Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuljit Singh @ Soni And Another vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010
Date of decision: 07.04.2011
Kuljit Singh @ Soni and another
........ Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
JORA SINGH, J.
Kuljit Singh @ Soni S/o Jarnail Singh and Gurmit Kaur W/o Jarnail Singh, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.7.2010, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 27.7.2005, arising out of FIR No. 28 dated 1.5.2005, registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Jagir Singh-complainant CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -2- is resident of village Teja Khurd. Jagir Singh, has three daughters and two sons. Balbir Kaur (deceased), aged about 26 years, daughter of the complainant was married with Kuljit Singh @ Soni S/o Jarnail Singh R/o village Shikar Machhian. Marriage was solemnized on 19.8.2002 and from this wedlock Balbir Kaur, has one daughter aged about 8 months. On 30.4.2005, at about 10.00 a.m. there was a telephone call from the side of Balbir Kaur and on telephone Balbir Kaur, informed the complainant that she had a dispute with her in-laws. Complainant was requested to visit her in-laws house. On receipt of telephonic message from Balbir Kaur, complainant along with his brother Kashmir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and his son Jarnail Singh, had gone to the house of Kuljit Singh at about 12.30 p.m. Balbir Kaur, was present in the house and on enquiry she had disclosed about the entire incident by saying that her in-laws are saying that her parents are "Bhukhe Nange". Her in- laws are pressurizing her to bring motor-cycle from her parents. After that they had enquired from Kuljit Singh about the demand then he assured that in future there will be no demand or harassment. Balbir Kaur, requested the complainant that she want to accompany them but Kashmir Singh, replied that married girls stay in the in-laws house. Balbir Kaur, was requested to stay at her in-laws house. After one hour by taking tea, they came back to their house. On 1.5.2005 at about 7.00 a.m. Mohan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, residents of village Shikar Machhian, came to the house of the complainant and informed him that today in the morning his daughter Balbir Kaur, had died due to burn injuries. After receiving information, complainant party had gone to village Shikar Machhian. Dead body of Balbir Kaur, was found lying in CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -3- the lobby. Kashmir Singh, was deputed to guard the dead body. Complainant had gone to lodge report with the police. Near bus stand of village Shikar Machhian, police party headed by SI Narinder Singh, had met the complainant. Statement of Jagir Singh, Ex. PA, was recorded and he signed the same in token of its correctness. After making endorsement Ex. PW-5/A, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW-5/B was recorded. Special report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate, at 5.30 p.m. on the same day.
Investigating Officer, after recording the statement of the complainant had gone to the spot where dead body was found lying in the lobby. Burnt clothes, burnt wood ash, burnt can of plastic, cotton, burnt pair of Kalerre and burnt pieces of red chilies, were taken into police possession from the spot vide memo Ex. PD, attested by the witnesses. Articles were made into sealed parcels, sealed with the seal of the Investigating Officer bearing impression 'NS'. Photographer was also arranged and photographs Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4 were also got clicked. Inquest report Ex. PC was prepared. Rough site plan Ex. PW- 5/D, was prepared with its correct marginal notes. Dead body was sent to hospital for post mortem examination through police officials. After post-mortem examination, dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased. Clothes worn by the deceased were made into sealed parcels and parcels were taken into police possession.
On 5.5.2005, accused were arrested and produced before the doctor for medical examination. Dowry articles were also taken into police possession vide separate memo Ex. PW-5/N, attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -4- Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 304-B/302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Dr. Gurvail Singh Sandhu, stated that on 1.5.2005, he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Balbir Kaur, brought by the police officials. Dead body was identified by Kashmir Singh and Harbhajan Singh and observed as under:
"A burnt body of female young lady wearing partially burnt clothes salwar and shirt, printed black and red, partially burnt undergarment. Dupatta on neck.
Dupatta had knot and loop was present which was
lying around the neck. It was burn knot. Arms
bilateral semi-flexed, legs semi-flexed and
contracted. Rigor mortis was present in the four
limbs.
Ligature of dupatta was around the neck which
was burnt in nature and burnt knot of dupatta lying anterior to neck. On dissection of neck region thyroid and circoiod cartilage was fractured. There was haemorrhage in the underlying tissue and lumin of tracheae. There was no charring and blackening.
