Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kaul Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 12 January, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997
Date of Decision: 12.1.2010
Kaul Singh and Others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.5.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby Gurdeep Singh, husband of deceased Jaswinder Kaur, Kaul Singh, Chhinder Kaur, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B IPC. The Sessions Judge, Faridkot, sentenced Gurdeep Singh, husband, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Kaul Singh, father-in-law, and Chhinder Kaur, mother-in-law, were sentenced to undergo seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 2 month under Section 304-B IPC. No separate sentence under Section 498-A IPC has been awarded.
Marriage of appellant Gurdeep Singh was solemnized with Jaswinder Kaur, daughter of Nachhattar Singh, about three years before the date of occurrence. Nachhattar Singh made his statement Ex.PA before Nirmal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, of Police Station Lambi, at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, on 26.1.1993 at 2.30 P.M. From the statement made by Nachhattar Singh, brief facts can be gathered. Nachhattar Singh stated that he was resident of village Bhagu and was doing agricultural work. He has got two sons, namely Jagjit Singh and Manjit Singh and one daughter Jaswinder Kaur, who was married three years ago with Gurdeep Singh, resident of Bidhowali. About one and a half years ago, his daughter Jaswinder Kaur had given birth to a daughter. At the time of marriage, complainant had given dowry beyond his capacity but in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur were not happy and they used to maltreat her. About one year ago, husband of the daughter compelled her to bring Rs.15,000/-. In order to save the matrimonial home of her daughter, complainant borrowed Rs.15,000/- from the Commission Agent and paid the amount to her daughter. After a few days, his daughter was beaten by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and was turned out of the house for bringing more dowry. Upon this, complainant along with his elder brother Karnail Singh and Member Panchayat accompanied by their daughter, went to the house of accused, made entreaties and left Jaswinder Kaur in her matrimonial home. Four months ago, complainant had married his sons Jagjit Singh and Manjit Singh in village Ganga falling within the jurisdiction of Police Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 3 Station Dabwali. The marriage of both his sons was attended by Gurdeep Singh, his sister called MP, mother Chhinder Kaur and father Kaul Singh. The in-laws of complainant's sons had given Scooter in the dowry. Due to this, Gurdeep Singh demanded from his wife Scooter and a buffalo. Daughter of the complainant replied that her parents are poor and they are not in a position to satisfy the demand of Scooter and a buffalo. Due to this, Gurdeep Singh, accused, gave slap blows to Jaswinder Kaur in front of the complainant and his wife. The accused had left their daughter at the house of complainant and stated that they would re-marry Gurdeep Singh, accused. About one and a half months before registration of the FIR, the marriage of sister of Gurdeep Singh was fixed. At that time, family of Gurdeep Singh was demanding Rs.20,000/-. Being poor, this demand could not be satisfied by the complainant due to which daughter of complainant was harassed by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, father-in-law and husband. On 25.1.1993, complainant and his nephew Charanjit Singh went to the house of accused to meet his daughter. They reached there at about 4.30 P.M. At that time, their daughter was not at home. From neighbourers, it was learnt that complainant's daughter was burnt after pouring kerosene oil by father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and sister-in-law and she has been taken in a burnt condition to Gidderbaha. Upon this, complainant along with his nephew reached at Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha and learnt that daughter of the complainant has been referred to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. In the morning, complainant along with his brother reached Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, where his daughter had already died. Complainant stated in the FIR that his daughter has been Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 4 killed by her in-laws after kerosene oil was poured upon her and action be taken against the accused. The above said statement led to registration of case FIR No. 8 dated 26.1.1993 at Police Station Lambi under Section 304-B/34 IPC. The above said FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.
Mandeep Kaur, sister of Gurdeep Singh was placed in column No.2. Later an application was filed to summon Mandeep Kaur and the same was declined on 6.11.1993 by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot.
