RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal appeal filed by Ranjit Singh and Nirmal Kaur, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Satnam Kaur, and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 9-7-1996, passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who convicted the appellants u/Sec. 304-B read with Section 49B-A, IPC, and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of seven years each under Sec. 304-B, IPC. They were further directed to undergo RI, for one year each u/Sec. 49B-A, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo RI. for three months each. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution version in brief is that Lakhwinder Singh complainant, gave a statement stating that he is the resident of Batala and is running a tea shop at Aliwal Road. He has four children, two sons and two daughters. The name of his eldest daughter is Charanjit Kaur, who is still unmarried: Satnam kaur, younger to her aged about 19 years, was married to Ranjit Singh, appellant, about one year back before the occurrence, as per religious rites. The mother-in-law Nirmal Kaur and Ranjit Singh, husband, used to maltreat Satnam Kaur for bringing less dowry. She was turned out from the house of her in-laws many times after giving beatings by the accused. He alongwith Gurbax Singh, Member of Panchayat, has been sending her back to her in-laws house. The deceased used to complain that her mother-in-law and her husband used to maltreat her very badly and compelled her to bring more dowry. The complainant promised his daughter that he will help her as per his capacity. He alongwith Gurbax Singh had sent her back last time to her-in-laws house about two months back. On 2-6-1995 Surjit Kaur w/o Gurbax Singh, who was the go-between in arranging the marriage, told him at about 4 P.M. that Satnam Kaur had since died. They alongwith Surjit kaur immediately reached Verka, in the house of his daughter, where she was found dead lying on a cot. The complainant suspected that Ranjit Singh and Nirmal Kaur had administered some poisonous substance to his daughter Satnam Kaur, as a result of which she had died. ASI Satnam Singh, who was posted as ASI in Police Post, Verka, after receiving information regarding the death of Satnam Kaur, went to the place of occurrence in the house of Ranjit Singh appellant, in the area of Nawin Abadi, Verka. The dead body of Satnam Kaur was lying on a cot in the house of the appellants. He recorded the statement Ex. PA of Lakhwinder Singh, father of the deceased appellants. He recorded the statement Ex. PA of Lakhwinder Singh father of the deceased. It was read over to Lakhwinder Singh who read over to Lakhwinder Singh who signed the same in taken of its correctness. Thereafter, the 1.0. made endorsement Ex. PA./1, underneath the statement and sent the same to Police Post, Verka, for the registration of the case. He also prepared the inquest report, Ex. PE, on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination though HC Jarnail Singh, vide request Ex. PD. The case was registered in Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. The clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession and after completing the other formalities both the appellants were arrested. Both the accused were produced in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate u/Secs. 304-B/498-A, IPC read with Section 302/34, IPC. After the completion of the investigation of the case, both the appellants were challenged in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the appellants according to law free of cost and vide committed the appellants to the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 28-10-1995, the learned Trial Court framed charges were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses in all, including Lakhwinder Singh, father of the deceased and Om Parkash, a neighbour and Dr. Gurmanjt Rai, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. The statements of the accused were recorded u/Sec. 313, Cr. P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. Accused denied those circumstances and pleaded that they were innocent.