Jagwinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

The instant application seeking leave to appeal is directed against the judg ent dated 27.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, A bala, whereby respondents No.3 and 4 (A arjeet Kaur and Ranbir Singh) have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and respondent No.2-A andeep Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo i prison ent for a period of 10 years for the co ission of offence under Section 304-B IPC.

¶2The prosecution case, as per the co plaint of co plainant-Jagwinder Singh (PW-1) is that his brother

Jaswinder Singh had one daughter na ely, Rupinder Kaur (victi ), aged about 22 years and one son na ely, Sukhpreet. His brother Jaswinder Singh had died about 16 years ago. Marriage of said Rupinder Kaur (since deceased) was sole nized with A andeep-respondent No.2 on 21.11.2016 as per Sikh rites at Welco e Palace, Shahzadpur. Before arriage, Ranbir Singh (father of A andeep) had told that he had to send his son abroad and for that purpose, the co plainant had to pay an a ount of Rs.10 lakhs in cash. In order to fulfill the said de and, co plainant paid Rs.2? lakhs in cash at the ti e of arriage. However, after the arriage, husband and the in-laws of Rupinder Kaur, na ely, A andeepp; Ranbir Singh and A arjeet Kaur started harassing and hu iliating Rupinder Kaur (victi ) on the pretext of bringing less dowry. They used to taunt his niece (victi ) by saying that the co plainant had not given the dowry as per their status. They also told her that until their de and was not fulfilled, they would not let her reside in the atri onial ho e. The said facts were disclosed by Rupinder Kaur (victi ) to the co plainant on telephone. On this, the co plainant et A andeep and Ranbir Singh and showed his inability to pay Rs.10 lakhs at that ti e. However, he assured that the said a ount would be paid after so e days by aking arrange ent. Despite giving such assurance, A andeep and his fa ily e bers did not end their ways and kept on taunting his niece. They also used to give beatings to Rupinder Kaur. The victi had disclosed this fact to her other Sukhwinder Kaur, brother Sukhpreet and uncle Sukhbir Singh.

It was further stated that a day prior to registration of FIR, A andeep, his father Ranbir Singh and other A arjit Kaur firstly gave beatings to the victi and thereafter, forcibly ad inistered so e poisonous substance to her, due to which, she died on 17.05.2017 at about 10/11.00 O'clock. With regard to the said incident, A andeep had infor ed the co plainant through telephone. The dead body of the victi was sent to Civil Hospital, A bala Cantt. Co plainant sought legal action against the in-laws of the victi , na ely A andeep, Ranbir Singh and A arjeet Kaur.

¶3Based on the aforesaid state ent/co plaint, for al FIR No.111 dated 18.05.2017, under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 IPC, was registered against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 at Police Station, Mullana, District A bala. After investigation, the charge-sheet was sub itted, whereafter cognizance was taken. Thereafter, charges were fra ed against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4, under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and with alternative charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC vide order dated 18.08.2017 to which they pleaded not guilty and clai ed to be tried.

¶4During trial, the prosecution exa ined fifteen witnesses, na ely, PW1 Jagwinder Singh (co plainant), PW2 Kaptan Singh, PW3 Dr. Kulvinder Singh, PW4 Sukhwinder Kaur, PW5 ASI Sharwan Ku ar, PW6 HC Narender Singh, PW7 SI Dhoop Singh, PW8 EASI Manohar Lal, PW9 Dr. Mukesh Kandara, PW10 HC Vikash Ku ar, PW11 HC Rohtash Singh, PW12 C. O bir, PW13 Inspector Mehar Singh, PW14 Dr. Nitika

Chawla and PW-15 ASI Dev Raj, Investigating Officer. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, state ents of the accused (respondent Nos.2 to 4) were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein entire incri inating evidence was put to the . But, they denied the sa e and pleaded false i plication in the case. In defence, the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 exa ined DW-1 Ravinder Ku ar, DW-2 Gur eet Singh and DW-3 Tul Bahadur. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.3 and 4 persons and convicted respondent No.2, as stated above.

¶5The learned Trial Court, acquitted accused-respondent Nos. 3 and 4, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-

¶1It was proved on record that the deceased was living separately along with her husband on the first floor with separate kitchen, whereas the parents of accused A andeep Singh i.e. Ranbir Singh and A arjit Kaur (respondent Nos.3 and 4) were residing separately on the ground floor. The parents of A andeep (husband of the deceased) were not the beneficiaries of the a ount of Rs.10 lakhs, which was de anded fro the co plainant. Since, Ranbir Singh and A arjit Kaur (parents of A andeep) were living separately fro the deceased and her husband A andeep, they were acquitted of the charges by giving the the benefit of doubt.

¶2It was found that accused-respondent No.2, A andeep, had subjected the deceased to cruelty in order to pressurize her for bringing ore dowry and also co itted dowry death by causing the death of Rupinder Kaur.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant while assailing the judg ent of acquittal qua respondents No.3 and 4 sub its that it has been found by the learned trial Court that the deceased

along with her husband and respondents No.3 and 4 were residing in the sa e house, whereas respondents No.3 and 4 residing on the ground floor, the deceased along with her husband was residing at the first floor. It was, thus, contended that erely because they were residing on the ground and first floor, is not sufficient to hold that the accused/respondents No.2 and 3 (parents -in-law of the deceased) did not play any role in the occurrence leading to the death of their daughter-in-law. It is further argued that once it was proved that the deceased had died unnatural death and she was co pelled to take such an extre e step on account of de and of dowry and harass ent caused to her, the role of respondents No.3 and 4 along with their son A andeep Singh, is apparent in the occurrence and, thus, the finding of acquittal qua the said accused recorded by the learned trial Court suffers fro patent illegality.

