- (1.) APPELLANT No.2 -Joginder Singh is father -in -law and appellant No.3 -Surinder Kaur is mother -in -law of the complainant -Parminder Kaur. They, along with their son Paramjit Singh -appellant No.1 (since deceased), were arraigned as accused in FIR No.127, dated 15.05.2002, recorded at Police Station, Sadar, Hoshiarpur, under Sections 307/498 -A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short -'IPC'). Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the learned trial Court is as under: - "The prosecutrix is Parminder Kaur who was married to Paramjit Singh accused about seven or eight years before the occurrence and the other accused Joginder Singh and Surinder Kaur are the parents of Paramjit Singh. A male child was born to her from the wedlock who was about 5 -1/2 years old. On 11.05.2002, Onkar Singh PW, son of the sister of father of the prosecutrix had also come to meet her and was sitting in one room of the residential house at village Bhagpur to which the accused belong. At about 10 PM, Parminder Kaur went to her bed room for lifting the hand -fan that her husband Paramjit Singh accused poured kerosene oil from the tumbler on her back. When she turned back, she saw her mother -in -law Surinder Kaur accused having lit the match stick and threw it upon Parminder Kaur, as a result of which her chunni caught fire. She immediately threw away the chunni in the court -yard of the house and tried to run outside the house but at the entrance gate of the house, Joginder Singh accused, her father -in -law, who was present there, remarked that Parminder Kaur should be caught and finished. When she raised alarm that her cousin Onkar Singh and many residents of the locality gathered there was rescued her from the clutches of the accused.
(2.) PARMINDER Kaur, PW, then rang upon her parents at village Khurdpur and her father Balbir Singh, Manjit Singh, her brother, and Balwinder Singh, husband of sister of her father (Fuffar) reached there in the early morning. Parminder Kaur got nervous and she received certain abrasions on both her upper arms and on her back.
(3.) ACCORDING to Parminder Kaur's statement made before the police, her husband Paramjit Singh accused was posted as sepoy in the Border Security Force and was habitual drunkard. For the above mis -conduct the department had terminated his services. Now whenever Parminder Kaur required from them money for running the domestic expenses, Paramjit Singh started asking her to bring money from her parents but she had refused. All the accused took ill of the above refusal and they made an attempt to kill her by burning." After investigation was complete, a report in terms of subsection (2) and Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short -'Cr.P.C.') was filed before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate who, after complying with the provisions of Section 207, Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session, as offence of Section 307, IPC, is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. The matter was ultimately assigned to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court'). On hearing the accused and the prosecutor and on appraisal of the material available before it, learned trial Court found grounds to presume commission of offence by the accused punishable under Sections 307/498 -A, IPC, to exist, and, accordingly, framed in writing charge against the appellants and Paramjit Singh (since deceased). The appellants and Paramjit Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On being called upon to bring evidence in support of charge, prosecution examined numbers of witnesses. After evidence of the prosecution was complete, learned trial Court questioned the appellants and Paramjit Singh on the case generally so as to afford them an opportunity to explain the inculpating circumstances brought on record in the evidence of the prosecution. The appellants and Paramjit Singh denied all the circumstances and reiterated plea of their innocence and false implication and when called upon to enter on their defence, they examined Mardana Ram, DW -1 as a witness in their defence. After evidence in defence was complete, the learned Public Prosecutor summed up his case and learned defence counsel replied to it. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence and in the light of submissions made at the bar, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case as regards offence under Section 307, IPC, but there was sufficient evidence to establish guilt of the appellants and their son Paramjit Singh as regards offence of Section 498 -A, IPC. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 19.05.2003, learned trial Court acquitted the appellants and Paramjit Singh of the offence of Section 307, IPC but convicted the appellants for the offence of Section 498 -A, IPC and, vide order of the same day, sentenced Paramjit Singh to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and a fine of Rs.2000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for 04 months and sentenced the appellants No.2 and 3, namely Joginder Singh and Surinder Kaur, to rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - each, and in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for 02 months under Section 498 -A, IPC. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2003 are under challenge in this appeal brought by all the accused/appellants under sub -section (2) and Section 374, Cr.P.C. Unfortunately, appellant No.1 -Paramjit Singh has died during the pendency of appeal, on 19.07.2012 (a photocopy of his death certificate was produced by learned counsel for the appellants before the Court). Fact of his death has not been disputed by the learned State counsel. Appeal qua him, therefore, abates. As far as surviving appellants, Joginder Singh and Surinder Kaur are concerned, I have heard learned counsel representing them and the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -State and have perused the trial Court record. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that there is no evidence, whatsoever, to establish guilt of the appellants punishable under Section 498 -A, IPC and the trial Court has relied upon its imagination and guesswork to record finding of conviction against them. This contention, however, is resisted by the learned State counsel by submitting that in the evidence available on record, it has been sufficiently proved that the appellants used to demand money from the complainant and used to ill treat her and harass her for and in connection with demand of dowry. Nothing more has been urged on either side. Section 498 -A, IPC, indisputably was brought on the statute book only to safeguard the hapless women against their harassment at the hands of their husbands and relatives of the husband for and in connection with demand of dowry. The Section reads as under: - "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation -For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means - (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.] Is the evidence available on record sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of Section 498 -A, IPC, in the affirmative?, is this only question that deserves to be answered in the present appeal. To my mind, the only answer to the afore -stated question is a big 'No'. Complainant -Parminder Kaur appeared before the learned trial Court as PW -4 and she stated in her chief examination that the accused always used to demand money from her parents for running expenses of the family. Earlier, her parents were meeting the demands of the accused but later on, they could not meet the demands of the accused and for that reason, the accused started constantly maltreating her. She has also stated that accused mostly used to quarrel with her for pressurizing her to bring money from her parents and even on the morning of 11.05.2002, they had quarrelled with her for that reason. PW -5, Onkar Singh claiming himself to be a relative of the complainant has only stated that the accused had also been insisting upon the complainant to bring cash amount from her parents. Father of the complainant, namely, Balbir Singh, appeared in the witness box as PW -6 and stated on solemn affirmation that the accused had been maltreating the complainant after her marriage and many times, she was given beatings but he does not know the reason behind such beatings of the complainant at the hands of the accused. However, when cross -examined on behalf of the appellants, he expressed his inability to tell date, month and year of the stated ill treatment and beatings of the complainant at the hands of the accused. He very candidly admitted, though under the stress of the cross -examination, that the accused never demanded cash amount in his presence. This is the entire evidence available on record as regards the demand(s) of dowry and ill treatment of the complainant at the hands of the accused including the appellants. It comes out from the above cited evidence that the complainant and her witnesses have not been able to indicate the amount statedly demanded by the appellants, the dates of such demands as also the dates of satisfaction of the so stated demands of the accused. Similarly, no specific instances of beatings or ill treatment of the complainant at the hands of the accused, including appellants, are coming -forth. At the same time, the case of the prosecution is silent as to what steps were taken by the complainant or her parents when she was statedly given beatings by the appellants and if not, why. The allegations are very vague, uncertain and general in nature. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that evidence available on record is sufficient to nail the appellants under Section 498 -A, IPC, cannot be allowed to sustain. Resultantly, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 19.05.2003 and acquit the appellants of the offence of which they have been charged and convicted. The amount of fine, if already deposited by the appellants, shall be refunded to them, as per procedure known to law.;