SATTO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATTO wife of Dev Raj, Jagtar Singh son of Dev Raj and Dev Raj son of Sansar Chand have filed the present appeal. All the three appellants stand convicted under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on March 21, 1989 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months under Section 304-B IPC, R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months under Section 498-A IPC. It was ordered that all these sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) BALWINDER Kaur wife of Jagtar Singh (appellant herein) committed suicide by jumping into the well along with her daughter Harvinder Kaur aged about 3 years on 23.6.1988 in the village of her in-laws. The matter was reported to the police by Nazir Singh, brother of the deceased-Balwinder Kaur (P.W. 2) on 24.6.1988.

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation all the appellants challaned were under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A IPC by the trial Court. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses besides tendering certain documents. The defence put forth by all the appellants was common to the effect that after the delivery of second daughter-Rajvinder Kaur, the deceased-Balwinder Kaur had become of unsound mind for which she was taking treatment from the 'Chelas' (spiritual healers) and ultimately she committed suicide along with her elder daughter-Rajvinder Kaur who was aged about 3 years at that time. The appellants had also examined four witnesses in defence. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Court convicted all the appellants for the charges as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment convicting and sentencing them, all the three appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal.