-1- Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998. Date of Decision: January 19, 2010. Shanti ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. Gurmej Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 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. Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate, for Mr. S.S. Chandi, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of the afore-stated two appeals as they arise out of the same occurrence. -2- Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, convicting and sentencing appellants Gurmej Singh and Shanti under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). Appellant Gurmej Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months whereas appellant Shanti was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and to pay fine of Rs.400/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. Rajni, co-accused of the appellants, was however acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Code Appellant Gurmej Singh is husband of Sukhjit Kaur (deceased) whereas appellant Shanti is her mother-in-law. The instant F.I.R was registered on the basis of statement made by Pritam Singh, father of Sukhjit Kaur (deceased), before Assistant Sub Inspector Sarup Singh on 11.7.1997. As per allegations made by complainant Pritam Singh, immediately after the marriage of Sukhjit Kaur with appellant Gurmej Singh in February, 1997, the appellants started harassing her. Due to callous behaviour of the appellants and Rajni (acquitted accused), daughter of appellant Shanti and sister of appellant -3- Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. Gurmej Singh, Sukhjit Kaur had consumed some poisonous substance, but she survived. However, the appellants did not stop harassing Sukhjit Kaur even thereafter and subjected Sukhjit Kaur to physical torture. On 10.7.1997, Lakhbir Singh son of complainant Pritam Singh went to meet Sukhjit Kaur. In his presence, the accused subjected Sukhjit Kaur to severe beatings. Sukhjit Kaur told his brother Lakhbir Singh that she was fed up with her life and it was better to end it. On 11.7.1997, Lakhbir Singh came to the complainant, who was serving as S.P.O at Police Station, Kapurthala, and told him that Sukhjit Kaur had taken poison being fed up with the persistent harassment of her in-laws and had died. After completion of investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exhibit P.B), challan against the accused-appellants was presented before the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session. Charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Code was framed against the appellants, who did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr.Baljit Singh (P.W.1), complainant Pritam Singh (P.W.2), Lakhbir Singh (P.W.3), Moharrir Head Constable Sakattar Singh (P.W.4), Constable Tarsem Singh (P.W.5), Assistant Sub Inspector Sadhu Ram (P.W.6), Lakhwinder Kaur (P.W.7), Draftsman Ajit Singh Mitharu (P.W.8) and Assistant Sub Inspector Sarup Singh, Investigating Officer -4- Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. (P.W.9). In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Gurmej Singh, while admitting his marriage with Sukhjit Kaur (deceased), denied the prosecution allegations and stated as under:- “ I was a divorcee and Sukhjit Kaur came to know of it and she did not want to live with me. She told me that she had been married against her wishes. Moreover, I was elder to her in age and for that reason she did not want to live with me. Every time she was compelled by her parents to join me. She was also sometimes given beatings by her parents as she was not willing to live with me. She took some poisonous matter for that reason. I informed her parents. They have falsely implicated us to save their own skin.” Appellant Shanti dittoed the statement of appellant Gurmej Singh while making her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ajit Singh (D.W.1), who had intermediated the marriage of Sukhjit Kaur with appellant Gurmej Singh, was examined by the accused in their defence to prove the defence -5- Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. version. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Section 306 of the Code, for which offence the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, 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.” Pritam Singh (P.W.2), father of deceased Sukhjit Kaur and Lakhbir Singh (P.W.3), her brother, have corroborated each other while deposing the facts, as given by complainant Pritam Singh in his statement (Exhibit P.F) recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Sarup Singh, Investigating Officer (P.W.9) leading to the registration of the instant case against the accused. Dr.Baljit Singh (P.W.1), who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sukhjit Kaur, had sent cut sections of heart along with blood taken from heart cavity, contents of stomach, small and large intestines, cut section from liver and kidney to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Dr.Baljit Singh (P.W.1), on receipt of the report (Exhibit P.B) of the Chemical -6- Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. Examiner, gave his opinion (Exhibit P.C) that the cause of death of Sukhjit Kaur was due to poisoning. Besides the depositions of Pritam Singh (P.W.2), father of deceased Sukhjit Kaur and Lakhbir Singh (P.W.3), brother of the deceased, there is the deposition of Lakhwinder Kaur (P.W.7), sister-in-law of the deceased, who has also deposed about the maltreatment meted out to the deceased at the hands of the appellants. Appellant Gurmej Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is dittoed by appellant Shanti, stated that he was a divorcee and Sukhjit Kaur came to know about it; that she did not want to live with him; and that she told him that she had been married against her wishes. However, appellant Gurmej Singh stated that Sukhjit Kaur took some poisonous matter because she, sometimes, used to be given beatings by her parents, who used to compel her to live with appellant Gurmej Singh. This stand of appellant Gurmej Singh is unfathomable. Rather, it proves that Sukhjit Kaur was being subjected to beatings on account of the behaviour of callousness of the appellants. No parent will give beatings to her daughter in order to force her to live in her matrimonial house compulsorily. Significantly, the prosecution witnesses i.e father, brother and sister-in-law of the deceased, did not level any allegation of demand of dowry etc. against the accused or any allegation of maltreatment on account of insufficiency of -7- Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. dowry, attracting the provisions of Section 304-B of the Act, as Sukhjit Kaur died within a year of her marriage with appellant Gurmej Singh. The marriage of Sukhjit Kaur with Gurmej Singh had taken place on 16.2.1997, as admitted by appellant Gurmej Singh in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in answer to question No.1 and she died unnatural death on 11.7.1997. This shows the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses. The facts and circumstances, discussed above, suggest that there was no harmony between the appellants and the deceased, which led the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. The above facts and circumstances of the case suggest that the offence committed by the appellants would fall under Section 306 of the Code and, as such, the appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial Court for this offence. The conviction of the appellants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Code, as recorded by the trial Judge, is accordingly upheld. Insofar as the sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial Court, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the incident relates to July, 1997 and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the appellants for more than twelve and a half years, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be adequately met with if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of -8- Criminal Appeal No.818-SB of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.852-SB of 1998. six years awarded to appellant Gurmej Singh under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Code is reduced to two and a half years and that of appellant Shanti for this offence is reduced from two and a half years to the one already undergone by her i.e five months and twelve days. I order accordingly. The sentence of fine and the default case awarded to both the appellants for this offence shall remain unaltered. The impugned sentence order is modified accordingly. With the above modification in the sentence order, both these appeals are hereby dismissed. January 19, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE