STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAJU MASIH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also dispose of connected Criminal Appeal No. 505 -DB of 2008 filed by the accused appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.5.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in Sessions Case No. 20 dated 30.3.2006, holding accused appellant Raju Masih guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC, and sentencing him to the extreme penalty of death sentence, whereas, convicting other two co -accused -appellants, namely Veena and Rinku under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and sentencing them each to the imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/ -; in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one month. Accused appellant Raju Masih was also held guilty of offence under Section 316 IPC and other two co -accused appellants under Section 316 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused appellant Raju Masih was, thus, sentenced to undergo three years ' RI with a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -; in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month on the second count under Section 316 IPC, and other two co -accused appellants to RI for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month, under Section 316 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) PROSECUTION case originated in statement given by Gindo (PW5), mother of the deceased, vide Ex.PJ, to ASI Parsan Singh (PW9) of Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur, on 1.1.2006. As per her statement, marriage of her daughter deceased Rama had been solemnized a year back on 25.4.2005 with accused appellant Raju Masih son of Sadiq Masih. She had given dowry as per her capacity at the time of marriage. The in -laws of her daughter Rama, however, had started harassing and maltreating her. Her daughter Rama had informed about such incidents when she had visited her house. On asking of her daughter, she had provided one fridge and thereafter a TV set and had sent these articles to her daughter's in -laws. Despite fulfilling this demand, husband of her daughter Raju Masih, her mother -in -law Veena and father -in -law Sadiq Masih had continued harassing and maltreating her. On the date of incident, i.e., 1.1.2006 at about 5.30 in the evening, she was informed on telephone by some unknown person that her daughter Rama had been set on fire by pouring kerosene on her by her father -in -law Sadiq Masih, mother -in -law Veena and husband Raju Masih, with common intention of each other. Her daughter Rama was admitted in hospital at Gurdaspur. Hence, complainant Gindo along with her husband Riaz Masih reached the hospital at Gurdaspur, where her son -in -law Raju Masih and his mother Veena were found present near her daughter Rama in the emergency ward. When they were asked about the incident, they could not give any satisfactory reply, and they had brisked away from near the bed of the deceased. She further stated that her deceased daughter was harassed and maltreated by her mother -in -law Veena, father -in -law Sadiq Masih and husband Raju Masih, in order to coerce her to bring more dowry articles. On account of the non -fulfillment of their dowry demand and due to annoyance, they tried to kill her daughter Rama by pouring kerosene on her.

(3.) LEARNED trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence, recorded the conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, while placing reliance on the dying declaration which was found duly corroborated by the evidence of Gindo (PW5); recovery of articles used in the commission of offence; dearth of explanation on the part of accused persons regarding the unnatural death of deceased inside her matrimonial house; statement of the deceased regarding the death of her still born child, and the medical evidence.