The appellants were charged for offence under Sections 498- A and 304-B IPC. It was stated in the charge that Jaswinder Kaur was married to Gurdeep Singh in or about year 1990 and she died on 25.1.1993 under the abnormal circumstances. At the time of her death, marriage was three years old and she was subjected to cruelty by the accused on account of demand of dowry. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Jaswinder Kaur, after she received burn injuries, was taken for treatment at Bawa Nursing Home at Gidderbaha. Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Private Practitioner at Gidderbaha, appeared as PW.4. He stated that on 25.1.1993, Gurdeep Singh brought his wife Jaswinder Kaur with burn injuries for treatment. He further stated that due to extensive burns, he had advised Gurdeep Singh to take his wife to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, for her treatment.
Dr. Elvino Barreto, Lecturer in Plastic Surgery, Christian Medical College Hospital, Ludhiana, appeared as PW.11. He stated that on 25.1.1993 Jaswinder Kaur was got admitted by Gurdeep Singh, her husband, in Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. At the time of Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 5 admission, there were 92% burns on the person of Jaswinder Kaur. Information Ex.PK was sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana. This witness has also prepared the injury statement Ex.PL. Deceased was admitted in Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, on 25.1.1993 at 6.30 P.M. and she expired on the same day at 11.50 P.M. Information regarding the death of Jaswinder Kaur was sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana, vide memo Ex.PM.
Autopsy on the body of Jaswinder Kaur was conducted by Dr. G.S. Randhawa, PW.7, on 26.1.1993 at 4.45 P.M. According to this witness, there were superficial to deep burns all over the body except outer aspect of left arm, lower and outer aspect of left leg, both feet, head and pubic area. Hair all over the body were singed. Hair on the anterior part of the scalp were partially singed. Palm of the hands were burnt. All the organs of the body were found congested. This witness opined that the cause of death in the present case was shock as a result of extensive burns which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that according to police inquest report, burns were due to flame burns.
After having noticed the medical evidence, it is now time to recapitulate testimony of witnesses who deposed regarding demand of dowry and conduct of the accused.
Nachhattar Singh, father of deceased, complainant, appeared as PW.1. His brother Karnail Singh appeared as PW.2. Jangir Singh, resident of village Bhagu, appeared as PW.3. Charanjit Singh, nephew, who accompanied Nachhattar Singh, complainant, PW.1, to Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 6 Gidderbaha, was given up as unnecessary. Kulwant Singh could not be examined as he died. Manjit Singh and Jaspal Kaur were given up as unnecessary.
PW.1 Nachhattar Singh reiterated what was stated by him in the FIR. A question was put to him whether anybody else was present when an amount of Rs.15,000/- was handed over to his son-in-law Gurdeep Singh, accused/respondent, to which he replied that at that time his brother Karnail Singh was present. In examination-in-chief, it has been further added that at the time of marriage of his sons, Gurdeep Singh, appellant, was given a ring. This witness further stated that in his presence, police had taken in possession one tin, burnt clothes and one match box. These articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB attested by this witness. Nachhattar Singh was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PA where this fact was specifically not recorded that Rs.15,000/- was handed over to son-in-law at village Bidhowali in the presence of Kaul Singh, Chhinder Kaur and Mandeep Kaur alias MP and his daughter Jaswinder Kaur. The witness was further confronted with his statement Ex.PA where it was not recorded that he had put the amount in the lap of his daughter who further handed over that amount to Gurdeep Singh in the presence of Kaul Singh, Chhinder Kaur and Mandeep Kaur alias MP. In cross- examination, this witness stated that marriage of his two sons was solemnized about four months after he had given Rs.15,000/-. This witness was further confronted with his statement Ex.PA where it was not stated that Kaul Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Chhinder Kaur and Mandeep Kaur alias MP were not able to tolerate giving of Scooter to the sons of Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 7 complainant in their marriage by their in-laws. This witness further stated that he along with his brother Karnail Singh reached Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, on 26.1.1993 at 10.00 A.M. Police reached at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, at about 1.30 P.M. He remained in the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, upto 3.00 P.M. He denied various suggestions given by the defence that no amount was handed over and no demand of dowry was made.
