-1- Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: February 22, 2010. Raj Kumar and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. Ramesh Nath Puri ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Varun Wadhwa, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate, for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Appellant Prem Lata died on 30.11.2005. Her Death -2- Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. Certificate issued by the Local Registrar (Birth & Death), Municipal Council, Nawanshahr has been placed on record. These proceedings against appellant Prem Lata shall, accordingly, stand abated. Appellants Raj Kumar and Romesh Chander were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). For the former offence, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the latter offence, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellants were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Code. Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 has been filed by appellants Raj Kumar and Romesh Kumar challenging their aforesaid conviction and sentence whereas Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000 has been preferred by complainant-petitioner Ramesh Nath Puri challenging the judgment of the trial Court whereby the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Code. Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000 are being disposed of by this common judgment. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and -3- Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. have gone through the records of the case. Babita Rani (deceased), daughter of complainant Ramesh Nath Puri, was married with appellant Raj Kumar about five years prior to the occurrence, which took place on 19.11.1996. She gave birth to a daughter and a son. The complainant had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. However, as and when Babita Rani used to come to her parental house, she used to tell her parents that the appellants were compelling her to bring more dowry. Recently before her death, Babita Rani had told the complainant that her in-laws were demanding a scooter and a gold chain on the marriage of her brother Sanjiv Kumar, whose marriage was fixed for 18.11.1996. The complainant could not afford to give the said articles to his daughter on the occasion of his son's marriage. On the day of marriage i.e 18.11.1996, appellant Raj Kumar brought back the deceased in a huff from Ludhiana by uttering that their demand had not been met. On 19.11.1996 at about 8.45 A.M, the complainant received a telephonic message from his younger brother Satish Kumar, who was running his business in Nawanshahr, that the in-laws of Babita Rani had burnt her to death. On receipt of this message, the complainant along with his brother Nand Kumar Puri and others went to the matrimonial house of the deceased. On reaching there, they found the burnt dead body of Babita Rani lying in the courtyard outside the store room and none was there by the side of the dead body. As per the opinion of Dr. Davinder Singh (P.W.1), the cause of death of -4- Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. Babita Rani was due to shock on account of extensive burns. Section 306 of the Code, for which offence the appellants have been convicted and sentenced besides under Section 498-A of the Code, as mentioned above, for facility of reference, is reproduced as under:- “ 306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Both complainant Ramesh Nath Puri (P.W.2) and his younger brother Satish Kumar (P.W.3) have reiterated the version, as mentioned above. Appellant Raj Kumar and other members of his family, on 18.11.1996 i.e a day prior to the occurrence, had gone to attend the marriage of the brother-in-law or Raj Kumar i.e brother of Babita Rani (deceased). The appellants did not attend the complete ceremonies of marriage on account of some altercation with the family of the deceased. The appellants left Ludhiana in a huff and returned to Nawanshahar. It appears that the accused started outpouring their inward seething upon Babita Rani (deceased), who had to bear the burnt of the wrath of the appellants. She could not tolerate it and took the extreme step of ending her life. It was the mental cruelty caused by the -5- Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. accused to the deceased, which led her to commit suicide. It was, thus, a case of suicide and not of homicidal death. As per the evidence on record, admittedly, the accused-appellants were demanding a scooter and a golden chain on the occasion of the marriage of Sanjiv Kumar, brother of the deceased, whose marriage was solemnized on 18.11.1996. It has come on record that appellant Raj Kumar was having a new Bajaj Scooter whereas his father appellant Romesh Chander was having an old motor cycle. So, there was no need for them to demand a scooter from the complainant party. At the most, if it is assumed that the appellants were demanding a scooter and a golden chain on the occasion of the marriage of Sanjiv Kumar, it could be a demand of presents at the time of marriage of deceased's brother. Apparently, this demand does snot fall within the definition of dowry as it did not have any concern with the marriage of the deceased with appellant Raj Kumar. Besides, if the appellants had been making this demand earlier to 18.11.1996, they would not have rehabilitated the deceased for more than six years after marriage. So, the provisions of Section 304-B of the Act were not attracted in this case and the appellants were rightly acquitted of the said charge. However, the deceased being a normal person, would not have resorted to commit suicide merely because of the altercation of her husband with the members of her parents' family at the time of marriage of her brother. The accused must have humiliated the deceased in turn excessively that she preferred to -6- Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. die than to live. This conduct of the appellants drove her to commit suicide. Thus, the charge under Section 498-A of the Act also stood substantiated in this case. The above facts and circumstances of the case suggest that the offence committed by the appellants would fall under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Code and, as such, the appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial Court for these offence. The conviction of the appellants under Section 306 and Section 498-A of the Code as recorded by the trial Judge, is accordingly upheld. Insofar as the sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences, appellant Raj Kumar has already undergone three years and five months of actual sentence whereas his father Romesh Chander appellant has already undergone about six months of actual sentence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the incident relates to November, 1996 and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the heads of the appellants for more than thirteen years, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be adequately met with if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences, mentioned above, is reduced to the period already undergone by them by letting the sentence of fine and the default clause for the said offences remain unaltered. I order accordingly. The impugned sentence order is modified -7- Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000. accordingly. With the above modification in the sentence order, Criminal Appeal No.402-SB of 1999 is dismissed. Resultantly, Criminal Revision No.268 of 2000 is also dismissed. February 22, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE