VINIT SOOD Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment, dated 30th September, 2008, of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby the appellants, in two appeals, who were jointly tried for offences, under Sections 498-A, 306, read with Section 34, and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, have been convicted and sentenced. Vinit Sood (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 2008) has been convicted of offences, under Sections 498-A, 306, read with Section 34, and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for offence, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code; seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for offence, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for offence, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant in the other appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 2008), namely Banarsi Dass Sood, has been convicted of offences, under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for offence, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code; and simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It may be stated at the very outset that order of conviction of appellant Vinit Sood, for offence, under Section 306, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is bad, on the face of it, because out of three accused, who were jointly tried, one, namely Vijay Kumari Sood, has been acquitted of all the charges, and appellant Banarsi Dass Sood has been acquitted for the charge, under Section 306, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, appellant Vinit Sood, could not have been convicted of offence, under Section 306, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, especially when it is not the case of the prosecution that there was some other accused also, who shared the intention for offence, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, with appellant Vinit Sood.

(3.) Case of the prosecution, which has led to the conviction and sentencing of the appellants in the two appeals, may be summed up thus. Deceased Monika was married to appellant Vinit Sood. Marriage had taken place in November, 2000. Appellant Banarsi Dass Sood is the father of appellant Vinit Sood. Vijay Kumari Sood, who was jointly tried with the appellants, but has been acquitted, is the mother of appellant Vinit Sood. On the night intervening 29th and 30th July, 2003, deceased Monika, who was an Ayurvedic doctor, consumed an insecticide, with brand name 'dichlorovos', and was found dead on the terrace around 4.30 a.m. Dead-body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Two ante-mortem injuries were noticed. They were a bruise over the medial aspect of the left upper arm, three inches from shoulder level and a laceration over the right ear near the earring hole. No other ante-mortem injury was noticed. Cause of death was opined to be consumption of some poisonous substance. Final opinion was reserved till receipt of Chemical Examiner's report to whom viscera was sent. Chemical Examiner reported that there were traces of 'dichlorovos' in the viscera. Death was opined to have taken place within few hours of consumption of poison.