Whole body had first degree burns, legs and arms semi-flexed and contracted. Hand and foot contracted and flexed bilateral legs at hip joint, knee CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -5- joint. Upper arms also contracted at elbow joints. On dissection burn was present only on upper layer of skin. There was no change and sign like echymosis aedma in the underlying tissue.
On examination of thorax wall, ribs were normal and healthy. Pleura cavity was healthy. On dissection bilateral lung was found congested and pethichial haemorrhage present on both lungs. Heart was full of blood and major vessels were full of blood and normal. Peritoneum stomach, small and large intestines were normal and healthy and stomach contained semi digested food particles. Large intestines were full of stool. Liver, spleen and kidney, bladder, external, internal and uterus were normal and healthy. "
Cause of death was due to (shock and haemorrhage) asphyxia due to strangulation of neck. Burn injuries present all over the body were of post-mortem in nature. Death was immediate. Time elapsed between death and post-mortem was within 12 hours. Ex. PA is the copy of the MLR.
PW-2 Jagir Singh, is the father of the deceased. He has reiterated his stand before the police.
PW-3 Kashmir Singh, is the brother of Jagir Singh. He has supported the version of the complainant.
PW-4 Constable Dilbagh Singh, stated that on 1.5.2005, post-mortem examination on the dead body of Balbir Kaur, was got conducted from Civil Hospital, Batala. Clothes worn by the deceased CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -6- were produced before the Investigating Officer and the same were made into sealed parcel. Parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW-3/B, attested by him and Constable Amolak Singh.
PW-5 HC Ranjit Singh, stated that on 1.5.2005, he had delivered special report to the Illaqa Magistrate at about 5.30 p.m. PW-6 Inspector Narinder Singh (retd.), is the Investigating Officer.
PW-7 ASI Davinder Singh (retd.), tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-6/A. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that his marriage with Balbir Kaur, was solemnized on the date of ring ceremony by "Chuni Charawa". No dowry was demanded or given by the parents of Balbir Kaur. Parents of Balbir Kaur, were annoyed with her because they never came to meet Balbir Kaur, even after messages were sent by Balbir Kaur. Later on, they (appellants) came to know that Balbir Kaur, was married hurriedly because she (Balbir Kaur) was not having cordial relations with her parents. Parents of Balbir Kaur, were under fear because Balbir Kaur used to report to her parents on minor things that she would die. On the day of occurrence, i.e. on the intervening night of 30.4.2005/1.5.2005, Kuljit Singh along with his younger brother and labourers were thrashing wheat in the fields. During night time Gurmit Kaur, came with tea and went back. After some time they were called. Gurmit Kaur, was seen weeping. Number of persons were collected in CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -7- the house. Balbir Kaur, was found hanging from the roof fan. Jarnail Singh, father of Kuljit Singh, had gone to inform the police at about 3.00 a.m. Message was also sent to the complainant party. Complainant party came in the morning. Police party was also present in the house. Talk of Balbir Kaur, with her father on 30.4.2005, was brought to the notice of police and in the beginning police was saying that no offence was made out because Balbir Kaur, was annoyed with her parents. She had committed suicide but on the intervention of Sukhwinder Singh Randhawa, Halqa MLA, story was concocted to save the parents of the deceased.
In defence, DW-1 Rattan Singh, stated that he is the Panch of village Shikar Machhian. Accused are known to him. After the death of Balbir Kaur, he had gone to the house of Kuljit Singh. Occurrence had taken place at about 12.00 p.m./1.00 a.m. during the night time. At that time, dead body of Balbir Kaur was lying in the house. Half of the chunni was in her neck and half was hanging with the ceiling fan. Police came at about 2.00 a.m. brought by the father of Kuljit Singh.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that marriage of Balbir Kaur, with Kuljit Singh, was simple. There was ring ceremony and on the same day marriage was solemnized by way of CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -8- "Chunni Charawa". There was no demand of dowry. In fact, Balbir Kaur was not having cordial relations with her parents. Balbir Kaur, had suicidal tendency. On the intervening night of 30.4.2005/1.5.2005, Kuljit Singh-appellant along with his brother and labour was thrashing wheat in the fields. Gurmit Kaur-appellant had gone with tea and came back. After some time on receipt of message, Kuljit Singh, came back to his house. Gurmit Kaur, was weeping. Number of persons were present in the house. Balbir Kaur, was noticed hanging from the fan. Intimation was given to the police and police came to the spot. Intimation was also sent to the complainant party. According to the prosecution story, on 30.4.2005, Balbir Kaur, on telephone informed the complainant about the demand of dowry but no telephonic record on the file to show that Balbir Kaur, had a telephonic call with the complainant party. On 1.4.2005, intimation was given by Mohan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh but they were not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Marriage was solemnized on 19.8.2002. Un-natural death on 1.5.2005. Before un-natural death, no complaint to any authority. There was no Panchayat, regarding demand of dowry. For the first time on 1.5.2005, complainant levelled allegation that appellants were demanding motor-cycle. When un-natural death at the in-laws house then tendency of the parents of the girl is to rope-in all the family members of the husband. Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved to summon the brother of Kuljit Singh but that application was not accepted. Deceased was not having cordial relations with her parents. She was short tempered and on small matters deceased threatened to commit suicide. Appellants were implicated because un- CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -9- natural death at the in-laws house.
