GURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave challenge the judgment and order dated 20.2.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 544- DBA of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 959-SB of 2000. All the four accused, including the appellant herein (accused No.3), who is husband of the deceased, were charged and tried by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The other accused were the father (accused No.1), the mother (accused No.2) and the sisterin-law (wife of brother) (accused No.4) of the appellant. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC but has failed to prove the case against the said accused (Nos. 1, 2 and 3) for the offence punishable under Section 304- B of the IPC. Insofar as accused No. 4 is concerned, it was held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against her for both the offences and she was accordingly acquitted of the offence charged. The trial Judge, therefore, convicted the appellant and his father and mother for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the appellant along with his parents preferred an appeal (being Criminal Appeal No.959-SB of 2000) before the High Court. So also, the State preferred an appeal (being Criminal Appeal No.544-DBA of 2001), being aggrieved by that part of the order by which the trial Court acquitted accused No. 4 and also acquitted accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. It also upheld the acquittal of accused No. 4 and further held that, though the prosecution could not bring the case under Section 304-B of the IPC, the appellant herein was liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The High court maintained the order of the sentence and fine as recorded by the trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 498- A of the IPC. For the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the High Court sentenced the appellant herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are preferred by the appellant.

(3.) Shri Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the conviction as recorded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the High Court under Section 498-A of the IPC is not tenable. It is submitted, that the conviction is only on the basis of the evidence of PW-10 - Bishan Singh, the father of the deceased. It is submitted, that there is no corroboration to the said evidence. It is submitted, that in any case, the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC is not tenable. It is contended that the charge was for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC, the ingredients of which are totally different than the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC. It is submitted that as such grave prejudice was caused to the appellant. It is further submitted that the evidence shows that the father of the deceased, PW-10, has stated, that even during the course of the trial, the appellant was on congenial meeting terms with the father of the deceased and as such the unnatural human conduct would discredit his testimony.