Kania, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court convicting the appellants, namely, Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh of offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. A few facts are necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal.
(2.) Appellant No. 1, Wazir Chand and appellant No. 2, his son Kanwar Singh, are both residents of Faridabad. The deceased Veena was married to Kanwar Singh on October 16, 1983. On June 10, 1984, within less than a year of her marriage, Veena died after having sustained burn injuries at the residence of her husband Kanwar Singh who was living with his father Wazir Chand. She sustained burn injuries at about,6/6.30 a.m. on June 10, 1984 and was taken to the Geeta Nursing Home where she died at about 11 a.m. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants and Krishna Devi wife of Wazir Chand, not being satisfied with the dowry given at the time of Veena's marriage, were making demands for further articles of dowry from Veena and her relatives and were harassing, humiliating and insulting Veena and she was driven to commit suicide by setting herself on fire. The case appears to be that she sprinkled kerosene on her clothes and set herself on fire. This incident occurred in the kitchen of Wazir Chand's resident. It is also the case of the prosecution that, although Veena cried, the noise of her cries were suppressed by someone in Wazir Chand's family by putting on loudly a radio or television set and that the neighbours and outsiders whose attention was attracted by the cries of Veena were prevented from entering the residence as the doors were shut. It was also alleged by the prosecution that there was delibrate delay in taking Veena to the Geeta Nursing Home where she died, and that she was deliberately taken to Geeta Nuring Home where adequate facilities for treatment of burn injuries were not available instead of the Badshah Khan Hospital, which is also known as the Civil Hospital, where better treatment for burn injuries was available as known to the appellants. The appellant, Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh as well as Krishna Devi, the wife of Wazir Chand were charged and tried before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad under Sections 306 and 498A respectively of the Indian Penal Code. The defence taken by the accused was that Veena did not commit suicide but her clothes accidentally caught fire when she was preparing tea for the family over a stove. The allegations regarding harassment of Veena for dowry were also denied. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Krishna Devi but convicted Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh under the aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code. Kanwar Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-for the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and the payment of a fine of Rs. 100/- for the conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. As far as Wazir Chand is concerned, it was held that he played the more important and active part in putting pressure on Veena for dowry articles and causing harassment to her. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and payment of a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- for the conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh preferred an appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the decision of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned single Judge of the High Court disposed of the said appeal confirming the conviction of both the accused i.e. Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh but reduced the sentence of Wazir Chand under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to a period of three years. In the Trial Court as well as in the High Court the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is this judgment of the learned single Judge which is said to be impugned in this appeal before us.;