Learned State counsel argued that death was within 7 years from the date of marriage. Un-natural death at the in-laws house. According to doctor, 60 per cent burn injuries were noticed. Burn injuries were post mortem in nature. If the deceased had committed suicide then how 60 per cent burn injuries were noticed. After death there was no reason to burn the dead body with a view to implicate the appellant. As per defence version, appellants were present in their house. Dead body was noticed while hanging from the fan but they are not in a position to explain how and who had burnt the dead body. In fact, firstly deceased was strangulated then body was burnt. On 30.4.2005, deceased had told the complainant that she was being harassed for want of dowry. Appellants are demanding motor-cycle and un-natural death on the next day. Argued that deceased had one minor daughter and if she was not having cordial relations with her parents then there was no idea to commit suicide, if there was no harassment for want of dowry. If deceased threatened to commit suicide then appellants could easily convene Panchayat or report the matter to the police or the complainant party.
According to the prosecution story, Balbir Kaur-deceased was married with Kuljit Singh-appellant. Marriage was solemnized on 19.8.2002. Un-natural death at the house of the appellants on 1.5.2005. Allegation of the prosecution is that appellants used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Cruelty or harassment was soon before death whereas defence version of the appellants was that deceased has committed suicide CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -10- because she was not having cordial relations with her parents. Now, the question is whether the deceased has committed suicide or she was strangulated and after that body was set on fire?
Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that marriage of the deceased with Kuljit Singh, was simple on the day of ring ceremony. Marriage was by way of "Chunni Charawa". There was no demand of dowry. Parents of the deceased were not happy with the deceased because deceased had threatened to commit suicide when there was a minor dispute. On the intervening night of 30.4.2005/1.5.2005, deceased committed suicide then intimation was given to the police and the complainant party by Jarnail Singh. Marriage was in the year 2002, whereas death was in the month of May, 2005. Before death no complaint to any authority. There was no Panchayat if there was demand of dowry. For the first time on 1.5.2005, complainant stated that appellants were demanding motor- cycle but after going through the evidence on file, I am not in a position to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. To convict the appellants under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution was required to establish that un-natural death within 7 years from the date of marriage at the in-laws house. Deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment was soon before death.
Evidence on file shows that Balbir Kaur, was married with Kuljit Singh and the marriage was solemnized on 19.8.2002. No suggestion to the witnesses that marriage was not solemnized on 19.8.2002. Un-natural death at the in-laws house on the intervening CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -11- night of 30.4.2005/1.5.2005. No suggestion to the doctor that death was natural. First ingredient to convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC is clear.
According to the prosecution story, deceased was strangulated, then set on fire by the appellants whereas defence version of the appellants was that deceased has committed suicide. Dr. Gurvail Singh Sandu, appeared as PW-1 and stated that ligature mark was noticed around the neck which was burnt in nature. Burnt knot of dupatta was noticed around the neck. Cause of death was due to (shock and haemorrhage) asphyxia due to strangulation of neck. 60 per cent burn injuries were also noticed all over the body. Doctor further stated that burn injuries were post-mortem in nature that means firstly death was due to strangulation. Death was immediate, then dead body was burnt. Doctor did not state a word that victim had strangulated herself. No suggestion to the doctor that death was due to hanging. As per defence version if deceased had committed suicide then question is how 60 per cent burn injuries were noticed. No defence version of the appellants that deceased had set herself on fire. In view of the statement of the doctor, un-natural death at the in-laws house. So, second ingredient to convict the appellants under Section 304-B IPC is also clear.
