. Avtar Singh

stated that he had given dowry to Jasprit Kaur at the time of her marriage

according to his capability. The accused Jagjit Singh, his father Gurmukh

Singh and his mother Raminder Kaur were not happy with the dowry given

by the parents of Jasprit Kaur and they used to taunt her off and on for

bringing lesser dowry at the time of her marriage. The accused started

maltreating Jasprit Kaur in connection with the demand of dowry. Jasprit

Kaur informed her father Complainant Avtar Singh and other family

members that the accused were greedy and they were not behaving properly

with her. One Baba Charan Singh who was the mediator in the marriage of

Jasprit Kaur with Jagjit Singh was approached by the parents of Jasprit

Kaur. He was informed about the maltreatment and harassment given to

Jasprit Kaur by the accused. Baba Charan Singh also advised and told the

accused to treat Jasprit Kaur property. Avtar Singh stated that on 17.3.1995

in the evening at about 5/6 P.M. Jasprit Kaur came to the house of the

2 Complainant. She was frightened and was depressed. She informed her

parents that the accused had asked her that they were to purchase a new

house and that Jasprit Kaur should bring money from her parents. Jasprit

Kaur had also informed her father that the accused had made her life

miserable at their house and had made living there impossible. The

complainant Avtar Singh and his wife consoled Jasprit Kaur and sent her

back to the house of the accused by telling her that they will inform her

about the demand in a day or two. Jasprit Kaur had given birth to a son on

25.12.1994 when also Avtar Singh had spent sufficient amount. But neither

Jagjit Singh nor his parents became happy. On 18.3.1995 at about accused

3.30 P.M. Baba Charan Singh came to the shop of the Complainant and

informed him that Jasprit Kaur had been killed by the accused by

strangulation. The Complainant accompanied by his wife and his son went

to the house of the accused Jagjit Singh where they found that the dead

body of Jasprit Kaur was hanging from the ceiling fan by a cloth wrapped

around her neck. At that time mother of the accused Jagjit Singh namely,

Raminder Kaur, was present at the house, while the other members of the

family were absent. The Complainant left his wife and son lnderjit Singh

near the dead body of Jasprit Kaur and proceeded to lodge a report with the

police. The police met Avtar Singh in Chowk Lachhmansar, Amritsar,

3 where he made statement before the police which was read over to him and

was signed by him in token of its correctness. The Investigating Officer S.l.

Avtar Singh made his endorsement Ex.P.A./2 on the same and sent it to the

Police Station `C' Division where formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded by

AS.I. Charanjit Singh. The Investigating Officer accompanied by the

Complainant Avtar Singh went to the house of the accused where on the top

floor of the house, the dead body of Jasprit Kaur was hanging with the

ceiling fan in the room. The photographs of the dead body were taken by the

photographer as directed by the Investigating Officer and after removing the

dead body from the ceiling fan, the cloth wrapped around the neck of the

deceased was taken into police possession. The inquest proceedings of the

dead body was prepared and the same was sent for post mortem examination

through H.C. Lakhwinder Singh and Constable Suba Singh. After post

mortem examination of the dead body, the clothes removed from the dead

body were taken into police possession by the Investigating Officer. All the

accused were arrested and on completion of the investigation they were

challaned by SI. Paramjit Singh, S.H.O. P.S. `C' Division, Amritsar.

On their appearance before the committing Magistrate, the accused

were furnished copies of the documents mentioned in Section 207 of the

4 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') and the case against

them was committed for trial.

The trial Court found that the evidence was insufficient to fasten the

guilt on the accused.

Questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal, the State

filed an appeal. By the impugned judgment the High Court found that the

co-accused Gurmukh Singh and Raminder Kaur were staying separately

and, therefore, there was doubt about their participation in the commission

of the offence. But the present appellant was found guilty of offence

punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for seven

years.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the

trial Court was well reasoned and the High Court should not have interfered

with the judgment of acquittal recorded, more particularly, when the

acquittal in respect of co-accused persons was affirmed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported

the judgment of the High Court.

5

6. It is to be noted that the deceased breathed her last within about one

year and three months from the date of marriage while living in the house of

her in laws. She was not suffering from any ailment prior to marriage and

even after the marriage she continued to be hale and hearty. The evidence

of PW-3, the father of the deceased is very significant. According to him on

17.3.1995 the deceased came to his house. She informed him that the

accused was torturing her as they had to purchase a new house they were

demanding Rupees one lac from her. To the similar effect is the evidence of

PW-4 the brother of the deceased. Prosecution had pressed into service the

agreement deed Ex.PB for the purchase of house by Gurmukh Singh from

one Sapan Dass (PW-2). Said agreement reveals that it was executed on

8.2.1995 and the sale deed was to be executed on 8.5.1995. The High Court

noted that this document amply established that the family required money

for purchase of plot from Sapan Dass. The High Court further noted that

there was no material brought on record to show that the agreement was

performed by the accused persons. The High Court found that the

presumptuous conclusion of the trial Court that there was no link of the

demand for dowry with the said agreement. The High Court also noted that

6 the trial Court had erroneously concluded that the accused persons were rich

persons and, therefore, there was no need for asking any dowry.

7. In Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2007 (9) SCC 721) it

was inter-alia held as follows:

"9. Two essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, apart from others, are (i) death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, and (ii) woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for "dowry". The explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 304-B IPC says that "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

10. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under:

"2. Definition of `dowry'.--In this Act, `dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies."

11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be

7 given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well-known social custom or practice in India. It is well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (See Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd. and Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India.) A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained."

8. The High Court has analysed the evidence of the witnesses clearly

keeping in view the parameters relating to the scope of interference with the

judgment of acquittal. The analysis does not suffer from any infirmity to

warrant interference. Since the minimum sentence has been awarded we

find no scope to interfere in this appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.

8 .........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, March 06, 2009

9