KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are brother and sister, are in appeal against the judgment and order dated January 16, 1988 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby they were held guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A/34, 304/34 and 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, appellant No. 1 (Kewal Krishan) was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years under Section 304-B IPC, RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof to undergo further RI for two years under Section 306/34 IPC and RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further RI for six months under Section 498-A/34 IPC, his sister-appellant No. 2 (Vijay Kumari), was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years under Section 304-B/34 IPC, RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further RI for nine months under Section 306/34 IPC and RI for one year as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default whereof to undergo further RI for three months under Sections 498-A/34 IPC. All the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellants were, however, directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The factual premise upon which the prosecution case rests is that appellant No. 1 (Kewal Krishan) was married to the deceased (Usha Rani) about three and half years before the date of occurrence which took place on May 16,1987. However, the date of marriage has not been brought on record by either of the parties. It was alleged that no scooter and video were given to appellant No. 1 in the marriage, though father (Jagan Nath) of the deceased (Usha Rani) had spent about Rs. 70,000/- on the marriage of his daughter. Appellant No. 1, therefore, started making demands for a scooter and video from the very next day of the marriage and started maltreating the deceased on that count. About eight months before the occurrence Jagan Nath, father of the deceased (PW-3), Ramesh Kumar (PW-2) and Om Parkash (PW-4) etc. visited Fazilka to persuade the appellants not to maltreat Usha Rani by demanding scooter and video for which Jagan Nath, father of the deceased, had no means to provide. About five months before the occurrence, a male child was born to Usha Rani at her parental house and when the child was about two months old that Usha Rani went along with her brother-Sandip Kumar to her in-laws house at Fazilka. Usha Rani, however, returned to Abohar, i.e. at her parental place on the very next day and told that appellant No. 2 (Vijay Kumari) had taunted her for not bringing to scooter and video and that she was given beatings by appellant No. 1 (Kewal Krishan). Her family members accordingly decided not to send her to Fazilka. However, about six days before the occurrence, appellant No. 1 (Kewal Krishan) came to Abohar on a Sunday to take the deceased-Usha Rani to Fazilka. Appellant No. 1 was advised by Jagan Nath, Ramesh Kumar and Om Parkash not to harass Usha Rani and upon his assurance that Usha Rani was sent to Fazilka along with appellant No. 1. On May 16,1987, Ramesh Kumar (PW-2), who is son of maternal uncle of deceased, had gone to Fazilka in connection with some challan case under the Shop Act and at about 10 a.m. he went to his cousin sister-Usha Rani. He found that some portion of the house of Usha Rani was on fire. He, therefore, immediately went to inform the fire brigade. The fire brigade extinguished the fire, upon which he found the burnt body of his sister-Usha Rani and thereupon got lodged the FIR. The appellants were put to trial under Sections 306/304-B/498- A/34 IPC, which culminated into their conviction and sentence, reference to which has already been made.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the present appeal was admitted on January 20,1988 and after notice to the State, sentence imposed upon the appellants was suspended till the disposal of the appeal vide an order dated January 25,1988. During the interregnum, it is stated that appellant No. 2 (Vijay Kumari), who was aged about 20 years at the time of occurrence, has been married. Five months old male child of the deceased and appellant No. 1 is also grown up and in now about 18 years of age.