BRIJ LAL STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No.477of 1978 by Special Leave and Appeal No. 288 of 1989 by Special Leave arising out of Special Leave (Crl.) Petition No. 250 of 1980 are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1976 (reported in 1978 Chand LR (Cri) 224) whereunder a learned single Judge of the High Court had set aside the conviction of respondent Prem Chand and acquitted him of the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. The former appeal has been filed by the father of the deceased Veena Rani while the latter appeal has been filed by, the State of Punjab. The facts of the case are in brief as under :-

(2.) Veena Rani conceived and gave birth to a male child. But even after the, child birth, the accused did not stop ill-treating her. Unable to bear the ill-treatment, Veena Rani took leave on loss of pay and went away to her parent's house at Patiala. The separation had no effect on the accused and hence Veena Rani filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court at Patiala for restitution of conjugal rights. As a counter move, the accused also filed a similar petition in the Court at Sangrur. However, the enquiry of that petition was stayed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur till the disposal of the earlier petition filed by Veena Rani at Patiala. At that stage of matters, Shri 0. P. Singhal who was acting as the counsel for the accused and PW 9 Shri Hari Om, another advocate at Sangrur who was appearing for Veena Rani brought about a compromise between the parties and in terms thereof Veena Rani came back to Sangrur to live with the accused. The re-union, however, took place only after the accused's counsel Shri 0. P. Singhal had personally assured that there would be no danger to Veena Rani's life at the hands of the accused.

(3.) This time, the parties set up residence in a house belonging to PW-12 Nathu Ram. Nothing changed, however because the accused started tormenting Veena Rani almost from the day of re-union for money and continued beating her. PW 12 Nathu Ram was a witness to the accused quarreling with Veena Rani and beating her. The immediate provocation for the accused stepping up his ill-treatment of Veena Rani was his purchase of a scooter for Rs. 3,500/-from one A. N. Jindal. 'The accused was able to obtain only Rs. 2,500/- from his father for buying the scooter and for the balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- he asked Veena Rani to get the same from her parents. Veena Rani had no funds of her own because she had been on leave on loss of pay for several months and had joined duty at the Bank only on 13-8-1975. She was in a fix and therefore she wrote a letter on 10-9-75 to her brother PW-14 Khem Chand as under :-