IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 678-SB of 1998 Date of Decision : January 12, 2010 Paramjit Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. T.P.S. MANN, J.(Oral) The appellant, alongwith his father Pritam Singh and mother Manjit Kaur, was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for the offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that on account of their maltreating the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry, they abetted the commission of suicide by Smt. Gurjinder Kaur, wife of the appellant. However, vide judgment and order dated 17.8.1998, father- in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased were acquitted of the charge against them, whereas the appellant alone was held guilty under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Criminal Appeal No. 678-SB of 1998 -2- According to the prosecution, deceased Gurjinder Kaur was married to Paramjit Singh-appellant about 10 years before the occurrence. From the said marriage, three daughters and one son were born. The appellant was addicted to liquor and drugs and used to maltreat her for having brought inadequate dowry. Father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased also used to taunt her similarly. All of them had been demanding more dowry. Due to the aforementioned maltreatment at the hands of her husband and parents-in-law, deceased Gurjinder Kaur committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body on 10.8.1995 at about 5.00 P.M. Her statement was recorded by ASI Charanjit Singh in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana on August 11, 1995. Later on, Smt. Gurjinder Kaur succumbed to the burn injuries, whereafter proceedings under Section 306 IPC were initiated against the accused. From the aforementioned statement of Smt. Gurjinder Kaur, which after her death assumed the nature of dying declaration, it stood established that Gurjinder Kaur had been left with no other option but to commit suicide by pouring kerosene upon her and thereafter setting her on fire. The reason as to why she was compelled to take such a drastic step was that it was her husband-appellant who had been maltreating her by stating that she had brought inadequate dowry. He had been demanding from her to bring more dowry. Apart from the same, there is Criminal Appeal No. 678-SB of 1998 -3- testimony of Smt. Shamsher Kaur PW5 and Kuldip Singh PW6, who were mother and brother, respectively, of Smt. Gurjinder Kaur, who also deposed on similar lines. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since August, 1995. Soon after the registration of the FIR, he was arrested in the case and remained in custody through out the trial of the case. For the first time, he was released on bail on 8.9.1998 by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. As such, he has already undergone a substantive sentence of about 3 years and 1 month, whereas he has been sentenced to undergo maximum imprisonment for 4 years. It is also submitted that the appellant has four children to look after, besides his old parents, who are dependent upon him, although living separately. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars once again so as to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. The appellant stands sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Out of the same, he has already undergone a period of more than 3 years. The appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution ever since August, 1995. It has already appeared in the evidence that the appellant had sired 4 Criminal Appeal No. 678-SB of 1998 -4- children from the deceased. He would be the only person who can look after those children. Besides, his old parents are also stated to be dependent upon him. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars, once again, so as to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant is maintained and his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. He shall, however, pay the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court or serve the default sentence in case of its non-payment. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 12, 2010 JUDGE satish