SHAM SUNDER, J. - (1.) This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992 filed by Mukhtiar Kaur, Surjit Singh and Karnail Singh, accused (now appellants), vide which they were convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced as under:- 1. Karnail Singh RI- 5 years Fine- 5000/- In default- RI## 6 months
(2.) SURJIT Singh RI- 3 years Fine- 5000/- In default- RI## 6 months Mukhtiar Kaur RI- 3 years Fine- 5000/- In default- RI## 6 months and Criminal Revision No. 698 of 1992, filed by Nachhatar Singh, complainant/revision-petitioner, for enhancement of the substantive sentence and awarding compensation. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Amarjit Kaur (now deceased) daughter of Sadhu Singh, was married to Karnail Singh, accused of village Golewala on 05.03.1983. Sadhu Singh gave dowry, in the marriage, to Karnail Singh, accused, as per his financial status. Karnail Singh, his mother Mukhtiar Kaur and father Surjit Singh, were not happy with the dowry brought by Amarjit Kaur, at the time of marriage. A few days after the marriage, they started maltreating her. 1-1/2 years after the marriage, Amarjit Kaur gave birth to a son. After the birth of a son to her, Karnail Singh, Mukhtiar Kaur and Surjit Singh, demanded customary gifts, given at the time of birth of a child, (shushak) from the parents of Amarjit Kaur. They gave the customary gifts (shushak) as per their financial status. The accused were, however, not satisfied with the quantum of the customary gifts, brought by Amarjit Kaur. Nachhatar Singh and Baljinder Singh, brothers of Amarjit Kaur, came to village Golewala and requested Karnail Singh, his father and mother that they should not maltreat Amarjit Kaur. Six months prior to 19.06.1989, Karnail Singh's elder brother, was married. His wife brought a lot of dowry, in the marriage. After the marriage of Karnail Singh's elder brother, the demands of Karnail Singh, his father, and mother assumed greater proportions, and they became harsh towards Amarjit Kaur and started treating her with extreme cruelty. They asked her to bring more dowry. Thereafter, Amarjit Kaur along with her child came to village Handiaya, in the house of her parents. Thereafter, Sadhu Singh, his son Nachhatar Singh and Nachhatar Singh's brother-in-law Darshan Singh of Gulab-Garh and the husband of the sister of father of Nachhatar Singh (phuphar) namely Darshan Singh came to Golewala along with Amarjit Kaur and her child. They requested the accused that they should not maltreat her. Surjit Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur, demanded Colour TV, VCR and Refrigerator. They, in clear-cut terms, stated that, in case, these items were not provided, in the shape of dowry, then they should take back Amarjit Kaur, or she could go and die as they did not need her and would marry Karnail Singh again elsewhere. Nachhatar Singh and Sadhu Singh, agreed to give Colour TV, Refrigerator and VCR to the accused and left Amarjit Kaur, in her matrimonial home. 3. On 18.06.1989, Nachhatar Singh and his brother-in-law Darshan Singh came to village Golewala, to enquire about the welfare of Amarjit Kaur. They asked the accused about Amarjit Kaur and her child. The accused, did not give them any satisfactory reply. They felt that Amarjit Kaur and her child had been murdered by the accused. From village Golewala, they returned to village Handiaya, and narrated the entire episode, to the inmates of the house. They, then searched Amarjit Kaur, in their relations, but she was not available. 3-A. On 20.06.1989, Nachhatar Singh and his father Sadhu Singh came to Police Station, Sadar, Faridkot. Nachhatar Singh lodged FIR Ex.PJ. The Police, Nachhatar Singh and Sadhu Singh searched Amarjit Kaur and when they came just near the gate of the Police Station, the husband of the sister of the father of Nachhatar Singh, namely Darshan Singh met them and told that the dead body of Amarjit Kaur, had been found near the bridge of canal, in the area of village Machaki Mal Singh. They along with the Police then went to the spot. Dead body of Amarjit Kaur was lying on the bank of the canal. By the side of the dead body, Balwinder Singh son of Sadhu Singh and Darshan Singh, brother- in-law of Nachhatar Singh, were found present. 3-B. Karnail Singh, was earlier engaged in village Handiaya to the daughter of Zora Singh. The marriage party came back from village Handiaya, without the bride, as some dispute had arisen there. Cloth was purchased from M/s Kaur Sain Jagan Nath of Barnala for the marriage of Amarjit Kaur. Other articles and ornaments were also purchased from various shops. Later on, the dead body of the child of Amarjit Kaur was also recovered, from the canal. 3-C. Post-mortem examination, on the dead body of Amarjit Kaur was performed by Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Lecturer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot, on 20.06.1989 at 1.30 PM. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of drowning which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time that lapsed between the injuries and death, was within few minutes and between the death and post-mortem was within 48 to 72 hours. 3-D. On 22.06.1989, at about 9.00 AM, the doctor performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Soni son of Karnail Singh, aged about 4-1/2 years. In the opinion of the doctor, the death of the child was due to aphsyxia, as a result of drowning which was sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. The time that lapsed between the injuries and death was within few minutes and between the death and post-mortem was within 3 to 5 days. It was further opined by the doctor that drowning was ante-mortem in nature, in both the cases. The accused were arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.
(3.) ON their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 304-B of the IPC, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.;