SUBHASH CHAND Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 981-SB of 1998 (Subhash Chand and others v. State of Punjab) and Crl. Revision 256 of 1998 (Kuldip Singh v. Subhash Chand etc.), as in the opinion of this court, both these cases can be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) THE criminal appeal has been filed by Subhash Chand (Father-in-law), Kamal Kumar (Husband), Smt. Indira Devi (Mother-in-law) and Gulshan Kumar (Devar) of Sunita, deceased, while the criminal revisional has been filed by Kuldip Singh, the father of the deceased, in which he has prayed for the enhancement of the sentence and also prayed that the appellants be convicted u/s 302, IPC.

(3.) THE brief facts or the face can be noticed in the following manner :- Kuldip Singh son of Devi Ditta Mal resident of Janakpuri, made a statement, Ex. PA, before ASI Gurmail Singh on 14.4.1995, wherein he stated that he runs a factory in Janakpuri and has four children, i.e. two daughters and two sons. Sunita, deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of the occurrence and she was her eldest daughter and was married to Kamal Kumar, appellant No. 2, above two years back. Precisely stating, the marriage of Sunita with Kamal Kumar took place on 12.3.1997 (12.3.1003 ?) and the present occurrence has taken placed on 13.4.1995. Elaborating the allegations, it is further alleged by Kuldip Singh in his statement that he had given sufficient dowry at the time of the marriage of his daughter according to his capacity. After about one year of the marriage, Sunita brought to his notice by weeping that her husband Kamal Kumar, her father-in-law Subhash Chand, mother-in-law Indira Devi, sister-in-law Sonia and brother-in-law Gulshan Kumar, were harassing her for bringing less dowry. She further complained that her father-in-law had not been allowing her husband to enter in the factory. The complainant prevailed upon his daughter by saying that the daughters are supposed to live in the house or his in-laws. Acting upon the advice of her father, Sunita went to the house of her in-laws. Thereafter, Sunita gave birth to a daughter and some articles were also given on this occasion. According to the complainant, his daughter lived with the accused for some time. 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, Sunita, again, came to the house of her father and complained to him in the presence of Santosh Kumari, her mother and Kharaiti Lal, PW, that the family of her in-laws had been harassing her for bringing less dowry and they told her to bring Rs. 1 lac from the complainant. Again, the complainant prevailed upon his daughter and in the company of his daughter went to the house of the accused where he found that the appellants and Sonia were present. The complainant told them that he was a poor person and was unable to give more dowry. Upon this, Subhash Chand told the complainant that his factory had fallen into losses and that he should give Rs. 1 lac within a week falling which his daughter would not live in his house. On 13.4.1995 at 9 p.m., a message was received on telephone that Sunita has been burnt to death by sprinkling Kerosene oil upon her body by the appellants and Sonia. Resultantly, the complainant went to the house of the accused along with other persons of the Mohalla and found the dead body of his daughter. On the above allegations, the statement, Ex. P.A. was recorded. The I.O. made the endorsement Ex. PA/1, and it was sent to the police station for the registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/2, was recorded. Thereafter, the I.O. went to the spot and prepared the inquest report, Ex. PW-10/A. He prepared the request for post- mortem and the dead body of Sunita was sent to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He also took into possession one hall burnt chaddar, one blanket, one chappal and one can or kerosene oil along with other articles by a separate memo. He also took into possession the wearing apparres found on the person of Sunita vide recovery memo, Ex. PA. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the rough site plan, Ex. PW-10/B. He arrested the four appellants on 18.4.1995. The I.O. also recorded the disclosure statements, Ex. PJ, PF, PG and PM, of Kamal Kumar, Subhash Chand, Gulshan Kumar and Indira, respectively, and in pursuance of those disclosure statements, certain dowry articles were recovered. The I.O. also took into possession a photo album and two ration cards. Kuldip Singh, complainant, also produced the wedding card of Sunita. Sonia in this case could not be arrested and she was declared a Proclaimed Offender. Finally, on the completion of the investigation of the case, the appellants were challaned u/ss 304-B, 120-B and 406, IPC, in the court of the Addl. CJM, Ludhiana, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused according to law free of cost and vide commitment order dated 5.9.1995 committed all the accused to the court of Sessions to face trial in view of the fact that the offence u/s 304- B, IPC, was exclusively triable by the court of sessions. Vide order dated 15.1.1996, the trial court framed the charges u/ss. 304-B, in the alternative u/s 302, IPC, u/ss 498-A and 406, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.