Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 122 (PNJ)

Jagbiri v. State(Union Territory Of Chandigarh)

2004-02-04

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Jagbiri wife of Pala Ram, Bimlesh wife of Brij Lal and Sham Narayan son of Khunkhun Mishra, the appellants herein stand convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated July 15/17, 1995 under Section 306, Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced as under: Sham Narayan RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment to suffer further RI for six months. Jagbiri and Bimlesh RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of which to suffer further RI for 3 months. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Although the learned Counsel for the appellants has not assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and has confined his prayer for showing leniency with regard to quantum of sentence, yet I feel the necessity of touching the merits of the case being a first appeal against conviction. 4. The case of the prosecution in a narrow compass runs thus: 5. Shesh Nath, the complainant (P.W. 10) had married his sister Krishna Devi (since deceased) with Sham Narayan appellant 3 years prior to the present occurrence, which is of 3.1.1991. The allegations are that Sham Narayan had illicit relations with Smt. Bimlesh, who was staying with her mother Jagbiri-appellant in the neighbourhood and for this reason, Smt. Krishna Devi (deceased) was being harassed. Shesh Nath, brother of Krishna was also adjusted by Sham Narayan in his business, which he was carrying in village Badheri (Union Territory, Chandigarh). 6. The prosecution case further is that on 3.1.1991 around 8.00 a.m., Smt. Krishna Devi was clearing utensils under a public tap outside her house. Smt. Jagbiri appellant teased her and asked as to why she was murmuring. Krishna came to her house. Jagbiri appellant brought a danda and proceeded towards Krishna Devi. Bimlesh and her brother Ramesh (not arrested) also followed Jagbiri. They started abusing Krishna. Sham Narayan appellant also reached there. He asked his wife Krishna to go to the roof-top. Since the present appellants had quarrelled with Krishna Devi, she allegedly committed suicide by jumping from the roof-top. After completion of the investigation, the present appellants were challenged to face trial.A charge under Section 306, I.P.C. was framed against the appellants. 7. Sham Narayan appellant also reached there. He asked his wife Krishna to go to the roof-top. Since the present appellants had quarrelled with Krishna Devi, she allegedly committed suicide by jumping from the roof-top. After completion of the investigation, the present appellants were challenged to face trial.A charge under Section 306, I.P.C. was framed against the appellants. 7. To substantiate its allegations against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. 8. P.W. 1 is Dr. Pawan Bansal, the autopsy surgeon, P.W. 2 is Jaswant Singh Draftsman, who prepared scaled plan Ex/PC, P.W. 3 is Mohinder Singh Photographer, who took photographs Exhibits P1 to P7, P.W. 4 Khulbhushan, P.W. 5 Pappi and P.W. 7 Ram Narayan are the neighbours, where the occurrence took place. P.W. 8 is Constable Amar Singh, who proved memos Exhibits PH and PI and regarding recovery of broken bangles from the spot. P.W. 9 is Mr. Inderjit Kaushik, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, who vide order Exhibit PJ declared Ramesh Kumar as proclaimed offender. P.W. 10 is Shesh Nath, the complainant and P.W. 11 is SI Krishan Chand, the Investigating Officer. 9. The stand taken by the appellants was that the deceased had been suffering from some mental disease and used to fall earlier also and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 10. Sham Narayan appellant produced D.W. 1 Ram Narayan Mishra in his defence, who deposed that Krishna Devi was mentally deranged and was taking treatment for the same. 11. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as already indicated above. 12. After re-scanning the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment of conviction is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same is well merited. The convicted of the appellants is thus upheld. 13. 12. After re-scanning the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment of conviction is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same is well merited. The convicted of the appellants is thus upheld. 13. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned Counsel has submitted that the appellants have faced the rigour of protracted trial since 1991; that Bimlesh appellant at the time of occurrence had a minor child, who has now grown up and since her husband has expired since long, there is none else in the family to look after that child; that all the appellants remained in custody for some time during trial and after conviction, Jagbiri and Bimlesh remained in custody for two months and a few odd days, whereas Sham Narayan remained in for about 6/7 months after his conviction. Asking for a lenient view, the learned Counsel places reliance upon the decision in Mohd. Hoshan and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2002 AIR SCW 3795; Satto and Ors. v. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 878, and a judgment of this Court in Mohan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Cr.) 697 (P&H); Criminal Appeal No. 254-SB of 1991: (unreported) decided on December 6, 2003. 14. Learned State Counsel has, however, refuted the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants and submits that the appellants do not deserve any leniency on quantum of sentence. 15. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I find myself in agreement with learned Counsel for the appellants. 16. The occurrence relates to the year 1991. The appellants have already suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 13 years. At the time of occurrence, Bimlesh appellant was 23 years, Jagbiri was about 50 years of age and Sham Narayan was 27 years old. 17. In Mohd. Hushans case (supra), the death of daughter-in-law occurred within one year of the marriage and the allegations were of demand of dowry. The sentence of the mother-in-law was already reduced to the period already undergone, which was about two months and even that of the husband was also reduced to the period already undergone keeping in view the protracted trial. Following the ratio of decision in Mohd. The sentence of the mother-in-law was already reduced to the period already undergone, which was about two months and even that of the husband was also reduced to the period already undergone keeping in view the protracted trial. Following the ratio of decision in Mohd. Hushans case, this Court in the cases of Mohan Singh and Satto (supra), which were under Section 306, I.P.C., has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 18. In another case titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 133, where the bride had committed suicide within six months of the marriage, this Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 306, I.P.C. has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 19. With regards to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and following the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence imposed upon all the three appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.