VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/- each, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in Sessions Case No. 57/1991, dated August 14, 1993.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, Accused 1 was married to Parveen Kumari alias Veena on October 10, 1986. Accused 2 is the brother of accused 1. Accused 3 is the mother and accused 4 is the father of accused 1. The accused used to harass Parveen Kumari and demanded dowry from her parents. She was also beaten by the accused. On April 23, 1990, Parveen Kumari was found dead. The maternal uncle of the deceased Roshan Lal on coming to know about the death of Parveen Kumari, informed the parents of the deceased and he came back to the village and went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of Parveen Kumari in the courtyard with deep injuries on her person. Thereafter, he gave a report to the police on the basis of which the police registered a case in F.I.R. No. 59 dated April 23, 1990 at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 304-B IPC. During the course of investigation, the police sent the dead body of Parveen Kumari to the hospital for post-mortem and recorded the statements of the witnesses and after necessary investigation, filed a charge sheet in Court against all the accused. Thereafter, the case was committed to Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar framed charge under Sections 302/34 and also under Section 304-B, IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked documents. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused examined five witnesses. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar held that Parveen Kumari was killed in the house of the accused but since there is no evidence directly to show as to which one of the accused took which active part in causing her death, it cannot be said that case under section 302 is made out and therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of that charge. But the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC as the death of the deceased Parveen Kumari took place within seven years of marriage and otherwise in normal circumstances and sentenced the accused as stated above.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the appeal, I would like to point out that the approach of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar is not correct. If he was of the opinion that Parveen Kumari was killed by the accused, he should have convicted all the accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC even though there is no evidence to show that as to also one of the accused took which part in causing her death. For convicting the accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC it is not necessary to prove that which of the accused took which part in causing her death but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the charge under sections 302/34 IPC. This is contrary to his own findings.