PW.2 Karnail Singh supported and corroborated the testimony of his brother Nachhattar Singh, complainant, PW.1. He was also confronted with his previous statement Ex.DA but no noticeable gain accrued to the defence.
PW.3 Jangir Singh stated that Jagjit Singh and Manjit Singh, sons of complainant were married two and a half years ago. A lot of dowry was given by their in-laws, at the time of their marriage. Scooter was also given. At that time, accused had attended the marriage and they demanded buffalo and Scooter and Jaswinder Kaur told the accused that her parents are poor and they have not been able to fulfill the additional demand of accused. At that time, Gurdeep Singh had slapped Jaswinder Kaur. This witness further stated that this was told to him by Nachhattar Singh.
Radha Swami, Revenue Patwari, Halqa Lal Bai, appeared as PW.5 and proved scaled site plan Ex.PC.
Darbara Singh, Moharrir Head Constable, appeared as PW.6 and tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PD to prove link evidence.
Nirmal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.8 and proved recording of statement of complainant Ex.PA and on basis of Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 8 which FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded. This witness also prepared inquest report Ex.PF. He had taken into possession articles belonging to the accused.
PW.2 Pirthi Singh, Inspector, had prepared the rough site plan of the spot Ex.PH. He had taken into possession cane Ex.P1, match box Ex.P2 and burnt pieces of clothes Ex.P3.
Phoola Singh, Constable, appeared as PW.10 and tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PJ.
All incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Their statements were recorded. They denied which was put to them and pleaded false implication.
Kaul Singh, appellant, gave his version as under:-
"I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. There was no demand of any article or amount from our side or any harassment on our part. Jaswinder Kaur was not of normal brain and she was of stubborn nature and used to tell Gurdip Singh to get separate from his parents but he did not agree, due to which she was depressed and frustrated.
That on the alleged day of occurrence, my wife Chhinder Kaur had gone to village Khokhar, for condolence of her relation. Amandeep Kaur was at her in-law's house at village Sukhna Ablu. I and my son Gurdip Singh were working in the fields where Veerpal Kaur d/o Ajaib Singh came to us and told us Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 9 that the clothes of Jaswinder Kaur had caught fire. We both came and tried to extinguish the fire on the body of Jaswinder Kaur. There were so many persons present including Jagdish Singh Member, Ajaib Singh Sarpanch and Bachittar Singh Ex- Sarpanch. Immediately, we arranged vehicle and took Jaswinder Kaur to Bawa Nursing Home, Gidderbaha, for treatment, where Dr. Gurcharan Singh PW.4 gave first aid treatment and on his advise she was taken to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, by my son Gurdip Singh, Jagdish Singh member and others, for treatment, where lateron, she died. Gurdip Singh bore all the expenses of the treatment. We sent information to the parents of the deceased through Charanjit Singh and to the police through Kuldip Singh. The statement of Veerpal Kaur was recorded by Shri Bath D.S.P. Amandeep Kaur was found innocent. The complainant party lateron concocted this false story with due consultations and deliberations, and in connivance with the police".
Chhinder Kaur pleaded alibi. Accused Gurdeep Singh also reiterated what was stated by his father.
Mander Singh alias Sukhmander Singh, a photographer of Gidderbara, was examined as DW.1. He proved photographs of marriage Ex.D1 to D5 and the negatives of these photographs Ex.D6 to Ex.D10.
Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 10
DW.2 Raja Singh was examined to support the plea of alibi projected by Chhinder Kaur.
DW.3 Baljit Singh stated that accused were not demanding any dowry and relations were cordial.
DW Charanjit Singh was given up by the defence as won over. I have heard Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, and Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State.
Mr. Nalwa has stated that in the present case FIR has been ante-timed. He has submitted that according to deposition of PW.1 Nachhattar Singh, he had reached the house of accused on 25.1.1993 at 4.30 P.M., thereafter, he reached Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, on next day i.e. 26.1.1993 at 10.00 A.M. and at that time, Jaswinder Kaur had already expired. The statement of PW.1 Nachhattar Singh purportedly was recorded at 2.30 P.M. and FIR was registered at Police Station Lambi at 7.45 P.M. He further submitted that in the present case, special report reached at the residence of Illaqa Magistrate on 27.1.1993 at 7.00 A.M. Counsel for the appellants has also relied upon judgment rendered in The state of Punjab v. Tarlok Singh AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1221 to say that in the present case there was not only delay in lodging of the FIR but the same was used for consultations and deliberations and the witnesses consumed considerable time to decide which version was to be put forward. He has further relied upon judgment rendered in Thulia Kali v. The State of T.N. AIR 1973 Supreme Court 501 where it has been observed by their Lordships as under:-
Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 11
"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation".
Further reliance has been placed upon judgment rendered in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 188 wherein their Lordships had observed as under:-
"Delay in lodging the FIR often results in
embellishment, which is a creature of an
afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 12 also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C., is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 13 recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW8".
There is no dispute that promptness of FIR and the spontaneous versions are given due credence by the Courts and the maxims of law propounded in the above said judgments are guiding factors for the Courts to assess and appreciate testimony of the witnesses. Delay in each case will not be fatal to the prosecution. The above said general principles are to be applied in each case on the facts of the case. In the present case, as per prosecution witnesses, they received information regarding their daughter having suffered burn injuries, at 4.30 P.M. in village Bidhowali. They learnt that deceased had been taken to Gidderbara. They reached Gidderbara. What is the distance between Bidhowali and Gidderbaha has not been brought on record during cross-examination. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the occurrence had taken place on 25.1.1993. It is common knowledge that in the month of January, due to fog, traffic moment come to stand still. No effort was made to elicit any answer from the witnesses as to why immediately they had not gone to Ludhiana as they learnt at Gidderbaha that deceased had been taken to Ludhiana. Even status of the family of deceased is not known. The only fact known is that his Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 14 sons were given Scooter at the time of their marriage. The witness was not subjected to cross-examination regarding availability of any vehicle in the family or in the neighbourhood or as to why they had not travelled in the night. Be that as it may, according to PW.1 Nachhattar Singh, he had reached earliest in the morning at 10.00 A.M. at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. Distance between Gidderbaha and Ludhiana, according to the counsel, is 175 Kms. So the travelling will normally take four to five hours and the witness probably started early in the morning and reached at Ludhiana. In the present case, statement of witness was not recorded by the local police but by Nirmal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, who belong to Police Station Lambi. The information was sent by the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, to Police Station at Ludhiana. The information was further relayed to Police Station Lambi. Village of the accused fall within the jurisdiction of Police Station Lambi. Lambi is closely situated to Gidderbaha. So after receipt of the information, Investigating Officer had also travelled for about 175 Kms. After the statement was recorded at 2.30 P.M., Investigating Officer travelled back to Lambi and the case was registered at 7.45 P.M. The special report had reached Illaqa Magistrate at Gidderbaha. According to counsel for the appellants, Lachhman Singh, Constable had carried the special report. Lachhman Singh, Constable, has been examined as PW.12. Lachhman Singh, Constable, has tendered his affidavit Ex.PO and in cross-examination he denied the suggest that copy of FIR was given to him in the morning on 27.1.1993 and not on 26.1.1993. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that delay shall put the Court on guard to sift the chaff from the grain and delay in itself cannot be taken Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 15 into consideration to discard the entire testimony of witnesses.
Secondly, it has been contended by counsel for the appellants that PW.2 Karnail Singh, in his examination-in-chief, stated that though Jaswinder Kaur used to visit his house, she never made any complaint regarding the conduct of accused rather all facts were told to him by his brother PW.1 Nachhattar Singh. Similar criticism has been offered qua the testimony of PW.3 Jangir Singh. Therefore, counsel for the appellants has submitted that PW.2 Karnail Singh and PW.3 Jangir Singh do not lend any corroboration to the testimony of PW.1 Nachhattar Singh. It has been further submitted that since deceased had not divulged any information to these two witnesses, therefore, information of these facts disclosed by PW.1 Nachhattar Singh amounts to hearsay evidence.
