VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J. - (1.) GURMAIL Singh, Paramjit Singh and Bhajan Kaur, the appellants have brought this appeal against the judgment dated 13.2.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which they have been held guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC and also the order on sentence of the same date vide which the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 each with further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in default of payment of fine. Sarwan Singh, the complainant has filed the connected Criminal Revision No. 664 of 2003 against the convicts seeking reappraisal of evidence of the prosecution and converting the conviction to one under section 304-B IPC or for enhancing the punishment awarded to the convicts.
(2.) THE case against the appellants, as set up by Police Station, Hariana, District Hoshiarpur, vide FIR No. 58 dated 21.5.2000, is as under:- Rajwinder Kaur (deceased) had been a daughter of Sarwan Singh, complainant. She was married with Paramjit Singh accused. Sarwan Singh gave dowry in the marriage as per his capacity. For one year, Rajwinder Kaur stayed at her matrimonial home comfortably. After that, Paramjit Singh, her husband, Bhajan Kaur, her mother-in-law and Gurmail Singh, her father-in-law, started pressing her for arranging marriage of Sharanjit Kaur, her sister's daughter with Dilbag Singh alias Bagga, younger brother of Paramjit Singh. Rajwinder Kaur talked to her father Sarwan Singh in this regard. Sarwan Singh alongwith Rajwinder Kaur went to village Purhiran and met Gurmit Kaur and Gurdev Singh, the parents of Sharanjit Kaur and held talks in this regard with them. They did not agree for the marriage of Sharanjit Kaur with Dilbag Singh alias Bagga saying that Sharanjit was studying in the college while Dilbag Singh had been a drop-out from school in 5th or 7th standard and was practically illiterate and that they did not make a good match. As it was not a matter of happiness for Rajwinder Kaur at her matrimonial home, Sarwan Singh made further efforts to pursuade the parents of Sharanjit Kaur to marry her with Dilbag Singh alias Bagga but they did not agree. On this, Sarwan Singh and Rajwinder Kaur told the accused that parents of Sharanjit Kaur were not agreeable to the proposal. The accused, however, did not give up the idea. They kept compelling Rajwinder Kaur for this relationship. About a month earlier to the occurrence, Paramjit Singh, Bhajan Kaur and Gurmail Singh pushed out Rajwinder Kaur from her matrimonial home. They told her that they would keep her at her matrimonial home only if she arranged the marriage of Sharanjit Kaur with Dilbag Singh. Thus, turned out of her matrimonial home, Rajwinder Kaur came to the complainant. The complainant called his father-in-law Pritam Singh from village Phuglana and told him in this regard. The said Pritam Singh took a few persons from village Ramu Thiara and took Rajwinder Kaur to her matrimonial home at Muradpur Guruka and with the request to the accused not to maltreat her, he left her there. The accused were still putting pressure on Rajwinder Kaur to arrange the said marriage. Rajwinder Kaur kept telling her father Sarwan Singh and mother Tarsem Kaur on telephone about the ill treatment which she was receiving in this regard. On 21.5.2000 at about 10.00 AM, Rajwinder Kaur made a telephone call to her father telling him that she was alone at the home and that the accused had gone to the fields and before leaving .. for the fields, they had an altercation with her . She also told Sarwan Singh that they would kill her on their return. Sarwan Singh told his daughter that he was to attend his duty at Jalandhar and that he would come with his wife on the next day. Rajwinder Kaur, however, kept crying and told Sarwan Singh that they should reach on that very day. At about 2.00 PM on the same day, Sarwan Singh received telephone call that Rajwinder Kaur had suddenly fallen ill and that her condition had deteriorated. Sarwan Singh and Tarsem Kaur along with their son Harvinder Singh were about to start for village Muradpur Guruka but in the meanwhile, a telephone call was received from Gurmail Singh telling him that Rajwinder Kaur had died. On this information, Sarwan Singh, alongwith Gurbachan Singh, member panchayat, Pargat Singh and his wife Tarsem Kaur went to village Muradpur Guruka and there, he found his daughter lying dead on a cot. Claiming that the accused had murdered Rajwinder Kaur, Sarwan Singh lodged a report with Chajju Ram, SI/SHO at bus stand of village Bhikowal. Chajju Ram,SI made his endorsement on the statement of Sarwan Singh and had sent the same to the police station, on which the case was registered for an offence punishable under section 302 and 34 IPC. Chajju Ram then went to the spot and prepared inquest report. He had sent the body of Rajwinder Kaur to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where a board of doctors consisting of Dr.Ram Parkash Saroa and Dr. P.P.S.Sandhu conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur. The viscera was also sent for chemical examination, but no common poison was detected therein. The doctors conducting post-mortem examination did not give the casue of death. On 20.7.2000, a supplementary statement of .. Sarwan Singh was recorded in which he had claimed that the accused were demanding a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 from him for purchase of a tractor. He claimed that though, the tractor had already been purchased, yet the balance sale consideration was to be paid by them. He has also claimed that he had applied for loan from G.P.F. for a sum of Rs.90,000.00 on 13.5.2000 and the loan was sanctioned and paid to Sarwan Singh on 22.5.2000, but Rajwinder Kaur had already died on 21.5.2000. After due investigations, challan was presented against the accused for an offence punishable under section 304-B read with section 34 IPC. Charge for an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC was framed against the accused vide orders dated 8.11.2000 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses and closed its evidence. The accused were examined thereafter in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C. They had denied the truth of the prosecution evidence put to them in the shape of questions. They denied having ever demanded dowry or harassed Rajwinder Kaur in any connection. They claimed that they had purchased the tractor on 17.4.2000 on payment of full consideration to Sarwan Singh son of Naranjan Singh and Surinder Kaur wife of Sarwan Singh, from whom they purchased it after withdrawing the money from the bank account. It was also claimed that Rajwinder Kaur was living separately with Paramjit Singh. They further claimed that on 27.11.2000, Sarwan Singh, complainant alongwith Pritam Singh, Paramjit Singh and others came to see them in the District Jail, Hoshiarpur and demanded a sum of Rs.3.00 .. lacs from them for resiling from their statements. They have further claimed that they declined to meet this demand. The supplementary statement made by the complainant is also said to be false. In defence, the accused have examined one witness and closed their defence.
(3.) HEARING learned public prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the defence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hosharipur found the accused guilty for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC instead of section 304-B IPC and consequently convicted them for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC. Hearing on quantum of sentence was given on the same day and the sentence, as detailed above, was awarded to the convicts. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the convicts have brought this appeal.;