KULBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 4.6.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby, all the three accused-appellants, namely; Kulbir Singh, Joginder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur (herein referred as the 'accused') were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, each.

(2.) THE deceased Baljit Kaur, daughter of Chand Singh r/o village Bhura Karimpura, District Amritsar (herein referred as the 'complainant') was married to accused Kulbir Singh, a resident of village Duhan Kohna on 22.6.1988. Accused Joginder Kaur was the mother-in-law of the deceased, whereas, Jaswinder Kaur is her widowed sister-in-law (Nanad). Out of the wedlock, three children were born. Despite the sufficient dowry given to the accused at the time of marriage, they were not still satisfied and raised demand of a Maruti Van, which the complainant could not arrange due to the disturbed law and order situation in the State of Punjab. He could not attend the agriculture in proper manner and, therefore, his income had come down. The accused were not behaving properly with the deceased. She was being maltreated, beaten and tortured on account of demand of dowry. However, the complainant always consoled his daughter and asked her to bear with the situation and also promised that he would meet their demands. About 1-1/2 months prior to the occurrence, having been turned out by the accused, the deceased had come to her parental house along with her three children. Then, Raj Singh, uncle of Kulbir Singh visited the house of the complainant and promised that they will not repeat the same behaviour with the deceased and took her and the children with him to his house. About 15 days, thereafter, the complainant again visited the house of the accused to know about the well-being of his daughter Baljit Kaur, where, all the accused persisted on their demand of a Maruti Van and threatened of the dire consequences, if their demand is not fulfilled.

(3.) ON commitment, all the three accused were charged under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.