SARWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARWAN Singh has come up in appeal against the conviction and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default further two months' rigorous imprisonment under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by his order 31st January, 1983.

(2.) SUKHDEV Kaur (since deceased) daughter of Ajit Singh PW4 was married to the appellant for the last about twenty years. She gave birth two sons and one daughter from the loins of the appellant. All the three children are alive and the youngest one is a son. The appellant was addicted to intoxicants. He mortgaged his entire land and later on wanted to sell the whole land. Ajit Singh PW4 got a civil suit filed in the Civil Court from Sukhdev Kaur. The suit was decreed and the land was transferred in the name of Sukhdev Kaur. a loan was raised by Sukhdev Kaur from the land mortgage bank to redeem one of the mortgages made by the appellant. One buffalo and one cow were got attached by the back in lieu of the loan. Ajit Singh paid Rs. 2800 and got the cattle released from attachment. After a year the appellant again got the same land mortgaged for Rs. 1000 by putting pressure on Sukhdev Kaur. The appellant used to maltreat sukhdev Kaur and she used to get a sum of Rs. 200 to 400 from her father at intervals. The appellant told Sukhdev Kaur that she should further mortgage the land for another sum of Rs. 6000 or she should jump into the canal. Ten days prior to the present occurrence which took place on 17th June, 1982, Ajit Singh PW again went to the village of the appellant and in his presence also the appellant quarreled with Sukhdev Kaur. The appellant told her that either she should arrange for a sum of Rs. 6000 or jump into the canal. Ajit Singh PW pacified both the parties and left for his village.

(3.) WHEN examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant pleaded innocence and false implication and stated that his father-in-law was a greedy person and got the land transferred in the name of his daughter Sukhdev Kaur and that he was falsely implicated in this case to exclude him from inheriting the land. He did not lead any evidence in defence.