GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment, I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 439-SB of 1991 (Gurbachan Singh and another v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Revision No. 238 of 1992 (Bachan Singh v. Gurbachan Singh etc.) as both the cases arise out of the same judgment.

(2.) GURBACHAN Singh and his father Gopal Singh, the appellants herein were charged under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative, under Section 304-B IPC. They stand acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 IPC and 304-B IPC but instead convicted under Section 498-A IPC by the impugned judgment dated 13.11.1991 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for two months. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal. Bachan Singh complainant has also filed the present revision, which was ordered to be heard along with the main appeal. It is stated at Bar from both the sides that the State of Punjab has not filed any appeal against acquittal of the appellants under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has not joined the issue so far as merits of the case are concerned and has confined his arguments with regard to quantum of sentence only. He contends that the appellants have since been acquitted for the main offences as no evidence was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the charge. The only evidence led against them was that Santosh Kumari was not traceable and has not been heard of since 11/12.8.1989. The learned counsel then contends that even the trial Court has observed in its impugned judgment that she was a woman of unsound or unbalanced mind and would leave the matrimonial home on impulse. For this reason, the conclusion drawn by the trial court is that her sudden disappearance indicates that she was subjected to cruelty. He further contends that from the impugned judgment, it appears that Gurbachan Singh appellant, the husband used to take excessive liquor due to which there used to be an altercation between the couple. He then submits that Gopal Singh appellant was 67 years of age at the time of the incident, as it clear from the charge-sheet framed in the year 1991 and by now he has gone old (80 years), whereas Gurbachan Singh appellant was 30 years of age at that time. Mr. Hundal further contends that in the present set of circumstances, the appellants have faced the agony of protracted trial for about 15 years and have also remained in custody for about a month during trial. They, thus, deserve a sympathetic tilt with regard to sentence.