Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. By this common judgment, Criminal Appeal No.572-B of 1997 titled as "sukhdev Singh alias Sewa V/s. State of Punjab" and Criminal Revision No.811 of 1997 titled as "jaswinder Singh V/s. Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa" shall be decided together. 2. Criminal Appeal No.572-SB of 1997 has been filed by Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa. He was nominated as accused in case FIR no.14 dated 30.1.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot, under sections 354, 451 and 306 IPC. 3. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, convicted him for offence under Sec.306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant was also convicted and sentenced for offence under Sec.451 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Furthermore, the appellant was held guilty of offence under Sec.354 ipc and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The impugned judgment has also been made subject matter of Criminal revision No.811 of 1997, which has been preferred by Jaswinder Singh, husband of deceased Devinder Kaur. In the present revision petition, prayer for enhancement of sentence has been made. But none has caused appearance for the petitioner. Jaswinder Singh got recorded his statement Ex. PG on 30.1.1996 at 8.15 P. M. at Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. His statement was recorded by Iqbal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. Jaswinder Singh stated that he is a resident of village Machaki Mal Singh and do agricultural work. About six years ago, he was married with Devinder Kaur daughter of karnail Singh. From the wedlock two sons were born. On 29.1.1996, mother of Jaswant Singh had expired. He had gone to his house to mourn the death. At that time, his wife Devinder Kaur was alone in the house. When he returned, he saw Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa coming out of his house. When complainant confronted the accused (appellant) for the reason, for coming to his house, the accused replied that he had come to meet complainant. However, he could not substantiate any cause or purpose. At that time, his wife Devinder Kaur was alone in the house. When he returned, he saw Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa coming out of his house. When complainant confronted the accused (appellant) for the reason, for coming to his house, the accused replied that he had come to meet complainant. However, he could not substantiate any cause or purpose. When the complainant went inside the house, his wife complained that Sewa caught hold of her and on making of noise by her, he had left the house. Wife of the complainant felt insulted. On next day, complainant went to attend the funeral procession of mother of Jaswant Singh. When he returned back, his wife told him that due to an attempt made to outrage her modesty by Sewa, she had consumed pesticide for killing rats. Wife of complainant became unconscious. Complainant along with Balwinder Singh and Beant Singh took her to Guru Gobind Singh medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, in a Jeep for treatment where she was declared dead at about 6.00 P. M. Complainant made a grievance that his wife had committed suicide due to an attempt made by the accused to outrage her modesty as she felt insulted and consumed poison. The matter was investigated and report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. 5. On 5.11.1996, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 354 IPC on the ground that on 29.1.1996, he had assaulted Devinder Kaur wife of jaswinder Singh, a woman, with intention to outrage her modesty. He was also charged for offence under Sections 451 and 306 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Dr. Kuldip kumar appeared as PW.1 and stated that on 30.1.1996, Devinder Kaur wife of jaswinder Singh was brought dead in the Emergency Ward and he had sent ruqa ex. PA to Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Faridkot. A perusal of ruqa Ex. PA reveal that the same was sent at 6.15 P. M. 6. Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, appeared as PW.2. He conducted autopsy on the dead body of Devinder Kaur. As there was no external mark of injury, viscera was sent to Chemical Examiner. After receipt or report of Chemical examiner Ex. A perusal of ruqa Ex. PA reveal that the same was sent at 6.15 P. M. 6. Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, appeared as PW.2. He conducted autopsy on the dead body of Devinder Kaur. As there was no external mark of injury, viscera was sent to Chemical Examiner. After receipt or report of Chemical examiner Ex. PE, doctor opined that the cause of death in the case of Devinder kaur was due to consumption of zinc phosphate, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 7. Complainant Jaswinder Singh appeared as PW.3. He reiterated what was stated in the FIR. He further stated that after Devinder Kaur was declared dead, police reached in the hospital after about one and a half hours. The cross-examination was directed to find whether the witness had relayed the fact, of an attempt to outrage the modesty of his wife to another person or not. In cross-examination, witness admitted that there are houses of Pritam singh, Sarpanch, Jaswant Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and Dal Singh, Ex-Samiti Member and there is also a telephone at the residence of Dal Singh and there are five lambardars in the village. There is also Gram Panchayat. There is abadi on the two sides of his house and his house is situated in the abadi. This witness further stated that mother of Jaswant Singh was cremated at 3.00 P. M. and a number of persons were present at the time of cremation and he had not disclosed to any other person of the village, fact that accused had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of his wife. This witness denied that there was any dispute in regard to plot between him and the accused. However, this witness stated that case regarding the plot was instituted by the accused after the present occurrence. He further admitted that there was a joint khata and accused wanted to sell some of his land out of this khata. He further stated that accused had executed sale deed while he was in custody in the present case. This witness further admitted that Mukhtiar kaur, her mother, is residing with him and at the time of occurrence, she was not present in the house. This witness admitted that he is having common wall with Balwinder Singh, witness. 