SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sanjeev Kumar, appellant (to be described as Rs.accusedRs.) and Sonia, his sister-in-law, faced trial on the charges under Section 498-A and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity Rs.IPCRs.), for having subjected Rekha wife of Sanjeev Kumar, appellantaccused to cruelty and harassment, with a view to force her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry from her parents, and for committing her murder by intentionally causing death of Rekha (deceased) . Vide judgment, dated 1.11.2006, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Sonia, co-accused was acquitted of the charges by extending her benefit of doubt and Sanjeev Kumar, appellant was convicted of the said charges vide judgment dated 01.11.2006 and awarded sentences vide order dated 03.11.2006 as under:-

(2.) According to the prosecution, Assistant Sub Inspector (for brevity Rs.ASIRs.) Tarsem Lal of Police Station-A Division, Amritsar, on receipt of information from Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, about the admission of Rekha (deceased) with burn injuries, reached there, alongwith other police officials. He moved an application, seeking opinion of the doctor, for recording the statement of the victim. The doctor found Rekha, fit to make the statement.

(3.) The version that emerges from the statement of Rekha (deceased) recorded by ASI Tarsem Lal, is that her marriage was solemnized on 10.5.1996 i.e. about 10 years ago, with the appellantaccused. Three sons were born from the wedlock and Punnu (PW-4) was the eldest, aged about 9 years. Her husband was running business of making large steel trunks. His income is meager but he was addicted to liquor. On that account, the accused had incurred debt. The accused alongwith his mother Janak Rani and Sonia wife of his elder brother, namely; Kalu had been harassing her, demanding money from the parents of the deceased. Six months before the occurrence, father of the deceased had paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash to them and they were able to clear the debt. They again started pressing her to bring more money, for which, she had expressed her inability, as her parents were not financially sound. Therefore, the appellant and his aforesaid relatives used to harass her. She was residing with her husband and children, on the second floor of the house, whereas her mother-in-law and Sonia with family, were residing on the first floor and the family of paternal uncle of Sanjeev Kumar, appellantaccused were occupying the ground floor.