Next ingredient to convict the appellants under Section 304-B IPC, was that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Cruelty or harassment was soon before the death. As discussed earlier, marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 19.8.2002. After marriage and before death there was no complaint to any authority that the appellants were demanding CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -12- dowry. No Panchayat was convened. According to the complainant on 30.4.2005 at about 10.00 a.m. on telephone Balbir Kaur (deceased) told that there was a dispute in the family. She had requested the complainant to visit her in-laws house. After that complainant along with his brother Kashmir Singh and his son Jarnail Singh, at 12.30 noon had gone to the house of the appellants where Balbir Kaur, was found present and told the complainant party about the incident. Balbir Kaur, had told the complainant party that her in-laws are demanding motor- cycle. Balbir Kaur, also requested them to take her to her parental house. Kuljit Singh, assured the complainant party that he will not harass or maltreat the deceased for want of dowry. Brother of the complainant had also requested Balbir Kaur, to stay in her in-laws house because as per tradition married girls stay in the in-laws house, then on 1.5.2005 at about 7.00 a.m. Mohan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, came to the house of the complainant and told about the death of Balbir Kaur, due to burn injuries. Mohan Singh or Sukhwinder Singh, were not examined by the prosecution but prosecution story is not to be ignored if Mohan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, failed to appear in Court as prosecution witnesses. Mohan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, are from the village of the appellants and if story was not correct one then they could easily be produced in defence.
Jagir Singh-complainant stated that on receipt of information at 7.00 a.m. on 1.5.2005, he along with his brother Kashmir Singh, had gone to the house of the appellants. Dead body of Balbir Kaur, was found lying in the lobby. By deputing Kashmir Singh to guard the dead body he (complainant) had reported the matter to the police present near the bus stand of village Shikar Machhian. CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -13-
Kashmir Singh, also appeared as witness and supported the version of Jagir Singh. Defence version of the appellants was that on the intervening night of 30.4.2005 and 1.5.2005, Kuljit Singh and his brother with the labour was thrashing wheat in the fields. During night time at about 12.00 p.m. Grumit Kaur, had gone with tea and after that she came back. After some time, Kuljit Singh and his brother were informed about the incident. They came back to their house and at that time Gurmit Kaur, was found weeping. Number of persons were present in the house. Balbir Kaur, was found hanging from the ceiling fan. Jarnail Singh, father of Kuljit Singh, had informed the police at about 3.00 a.m. Message was also sent to the complainant party and they came in the morning. That means during night time before 3.00 a.m. dead body was noticed while hanging from ceiling fan but no explanation who brought dead body to the ground hanging from the ceiling fan. Investigating Officer, stated that after recording the statement of Jagir Singh, when he came to the spot then dead body was seen lying in the lobby. According to the doctor, burn injuries were post-mortem in nature. Death was due to asphyxia by way of strangulation. Burnt chunni was noticed around neck. Photographs of the dead body are on the file. 60 per cent burn injures were noticed. If deceased was not having cordial relations with her parents and committed suicide then after suicide who had burnt the dead body because complainant party came in the morning on 1.5.2005. Dead body was seen hanging from the ceiling fan at about 3.00 a.m.. As discussed earlier, no explanation from the side of the appellants as to who had brought down the dead body from the ceiling fan and if the deceased had committed suicide with a dupatta then after death who CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -14- had burnt the dead body in the house of the appellants as complainant party was not present in the house till morning. Appellants were present in the house when the body was seen hanging from the ceiling fan. Number of villagers had collected in the house of the appellants, then appellants were to explain who had set on fire the dead body. No case of the appellants that after the deceased had committed suicide and the dead body was seen while hanging from the ceiling fan then complainant party came and to strengthen the case and to implicate them, complainant party had set on fire the dead body.
If deceased had set herself on fire then why no effort by the appellants to extinguish the fire. No possibility that firstly the deceased had strangulated herself and then set herself on fire. If deceased had the suicidal tendency and was not having cordial relations with her parents and threatened to commit suicide whenever there was some minor dispute then why no complaint to the police or any authority by the appellants. They could easily convene Panchayat that the deceased in case of minor dispute threatened to commit suicide. Defence version of the appellants was that complainant despite request by the deceased did not visit the house of the appellants. According to the defence version, Jarnail Singh, father of Kuljit Singh-appellant, had informed the police at about 3.00 a.m. on 1.5.2005, then before arrival of the complainant party, police came at the spot but Jarnail Singh, failed to appear in Court to state that he had informed the police party about the present incident. Investigating Officer, stated that near the bus stand of village Shikar Machhian, Jagir Singh-complainant had met the police party at about 9.00 a.m. and at about 9.30 a.m. after making endorsement statement of Jagir Singh-complainant was sent to the CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -15- police station, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. No suggestion to the complainant and his brother that Jarnail Singh, had informed the police after the occurrence. Investigating Officer, appeared as PW-6. No suggestion to the Investigating Officer, that incident was brought to his notice by Jarnail Singh, father of Kuljit Singh-appellant.