Mr. Nalwa has further submitted that it has come in the testimony of PW.2 Karnail Singh that PW.1 Nachhattar Singh and Charanjit Singh went to meet Jaswinder Kaur and had returned to their native village at 6.00 P.M. Counsel further stated that PW.1 Nachhattar Singh started his journey to Ludhiana in the next morning, therefore, for whole night, family was together and they coined the present version as a result of consultations and deliberations and they involved all members of the family including married sister Mandeep Kaur alias MP. It has been further contended by Mr. Nalwa that Charanjit Singh, who had accompanied PW.1 Nachhattar Singh to village of the accused and from there to Gidderbaha and other witnesses of recovery of articles from the spot have not been examined. Therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.
Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 16
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State, has submitted that within three years of marriage Jaswinder Kaur, a young lady, after giving birth to a daughter, died in the house of the accused. Therefore, from the testimony of PW.1 Nachhattar Singh, PW.2 Karnail Singh and PW.3 Jangir Singh, offence under Section 304-B IPC is made out against the accused.
I have already considered the arguments advanced before me and have dealt with the argument regarding delay in lodging of the FIR and its effect. Remaining arguments are to be examined in the light of evidence which has been perused and noticed above.
Jaswinder Kaur died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial home. She died due to burn injuries. Her death was unnatural. It has come in evidence that on the demand made by the husband, Rs.15,000/- were handed over to him. In the present case, when two brothers of deceased Jaswinder Kaur were married, according to prosecution, they were given Scooter in the dowry. On this account, Gurdeep Singh, husband, also demanded Scooter and buffalo. According to prosecution, Gurdeep Singh was expecting that in case brothers of his wife can be given Scooter in the dowry, he is also entitled to the same. This incident had happened four months before the occurrence. From the appreciation of evidence, it seems probable that the relations between husband and wife turned sour as Gurdeep Singh was not able to tolerate giving of Scooter to the brothers of his wife at the time of their marriage. Therefore, demand of the scooter was predominantly for the benefit of the husband. In this context, the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants that there was a delay in Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 17 not only lodging of the report but reaching of special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and the family gathered in their village for consultations and deliberations assume importance. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that delay was used for consultations and deliberations to widen the net and parents of the accused have also been impleaded as accused.
In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:-
"For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case". Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 18
In Salamat Ali and Another v. State of Bihar AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1863, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"Uniformly every witness has said that the family members of the husband, i.e. Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in the form of television and scooter. The nature of the demand is some indication. The demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use".
The view propounded in Salamat Ali's case (supra) has also been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports 665 and another Single Bench of this Court in Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab 2007(3) All India Criminal Law Reports 181.
Taking into consideration entire conspectus of the case, appeal of Kaul Singh and Chhinder Kaur is accepted and they are acquitted of the charges. However, conviction of Gurdeep Singh, husband, is maintained.
Gurdeep Singh has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. It has been held by the Courts that Section 304-B IPC prescribe minimum sentence of seven years and enhanced sentence should not be awarded unless the circumstances are such that same is warranted. It is further submitted that in the present case, FIR was registered in January 1993. Gurdeep Singh, appellant, has already Criminal Appeal No. 480-SB of 1997 19 suffered protracted trial of 17 years. The daughter born from the wedlock of deceased Jaswinder Kaur with present appellant Gurdeep Singh, at the time of incident, was aged one and a half years. She is now aged about 18½ years and is of marriageable age. Taking all these facts as mitigating circumstances, sentence awarded upon Gurdeep Singh, appellant, is reduced from ten years to seven years.
With the modifications in the sentence, appeal preferred by Gurdeep Singh is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 12, 2010 "DK"