AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAT over this judgment brooding over the facts of this case entwined by the thought expressed by Mark Twain in princes and Paupers "it may have happened or may not have happened, but it could have happened."

(2.) THE appeals in hand are against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 415-DB of 1986, namely, Amarjit Singh and Prem Singh, both brothers, stand convicted under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to life imprisonment each, besides payment of Rs. 3,000 as fine; in default six months rigorous imprisonment each. The respondent Bimal Kaur in Cri. final Appeal No. 23-DBA of 1987 was likewise charged along with two aforesaid appellants but stands given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the learned-Judge, which has given rise to the State Appeal. Both will stand disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) THE deceased Surinder Kaur, aged about 23, educated up to Matric resided in her parental home in village Mithumajra in the district of Patiala before her marriage to Amarjit Singh appellant, aged about 25, on March 10, 1985. In keeping with the tradition, which is almost universal, she was uprooted and displaced from her parental family and sent with her husband to find abode in his house in village Mehma Walian in the same district Patiala. The adult members in that family, besides the husband Amarjit Singh appellant, were his elder brother Prem Singh appellant and Prem Singh's wife Bimal Kaur respondent in the State Appeal. These three were the people around the deceased in her post-transplantation period.