MANMOHAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.4.2002 and order of sentence of even date vide which accused Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani have been convicted under Sections 304 -B and 315 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 -B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 315 IPC, whereas, Manmohan Singh has been convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months, while, accused -Jankar Singh has been convicted under Sections 304 -B and 315 IPC and being juvenile his case has been forwarded to the Juvenile Court for passing appropriate orders on his sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Act and accused Sushma Rani has been acquitted of the charges framed against her.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Reeta Kumari, daughter of Sudershana Rani tied nuptial knot with Manmohan Singh on 19.2.1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. As per the status of the complainants, sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. However, Reeta Kumari disclosed on her first visit to parental house that the accused were subjecting her to taunts and harassment fore not bringing scooter and golden bangle in the dowry. The young bride was told in clear terms if their demands of scooter and golden bangle were not satiated, she should not return to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, during her visits to parental house on 2.3.occasions, Reeta Kumari informed her family members that accused were repeating their demands of scooter and golden bangle. She was pacified with a request to return to the matrimonial home on an assurance that demands of scooter and golden bangle would be met as and when complainant's husband came back. About 14 days prior to the occurrence, Dharminder Singh, brother of Reeta Kumari went to enquire about the welfare of his sister to the house of the accused. On his return, he informed his mother that Reeta was subjected to mal -treatment by the accused on account of demand of dowry, therefore, he had brought Reeta along with him to the parental house. Complainant thereafter, had a talk with the accused and assured them that their demands of scooter and golden bangle would be fulfilled as and when her husband came back on leave. Reeta was again sent back to matrimonial home along with her cousin Gopal Singh. Ultimately, on 20.6.1999 at about 3.30 P.M. Mangat Ram, who acted as mediator for the marriage of Reeta Kumari and Manmohan Singh informed that Reeta had died after consuming some poisonoust substance. On hearing the news complaint along with in Arr Singh and brother Daulat Singh went to the house of the accused at village Kahnuwan and found the dead body of Reeta lying in a room. Her statement Exhibit -PB was recorded on the same day by SI -Swinder Singh who met them at the bus stand Kahnuwan.

(3.) THE trial Court acquitted accused Manmohan Singh of the charges under Sections 304B and 315 IPC, however, convicted him under Section 498A IPC. Accused -Sushma Rani was acquitted of all the charges; while, the case of accused -Jankar Singh being juvenile was forwarded to the Juvenile Court for passing appropriate orders on his sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Act. The trial Court found accused Kishan Singh and Bachni Rani guilty of offences under Sections 304 -B and 315 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused as notice in para -1 above.