Suggestion was given to the Investigating officer, that during investigation he came to know that deceased was not having cordial relations with her parents and uncle and they had stopped to visit the house of the appellants. Another suggestion was given to the Investigating Officer, that on 30.4.2005, complainant came to the house of the appellants then deceased had insisted to accompany them but complainant party was not willing to take her back. That means allegation of Jagir Singh-complainant is correct one that on 30.4.2005, when he came to know about the dispute at about 10.00 a.m. then he along with his brother Kashmir Singh, at about 12.30 noon had gone to the house of the appellants then deceased requested them to take her back to her parental house but he replied that married daughters stays in the in-laws house. If deceased was not having cordial relations with her parents or uncle then there was no idea to commit suicide. If deceased was happily staying at her in-laws house and had one minor daughter then due to dispute with her parents, no idea to set herself on fire.
As per defence version, deceased has committed suicide at the house of her in-laws but if deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself with the ceiling fan then how 60 per cent burn injuries were noticed. According to post-mortem report, burn injuries noticed on CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -16- the dead body of deceased were post-mortem in nature. If demand of dowry was after three years from the date of marriage then prosecution story is not to be ignored because death was due to strangulation and after the death burn injuries were caused. Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, when un-natural death at the in-laws house then husband and his family members are to explain why un-natural death at the in- laws house. Presumption is that of dowry death. If dead body was noticed while hanging from the ceiling fan then complainant party was not expected to remove the dead body from the ceiling fan. If death was due to strangulation then after the death, appellants are to explain how the burn injuries were noticed. Evidence rather shows that firstly death by strangulation then dead body was set on fire. That is why no explanation regarding burn injuries after death.
Occurrence was on 1.5.2005, whereas appellants were arrested on 5.5.2005. If they were not at fault then no reason to remain absent from the house. Photographs are on the file but in the photographs no ceiling fan. Number of burnt clothes were also noticed at the place of occurrence. Entire body was found badly burnt. No reasonable explanation from the side of the appellants as to how 60 per cent burn injuries and how the dead body was found lying burnt in the lobby, when the body was seen hanging with the ceiling fan during the night time by the appellants. No case of the appellants that during night time burnt dead body was seen hanging with the ceiling fan. Before the present occurrence, deceased had no dispute with her parents. No complaint to any authority because complainant party wants to settle the marriage. When there was 8 months old girl and the deceased was happily residing at her in-laws house then no reason to CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -17- commit suicide. No case of the appellant that complainant party had burnt the dead body at their house. No father or brother can be expected to burn the dead body of a married girl with this idea that in- laws are to be implicated. In view of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, presumption is that when un-natural death at the in-laws house then death is dowry death.
Last submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants was that occurrence was in the month of May, 2005 and at that time Gurmit Kaur, was 60 years old. At present, she is about 65-66 years old. Minor daughter of the deceased is being maintained by the grand parents i.e. the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. As per custody certificate, Gurmit Kaur, has already undergone 3 years 7 months and 9 days. Requested to take lenient view.
No doubt, Gurmit Kaur, is aged about 66 years old. Minor daughter of the deceased aged about 7-8 years old, at this stage is in the custody of grand parents. If the appellants are directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court then minor daughter of the deceased would suffer. No lady would be in the house to maintain her. Keeping in view the age of Gurmit Kaur, particularly when she is to maintain 7-8 years old daughter of the deceased being grand-mother then I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Instead of undergoing rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304-B IPC, Gurmit Kur, is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
In case of Kuljit Singh @ Soni, no reason to reduce the sentence from 10 years to 7 years because firstly death of Balbir Kaur by way of strangulation with a chunni then dead body was set on fire. CRA-S-1846-SB of 2010 -18-
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No reason to differ. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed with the abovesaid modification qua the sentence of Gurmit Kaur.
Appellants are in custody.
April 07, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE