Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Gurmukh Singh son of Ajit Singh, his mother Pritam Kaur and father ajit Singh have challenged the judgment dated 08.10.1997 passed by Additional sessions Judge, Amritsar, who held Gurmukh Singh and Pritam Kaur guilty of offence under Sec.307 IPC and Ajit Singh was convicted under Sec.307 read with section 34 IPC. All the three appellants were also convicted for offence under Sec.498-A IPC. The trial Court sentenced Gurmukh Singh and pritam Kaur to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.307 IPC. Ajit Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.307/34 IPC. All the three accused appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, under section 498-A IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Appellants were named as accused in case FIR No.87 dated 22.05.1996 registered at Police Station City Patti under Sec.307, 498-A/34 ipc. 3. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 19th May, 1996. Gurmukh Singh was married with Kulwinder Kaur 4/5 years before the date of occurrence. Arjan Singh ASI, Police Station City Patti on 22nd May, 1996 received a medico legal report pertaining to Kulwinder Kaur, in which it was recorded that the patient has received five burn injuries on face, neck, chest, shoulders, on the breast and arms. On receipt of copy of medico legal report, asi Arjan Singh sought opinion of the Doctor, who declared Kulwinder Kaur fit to make statement. Thus, on 22nd May, 1996 at 2.30 p. m. statement of Kulwinder kaur Ex. PD was recorded by ASI Arjan Singh and on the basis of this statement formal FIR Ex. PD/2 was registered at Police Station City Patti. 4. Kulwinder Kaur in her statement stated that she was resident of ward No.8, Patti, do domestic work and her parental house was in village daburji, Police Station City Tarn Taran. Her father Surinder Singh was having a flour mill in the village. They were two sisters and two brothers. PD/2 was registered at Police Station City Patti. 4. Kulwinder Kaur in her statement stated that she was resident of ward No.8, Patti, do domestic work and her parental house was in village daburji, Police Station City Tarn Taran. Her father Surinder Singh was having a flour mill in the village. They were two sisters and two brothers. She was married about 4/5 years back with Gurmukh Singh son of Ajit Singh. Two children were born to her. Elder was a son aged 3 years and the daughter was about eight months old. After few days of marriage, her mother-in-law Pritam Kaur, husband gurmukh Singh and father-in-law Ajit Singh started giving taunts that she has brought less dowry. A grievance was made that no gold bracelet or gold ring was given in the marriage. They often used to beat the complainant and were demanding money. Gurmukh Singh used to say that he had to start some good business, therefore, money should be brought by complainant from her parents. On 19th May, 1996, at about 11.15 a. m. her husband Gurmukh Singh and mother-in-law Pritam Kaur were present in house. Husband of the complainant asked her to prepare the meals. Kulwinder Kaur complainant when intended to ignite the stove, she found that there was no kerosene oil. She went to the kitchen and brought kerosene oil in a bottle. While she was going to pour the same in the stove, her mother-in-law, Pritam kaur snatched the bottle of kerosene oil and sprinkled the same upon her. Her husband Gurmukh Singh, who was having a match stick, lit the same and put the complainant on fire. At that time, Ajit Singh was standing in the door and was saying that finish the job at the earliest so that somebody may not come. The complainant ran and poured a bucket of water upon herself. The complainant suffered injuries on face, chest, arms, shoulders and became unconscious. In the hospital, she learnt that her father Surinder Singh had got her admitted in the Government Hospital on 21st May, 1996. Statement of the complainant was read over to her and she appended her thumb impression in token of correctness of the statement. 5. The matter was investigated and report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. 6. Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 28th November, 1996, framed charges against the appellants. Statement of the complainant was read over to her and she appended her thumb impression in token of correctness of the statement. 5. The matter was investigated and report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. 6. Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 28th November, 1996, framed charges against the appellants. The first charge stated that on 19th may, 1996, at 11.15 a. m. in the area of Patti, Pritam Kaur had sprinkled kerosene oil on Kulwinder Kaur and Gurmukh Singh had committed murderous assault on Kulwinder Kaur, therefore both of them have committed offence under section 307 IPC and Ajit Singh committed offence with the aid of section 34 ipc. All of them were also charged for offence under Sec.498-A IPC. 7. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Dr. Jaswant Singh PW-1 on 21st May, 1996 at 11.00 a. m. medico legally examined Kulwinder Kaur and found following injury on her person: "1. Scabed burn wounds with blisters were present on the face, neck, upper chest, right upper arm, neck of the right scaular region, left fore-arm and elbow. Eye brows and eye lashes and scalp hairs were partially burnt. Her Mx. L. M. P. was 22.4.96. " Kulwinder Kaur appeared as PW-2. She reiterated what was stated in the FIR. She further stated that she was not admitted in the hospital by her in laws. In cross examination, she denied the suggestion that her marriage was eight years old. Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal has read the cross examination of PW-2 complainant kulwinder Kaur. Accused failed to make any dent in her statement. 8. Surinder Mohan Singh, father of the complainant appeared as pw-3. He stated that accused used to taunt his daughter and he used to meet the accused so that the matter could be resolved and the family life of Kulwinder kaur be saved. He stated that earlier elder brother of Gurmukh Singh and his wife promised that they will make the accused understand. Before the occurrence, Kulwinder Kaur was thrown out of the house by giving beating once or twice. In cross examination, this witness stated that the dispute regarding dowry was prevailing from the very beginning, before the birth of first child. This witness admitted that Kulwinder Kaur was made to live separate from her in laws after the birth of first child. 9. In cross examination, this witness stated that the dispute regarding dowry was prevailing from the very beginning, before the birth of first child. This witness admitted that Kulwinder Kaur was made to live separate from her in laws after the birth of first child. 9. Swaran Kaur witness and Kashmir Singh Sarpanch were given up as unnecessary. 10. Rishi Ram PW-4 prepared scaled site plan ex. PF of the spot. Dr. Karanjit Singh PW-5 proved original indoor slip of kulwinder Kaur. It was stated that she was admitted in Civil Hospital, Tarn taran on 24th May, 1996 and was discharged on 10th June, 1996. 11. Kewal Krishan constable appeared as PW-6 and proved delivery of special report to the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) on 22nd May, 1996 at 9.40 p. m. Arjan Singh ASI PW-7 recorded the statement of the injured Kulwinder Kaur ex. PD. Earlier thereto, he obtained opinion of the Doctor Ex. PC/1 to the fact that she was fit to make statement. He went to the spot, took into possession one iron bucket Ex. P1, one stove Ex. P2, one empty bottle of kerosene oil Ex. P3, match box Ex. P4 vide recovery memo Ex. PE. He also prepared rough site plan ex. PH of the spot. Thereafter prosecution closed its evidence and statement of the accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused but they denied the same and pleaded false implication. 12. Ajit Singh, in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , gave following version: "i am innocent. Long before the accidental incident I and my wife are living in a rented house in ward No.3 where the house of my son Gurmukh singh is situated in ward No.8 inter-se distance between the two houses is about half kilometer. Since long we had no interference or connection in any manner with the family of Gurmukh Singh or my other elder son as they had forcibly ejected me and my wife from the house and I had to take shelter in rented house leaving the property owned by me. Since long we had no interference or connection in any manner with the family of Gurmukh Singh or my other elder son as they had forcibly ejected me and my wife from the house and I had to take shelter in rented house leaving the property owned by me. On the day of alleged occurrence, it was sunday, I and my wife learnt about accidental incident in the Gurdwara and when came to the house Gurmukh Singh may neighbours, ladies and men and in their presence, Kulwinder Kaur informed me and my wife and others persons collected that it was a accident that the over flow of the stove had caused injuries to her. Those persons included Manga Ram, kartar Chand, and Shanti from amongst the ladies besides other persons. She was got treated from the local doctor Kuku for few days and it was on Wednesday that the uncle of Kulwinder Kaur instigated Kulwinder Kaur and her father and in the evening the story has been concocted and the police officers connived with them for extraneous consideration. " Gurmukh Singh gave his version as under: "i am innocent. Sometime after the marriage Kulwinder Kaur started scolding my parents and always demanded that she should be separated from them. My father and mother were forced to leave the house owned by Ajit Singh and to take shelter in the rented house. There was absolutely no demand or dispute over any dowry/ demand of any money or article. The only problem was that I used to take liquor and over this there used to be sometime some minor dispute. On 19.5.96 it was Sunday and while Kulwinder Kaur was to cook meal this accident took place due to over flow of kerosene. I, my mother and his wife put water on her. In the meantime, Mohallawalas ladies and men including Manga Ram, Kartar chand, Shanti Devi had also come and in their presence Kulwinder Kaur admitted that her burn injuries were due to accidental fire. I got her treated for two days in the house and thereafter uncle of Kulwinder Kaur in connivance with the police has concocted false version in the evening of 22.5.96. Otherwise this story is false and my father and mother came later from their house. " Pritam Kaur almost narrated the version, which was projected by her husband ajit Singh. I got her treated for two days in the house and thereafter uncle of Kulwinder Kaur in connivance with the police has concocted false version in the evening of 22.5.96. Otherwise this story is false and my father and mother came later from their house. " Pritam Kaur almost narrated the version, which was projected by her husband ajit Singh. 13 In defence, Gurbachan Singh, Deed Writer was examined as DW-1. He proved document Pronote Ex. DA, which was executed by Ved Parkash in favour of ajit Singh as Ved Parkash had borrowed Rs.8000/- from the accused. Kulbhushan sharma appeared as DW-2. He stated that he was standing in the Chemist Shop when Kala brother of the accused took him to the house of accused Gurmukh Singh. He found a lady in the house of Gurmukh singh lying with burns. He suggested to apply Burnol upon the burns. Mansa Ram appeared as DW-3. He stated that accused Ajit Singh and Pritam Kaur were residing in a rented house belonging to Ved Parkash. Kartar Chand DW-4 stated that about 5/6 months before the occurrence, Ajit Singh along with his wife has shifted to the house of Ved Parkash as tenants, because there was dispute between the parties regarding the shortage of space. Ved Parkash DW-5 proved agreement Ex. DD. He stated that house was given on rent to Ajit Singh on payment of Rs.8000/- 5/6 months before the occurrence. 14. Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 19th May, 1996 at 11.15 a. m. , whereas FIR was lodged on 22nd May, 1996 at 2.40 p. m. and the special report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 22nd May, 1996 at 9.40 p. m. It is submitted that delay of three days in lodging the report has been used for consultations and deliberations to involve all the family members. It is submitted that it has been conclusively proved from the defence evidence that the parents were residing separately, therefore, they had nothing to do with the family affairs of the complainant Kulwinder Kaur PW-1. It is submitted that the judgment of the trial Court records the age of Pritam Kaur as 70 years and that of Ajit Singh as 65 years. It is submitted that the judgment of the trial Court records the age of Pritam Kaur as 70 years and that of Ajit Singh as 65 years. Therefore, in the fag end of their life, Pritam kaur and Ajit Singh would be the last persons interested in the demand of dowry and the dowry if any, was for the benefit of their son Gurmukh Singh. 15. To controvert this argument, Mr. Mehardeep Singh, appearing for the State of Punjab, has submitted Kulwinder Kaur had suffered injuries. Nobody had got her admitted to the hospital and it is only on 21st May, 1996 when father of the complainant reached, he got the complainant admitted in the hospital. It is submitted that according to the defence evidence itself, only Burnol was applied to the burns suffered by the complainant. Thus, the family members had not only neglected their daughter-in-law, but have taken no care of her. 16. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. 17. In the present case, Kulwinder Kaur had suffered injuries. She was the mother of two children. It has come in evidence that she was given beating by the accused. Complainant has specifically stated that on the day of occurrence, husband Gurmukh Singh had lit the match stick. The anxiety of an indian woman is to save her matrimonial life. Therefore, Kulwinder Kaur would be the last person to falsely implicate the accused. However, the delay in lodging the report cannot be lightly brushed aside. The delay, in itself, will put the Court on guard to sift the grain from the chaff. The only role assigned to Ajit Singh is that he stood in the door and asked Gurmukh Singh and Pritam kaur to finish the job at the earliest. It seems that due to delay, as a result of consultations and deliberations, Ajit Singh was named as accused. The role assigned to him is improbable. Thus, benefit of doubt is extended to Ajit Singh and he is acquitted of the charges. 18. However, conviction of Gurmukh Singh and Pritam Kaur is upheld. At this stage, Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 19th May, 1996. The role assigned to him is improbable. Thus, benefit of doubt is extended to Ajit Singh and he is acquitted of the charges. 18. However, conviction of Gurmukh Singh and Pritam Kaur is upheld. At this stage, Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 19th May, 1996. At that time, Pritam Kaur was aged 70 years and both Gurmukh Singh and Pritam Kaur have suffered mental agony and pain of protracted trial for more than 13 years. It is further submitted that the injuries suffered by Kulwinder Kaur were only blisters and when she was medico legally examined, the Doctor has noticed the same to be scabbed burn wounds. In the cross examination, the Doctor had stated that all the injuries were only skin deep and simple in nature. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of injuries and the protracted trial as mitigating circumstances, benefit of reduction of sentence can be granted to the appellants Gurmukh Singh and Pritam Kaur. Accordingly, the sentenced awarded upon Gurmukh Singh husband of complainant Kulwinder Kaur is reduced from five years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment and the sentence awarded to Pritam Kaur is reduced from five years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment 19. With the modifications in sentence, noticed above, present appeal is disposed of.