GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the conviction of the appellants in case FIR No.18 dated 16.03.2000 under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 16.03.2000, Gurdev Kaur (mother of the deceased) lodged FIR stating therein that her youngest daughter Sukhjit Kaur @ Pal(deceased) was married to Gurpreet Singh-appellant No.1. At the time of marriage, they spent huge amount according to their status. After six months of the marriage, Gurpreet Singh-appellant No.1(husband) and his other family members started demanding cash from them but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Whenever her daughter Sukhjit Kaur @ Pal used to come to see her parental house, she had been telling that her in-laws had been harassing her on account ofC dowry. Then Gurpreet Singh had left Sukhjit Kaur @ Pal(deceased) in her parental house for 5/6 months. They arranged Panchayat for rehabilitation of her daughter. With the help of Panchayat, they left their daughter in her in-laws house. After some time again Gurpreet Singh and his family members started maltreating her for bringing less dowry. On 15.03.2000 at about 10.00 a.m. her daughter telephoned them that her in-laws again harassing her on account of insufficient dowry and asked them to reach at her in-laws house immediately. After hearing telephonic call, she alongwith others reached there, they saw her daughter Sukhjit Kaur @ Pal burning due to fire and told that her husband Gurpreet Singh, father-in-law and mother-in-law had set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil on her. Thereafter, she became unconscious. Then they took Sukhjit Kaur @ Pal to DMC, Ludhiana for treatment but on the way, she succumbed to her injuries. She alongwith Gurtej Singh and Babu Singh report the matter to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the accused. After completion of all formalities, challan was presented against the accused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appeal qua appellants No.2 and 3 may be allowed on the ground that they were residing separately and this is evident from the statement of DW1, who has stated that appellants No.2 and 3 were residing separately and that he was not cross-examined on this aspect.