¶7We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also gone through the record of the case.

¶8The only issue that requires consideration by this Court is whether the finding of acquittal qua respondent Nos. 3 and 4, recorded by the learned trial Court, requires any interference by this Court.

¶9Indisputably, it was found by the learned trial Court that the deceased had died unnatural death and the facts, circu stances and the evidence on record had proved that it was a dowry death. The ingredients of Section 304-B IPC and presu ption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, stood proved against the accused A andeep Singh (husband of the

deceased). So far as the said issue is concerned, the sa e is not in dispute in the present application seeking leave to appeal. What is disputed is the acquittal of the parents of the accused A andeep Singh, who have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, by extending the benefit of doubt.

¶10The trial Court has recorded a finding on the basis of evidence that respondents No.2 and 3, though residing in the sa e house, were in fact residing on the ground floor whereas the deceased and her husband were residing on the first floor of the said house. The a ount of Rs.10 lakhs allegedly de anded by A andeep Singh was for sending hi abroad and, therefore, respondents No.2 and 3 were not the beneficiaries of the said a ount. It was further found that respondents No.2 and 3 were i plicated in the case being the parents of accused A andeep Singh and there was a general tendency of i plicating the parents and the close relatives of the husband in such cases.

¶11Learned counsel for the applicant could not draw the attention of this Court to any evidence on record, which could conclusively prove that there was any role played by the respondents No.3 and 4 in the death of their daughter-in-law. The atter can be looked fro another angle. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. Rather, DW-2 Gur eet Singh co-villager of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 deposed that they always found relations between Rupinder Kaur (since deceased) and other fa ily e bers of respondent No.4-Ranbir Singh cordial and healthy. It was further deposed that they had never noticed any dispute or quarrel between the . It was yet further stated

that on the date of occurrence, respondent No.4 Ranbir Singh was on his way to Agra and he returned only after having receipt the infor ation about the is-happening in the fa ily. Si ilar is the testi ony of DW-5-Para jeet Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Kalpi. Fro the aforesaid, it is clear that the relations between the deceased and her parents-in-law were cordial. The prosecution could not lead any evidence on record to conclusively prove that the said accused had played any role in the occurrence leading to the unnatural death of the deceased. Thus we do not find that the finding of acquittal qua respondents No.3 and 4 recorded by the learned trial Court suffers fro any patent illegality or perversity.

¶12In cri inal appeal against acquittal what the appellate Court has to exa ine is whether the finding of the learned Court below is perverse and pri a facie illegal. Once the appellate Court co es to the finding that the grounds on which the judg ent is based are not perverse, the scope of appeal against acquittal is li ited considering the fact that the legal presu ption about the innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the finding of the Court. At this point, it is i perative to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supre e Court in Mrinal Das ersus State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479, wherein it has been observed as under:- "13. It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judg ent and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate

court, it being the final Court of fact, is fully co petent to reappreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, the law does not prescribe any li itation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate Court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in ind that acquittal provides for presu ption in favour of the accused. The presu ption of innocence is available to the person and in cri inal jurisprudence every person is presu ed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the co petent Court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal.

¶14There is no li itation on the part of the appellate Court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to co e to its own conclusion. The appellate Court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate Court to arshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judg ent of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "co pelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a co pelling reason for interference. ... ..."

In the case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450 in para no. 75, the Hon'ble Supre e Court re-iterated the said view and observed as follows: "75. The trial court has the advantage of watching the de eanour of the witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable."

¶13Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only for co pelling and substantial reasons. In case the order is clearly unreasonable, it is a co pelling reason for interference. But where there is no perversity in the finding of the i pugned judg ent of acquittal, the appellate Court ust not take a different view only because another view is possible. It is because the trial Court has the privilege of seeing the de eanour of witnesses and, therefore, its decision ust not be upset in the absence of strong and co pelling grounds.

¶14We find that the findings of acquittal qua respondent Nos. 3 and 4 recorded by the learned trial Court are based on evidence on record and no fault can be found with the sa e.

¶15So far as the prayer of the applicant for enhance ent of the sentence i posed upon respondent No.2 is concerned, we find that no case is ade out to grant leave to appeal against said part also. Moreover, vide order dated 05.07.2024 passed in CRA-S-1110-2020, the applicant was i pleaded as respondent

No.2 in the said appeal. The said appeal has been filed by respondent No.2-A andeep Singh, against his conviction and sentence. Therefore, the applicant will be at liberty to raise all the points in the said appeal.

¶16In view of the above, finding no erit in the present application, the sa e is hereby dis issed. Leave to appeal is declined.

¶17Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

04.10.2024 Ajay Prasher

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-4-2021 (O&M) Reserved on: 09.09.2024 Date of Pronounce ent:04.10.2024 Jagwinder Singh ......Applicant Versus State of Haryana and others .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, A icus Curiae for the applicant. Ms. Shubhra Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.