8. Balwinder Singh appeared as PW.4. This witness further admitted that Mukhtiar kaur, her mother, is residing with him and at the time of occurrence, she was not present in the house. This witness admitted that he is having common wall with Balwinder Singh, witness. 8. Balwinder Singh appeared as PW.4. He stated that he attended the cremation of mother of Jaswant Singh. After attending the cremation, he reached at his house. It was about 5.00 P. M. House of Jaswinder Singh adjoins his house. He heard the noise, went to the house of complainant and found his wife was in an unconscious condition. At that time, Jaswinder Singh disclosed to him that early in the morning, accused had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of his wife. He accompanied the complainant to hospital where Devinder Kaur was declared dead. This witness was also subjected to cross- examination on two points whether complainant had relayed information to anybody else, secondly regarding alleged dispute over the land. PW.5 Dharam Singh, Draftsman, had prepared the scaled site plan of the spot and proved the same as Ex. PH. PW.6 gaur Singh, Constable, tendered his affidavit Ex. PJ to prove link evidence. 9. Iqbal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.7. He proved various aspects of the investigation. He proved statement of Jaswinder Singh Ex. PG, endorsement made thereupon Ex. PG/1 and the formal FIR Ex. PG/2. This witness also proved inquest report Ex. PD, request made to the doctor for conducting post mortem Ex. PC, rough site plan of the spot ex. PK and recording of statement of witnesses under Sec.161 Cr. P. C. 10. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. The statement of accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to him. The accused gave following version:- "i am innocent. My grand father Harbax Singh and grand father of both PWs Balwinder Singh and jaswinder Singh are real brothers. We had joint khata in village Machaki Mal Singh, Kameana and Beer Bholuwala. Jaswinder Singh had agreed to sell his plot of one kanals 18 marlas to me and my brother on 25.5.1995. The deed was to be registered on 15.6.1996 and due to the rise in prices he wanted to wriggle out of the agreement. We had also sold about 14 kanals of land in the area of village kameana to complainant. Jaswinder Singh had agreed to sell his plot of one kanals 18 marlas to me and my brother on 25.5.1995. The deed was to be registered on 15.6.1996 and due to the rise in prices he wanted to wriggle out of the agreement. We had also sold about 14 kanals of land in the area of village kameana to complainant. We entered into agreement to sell our share of land to kundan Singh and his sons in the area of village Beer Bholu Wala which was resented by both the PWs as they wanted to purchase the same. We had dispute about warabandi, watts etc. for the last 2-3 years and due to strained relations the complainant and his cousin balwinder Singh PW have concocted the false story. I have nothing to do the death of Devinder Kaur deceased. Relations of the complainant with his wife were not cordial as he suspected her character and on that account he used to beat and maltreat her and due to his maltreatment she may have committed suicide". 11. In defence, Ashok Kumar Garg, Deed Writer, appeared as DW.1. He proved agreement Ex. D1. Major Singh appeared as DW.2. He has stated that the complainant had entered into an agreement to sell with Jarnail Singh and Sukhdev Singh. Jaswinder Singh had to sell 1 kanal and 18 marlas of land for Rs.33,000/-. In the presence of witnesses, Rs.33,000/- has been paid as earnest money to Jawinder singh. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.1996 and the agreement to sell was executed on 25.5.1995. This witness further stated that Balwinder singh, witness, is the real son of uncle of Jaswinder Singh. This witness further stated that on the day when Jaswinder Singh executed agreement to sell, jarnail Singh and Sukhev Singh have also executed agreement to sell in favour of complainant and 14 kanals and 16 marlas of land was to be transferred to jaswinder Singh. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Jarnail singh, acting as attorney of accused on 27.3.1996, had transferred 6 marlas of land to Jaswinder Singh vide sale deed Ex. D3. 12. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Jarnail singh, acting as attorney of accused on 27.3.1996, had transferred 6 marlas of land to Jaswinder Singh vide sale deed Ex. D3. 12. Dw.3 Ajaib Singh stated that great grand fathers of the complainant and the accused were real brothers and two years before, the accused had collected respectables of the village to ask jaswinder Singh to execute sale deed of his plot which he had agreed to sell to sukdev Singh, accused, and Jaswinder Singh had refused to execute the sale in the presence of Panchayat. This witness was examined to say that complainant and accused were not having cordial relations and there was a dispute regarding the land. This witness further stated that Jawinder Singh and his mother were not treating Devinder Kaur properly and for that reason she had committed suicide. He further stated that he was the first person who reached at the place of occurrence and at that time, Devinder Kaur was unconscious. 13. Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the trial Court had not taken into consideration the defence evidence and the pendency of dispute regarding the land between the complainant and the accused. He has further stated that deceased had died within seven years of her marriage and the complainant, who suspected his wife, was guilty of abetment to suicide. However, he has coined false version after consultations and deliberations by absolving himself and implicated the present appellant. Counsel further stated that the above said submissions are fortified by following two facts:- 1) There is a delay in lodging of the FIR. Incident of outrage of modesty had taken place on 29.1.1996. That matter was not reported to the police. 