RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 10.12.1993 passed by the Court of learned sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Rajesh Kumar as well as his mother Satya Devi as under with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently :- Sr. No. Name of the accused Sentence Under Section 1. Rajesh Kumar RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 306 IPC -do- RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of ine, to further undergo RI for 3 months. 498-A IPC

(2.) SATYA Devi RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in defualt of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. 306 IPC -do- RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 3 months. 498-A IPC The factual matrix is that Vanita daughter Comrade Lal Chand of village Nangal Khurd, District Mansa was married to the accused Rajesh Kumar about 1- 1/2 years prior to May, 1992. Rajesh and his mother Satya Devi were dissatisfied with the dowry brought by Vanita in marriage. Soon after the marriage, they started harassing her for her having brought inadequate dowry. Her father Lal Chand being a poor person was unable to fulfill their demand. He had already given dowry according to his financial capacity. Both the accused asked Vanita to fetch Rs.10,000/- from her father, who could not fulfill this demand. Nearly 1-1/4 years later, Vanita gave birth to a male child. The accused asked for cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- in "Chhuchhak." 2. A few days before 8.5.1992 (referring to the date of occurrence),the marriage of Lal Chand's son Hans Raj was to be solemnized. Lal Chand went to the house of the accused at Malout with the invitation card pertaining to the marriage of Hans Raj along with a pack of sweets. The wedding card was retained but the pack of sweets was returned by the accused. Rajesh Kumar accused and his wife Vanita did not attend the marriage. The accused continued putting Vanita to harassment for her having failed to fetch the above mentioned cash amount from her father. On 8.5.1992, Vanita set herself as well as her son Vanish ablaze by pouring kerosene oil on their bodies. On receipt of such information, Lal Chand reached Civil Hospital, Malout whence he learnt about the death of Vanita as well as her child. On the basis of his statement, Exh.PK, formal FIR, Exh. PK/1 was registered under Section 304-B/34 of IPC. The inquest reports were prepared qua their dead bodies. The accused were put under arrest. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha. Vide his order dated 10.10.1992, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. The accused Rajesh Kumar as well as Satya Devi were charged under Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Balkar Singh, SMO Civil Hospital, Malout-PW1, Kidar Nath Draftsman PW-2, HC Ved Parkash PW-3, Constable Het Ram PW-4, ASI Hardam Singh PW-5, Lal chand PW-6, Raj Kumar PW-7, SI Gian Chand PW-8, ASI Ajmer Singh PW-9 and closed its evidence by tendering Exh.PT, report of FSL Punjab, Chandigarh, affidavits Exhs.PL and PM of Constable Kashmir Singh and Constable Gurdev Singh respectively. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. They put forth that Lal Chand is a poor man. He could not afford any dowry. It was a simple marriage. Rajesh Kumar is lame. Vanita was beautiful. She did not want to marry Rajesh Kumar accused who is hanidcap. On account of her marriage with Rajesh Kumar who is lame, Vanita used to remain dejected, frustrated and upset. She was married to Rajesh Kumar against her will. She committed suicide on account of dejection, disappointment and frustration brought by her marriage to Rajesh Kumar, a lame. 5. In their defence, they examined Rajinder Singh Kanwar, Manager UCO Bank, Malout DW-1. Besides this, Rajesh Kumar accused tendered written statement of his defence urging that on 8.5.1992, he was on duty in UCO Bank, Malout. The Manager called him at about noon time and told him that he had received message from some body that his wife had committed suicide and he be sent to his house. He made verbal request to the Manager to permit him to go to his house and accordingly, he was permitted. When he reached there, he came to know that his wife had been admitted in Civil Hospital, Malout. He went there and found his wife dead with burns. He made an application to the Manager praying for leave for 9.5.1992 onwards. At the time when Vanita set herself ablaze, his father was at his shop and mother was away to Village Kallianwali. He and his mother never demanded any dowry or Chhuchhak as his marriage was not possible. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and after examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/sentence, they preferred appeal to this Court. 7. On July 7, 2005, the appeal was listed for arguments. On that day, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the appellants despite the case having been on the list for a reasonable long time with the result this Court proceeded to decide this appeal. After scanning through the record with the assistance of learned State Counsel, the appeal was dismissed. The accused-appellants, feeling aggrieved with the judgment/order dated 7.7.2005 of this Court, preferred Appeal by Special Leave. The Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1720 of 2006 was allowed and the Special Leave was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 12.5.2006. The Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2006 was disposed of by the Apex Court on 12.5.2006 with the following observations :-