SAKARAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appellant before us is the father of the second appellant and the third appellant is the wife of the first appellant. These appellants and three others who are sisters of second appellant herein were charged for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala who after trial acquitted accused Nos. 4 to 6 while convicted the appellants herein for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC read with Section 34, IPC. The first appellant Sakatar Singh was sentenced for offence punishable under Section 306 for four years' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months, while he was sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 498-A for two years' RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. The second appellant Kirpal Singh was sentenced for seven years' RI for offence punishable under Section 306, IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months, he was also sentenced to two years' RI under Section 498-A, IPC and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. The third appellant Smt. Joginder Kaur was sentenced to undergo three years' RI for offence under Section 306 and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. While for offence under Section 498-A IPC, she was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo RI for one month.

(2.) The appellants herein preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against the judgment and conviction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala being Criminal Appeal No. 322-SB/87 and the said appeal having been dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded on the appellants by the Sessions Court the appellants are now before us in this appeal.

(3.) The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:-