2) On the next day, complainant has attended the cremation and he had not told anybody that accused had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of his wife. 14. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the complainant was residing in the abadi where Panchayat, Lambardars, Sarpanch and Ex-Sarpanch were available and nobody was informed regarding the fact that the accused had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of Devinder Kaur, wife of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has introduced alleged dying declaration. 14. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the complainant was residing in the abadi where Panchayat, Lambardars, Sarpanch and Ex-Sarpanch were available and nobody was informed regarding the fact that the accused had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of Devinder Kaur, wife of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has introduced alleged dying declaration. Therefore, PW.3 Jaswinder Singh is not telling the truth when he stated that deceased disclosed that she had consumed poison as she was feeling insulted. According to counsel, prosecution has failed to provide any corroboration to the fact of dying declaration. No independent witness has been examined. PW.4 Balwinder Singh is not a witness to the dying declaration. It is submitted that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of PW.4 Balwinder Singh as he is interested being a close relation of complainant. Counsel urged that Beant Singh, who was an independent witness and had accompanied Jaswinder Singh, was not examined. 15. Mr. J. S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State, has submitted that the trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon the testimony of PW.3 Jaswinder Singh and PW.4 Balwinder Singh. Therefore, their testimony aspire confidence. Before the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant are examined, there are certain features of the case which are required to be noticed. Parents of the deceased have made no complaint against her husband PW.3 Jaswinder Singh. Therefore, it has to be assumed that Devinder Kaur was residing happily with her husband. The marriage was six years old and Devinder Kaur had given birth to two sons. Sukhdev Singh accused, PW.3 Jaswinder Singh and PW.4 Balwinder singh are collaterals. Before occurrence, there is no enmity or litigation pending between the parties. Their relations were not inimical. Rather DW.2 major Singh has proved two agreements to sell. By one agreement to sell, jaswinder Singh had to sell his 1 kanal and 18 marlas of land to the accused, whereas by another agreement Ex. D2, Jarnail Singh and Sukhdev Singh had to sell 14 kanals 16 marlas of land to the complainant. On the same day, agreements were executed. Jarnail Singh and Sukhdev Singh have sold 14 kanals and 16 marlas of land to the complainant Jaswinder Singh. D2, Jarnail Singh and Sukhdev Singh had to sell 14 kanals 16 marlas of land to the complainant. On the same day, agreements were executed. Jarnail Singh and Sukhdev Singh have sold 14 kanals and 16 marlas of land to the complainant Jaswinder Singh. Therefore, the assertion of the complainant that they were having a joint khata and the land was to be exchanged show that the relations between the parties were cordial. In the context of the circumstances enumerated above, arguments raised by counsel for the appellant are to be dealt with. On 29.1.1996, mother of another collateral of the accused and complainant had expired. Accused had the knowledge that the complainant had gone to mourn the death. Taking the benefit of the fact that deceased was alone at house, accused had gone to her house. It is a small village. When a death among the relation had taken place, the fact that deceased was alone at her house, was used by the accused to take advantage. Normal Indian male will not disclose or make grievance that somebody had molested his wife. Therefore, the argument that the complainant had not immediately divulged the information to other persons of the village cannot be used to brush aside the testimony of PW.3 jaswinder Singh. Furthermore, death in the relationship had taken place. On that account also, the witness thought it proper not to share this information with others. However, he had disclosed this fact in the morning to PW.4 balwinder Singh. PW.4 Balwinder Singh, next door neighbourer, had accompanied jaswinder Singh to the hospital. The conduct of PW.3 Jaswinder Singh is natural, probable and convincing. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant and the same are rejected. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. 16. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in January 1996. The appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 13 years. Therefore, this Court, taking it as mitigating circumstance, should reduce the sentence of the appellant. 17. Taking this prayer of counsel for the appellant into consideration, sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced from four years to three years rigorous imprisonment. Criminal Revision No.811 of 1997 was filed by complainant Jaswinder Singh for enhancement of sentence. Therefore, this Court, taking it as mitigating circumstance, should reduce the sentence of the appellant. 17. Taking this prayer of counsel for the appellant into consideration, sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced from four years to three years rigorous imprisonment. Criminal Revision No.811 of 1997 was filed by complainant Jaswinder Singh for enhancement of sentence. Since sentence has already been reduced, no separate orders are required to be passed in the revision petition and the same is also dismissed.