Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. By this common judgment, Criminal Appeal No.831-B of 1997 titled as "shingara Singh and Another V/s. State of Punjab" and Revision No.280 of 1998 titled as "jit Singh V/s. Shingara Singh and Others" shall be decided together. 2. Criminal Appeal No.831-SB of 1997 has been preferred by Shingara singh son of Hukam Singh and Beeban Bai wife of Hukam Singh. They assail the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, who held them guilty for offence under Sec.306 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprison for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Shingara Singh appellant was married with Jeeto alias Guddo younger sister of jit Singh complainant. Criminal Revision No.280 of 1998 has been preferred by jit Singh brother of deceased Jeeto alias Guddo. In the revision, it has been prayed that the sentence awarded under Sec.306 IPC be enhanced and further it has been prayed that respondent No.1 Shingara Singh and respondent No.3 beeban Bai to the revision petition and appellants in be convicted under Sec.304-B/498-A/34 IPC and sentenced in accordance with the provisions of the law. 3. Office has reported that State of Punjab had preferred Criminal misc. No.3-MA of 1998 against acquittal of appellant Shingara Singh under section 302/498-A IPC. That application was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.2.1998. Criminal Misc. No.3-MA of 1998 was an application under section 378 (3) Cr. P. C. . Thus, acquittal of Shingara Singh and Beeban Bai under sections 302/304-B/498-A IPC has been upheld by this Court. In is in this context that present appeal and revision petition shall be decided. 4. Statement of Jit Singh son of Wazir singh was recorded on 17.8.1993 at 1.25 P. M. , in Daily Diary Register, vide no.20 dated 17.8.1993. The statement made by Jit Singh has been exhibited as ex. PH, when Jit Singh made statement, he was accompanied by his brother Mangu singh. It was stated by Jit Singh that he is matriculate, do agriculture work and is resident of Talwandi Buttianwali. They were seven brothers and four sisters. His father had expired five years go and mother had expired three years before the occurrence. His three sisters were married. It was stated by Jit Singh that he is matriculate, do agriculture work and is resident of Talwandi Buttianwali. They were seven brothers and four sisters. His father had expired five years go and mother had expired three years before the occurrence. His three sisters were married. Younger sister jeeto Bai alias Guddo was married with Shingara Singh son of Hukam Singh, Rai sikh, resident of Farruwala, Police Station Mamdot about five years ago. His real sister Mehran Bai wife of Guddar Singh had acted as go between to the marriage of Jeeto. His sister Mehran Bai and her husband Guddar Singh were mediators. At the time of engagement, family of the complainant had given Bajaj chetak scooter. At the time of marriage, they had spent beyond their means. After three months of the marriage, Mehran Bai came and told that mother-in-law, father-in-law and Shingara Singh husband of Jeeto without any reason cause beatings to Jeeto. Upon this, complainant Jit Singh, his brother Bakar Singh along with Mehran Bai came to the matrimonial home of Jeeto Bai at Farruwala. A gathering was arranged at the instance of sister Mehran Bai and brother-in-law Guddar Singh at the house of Jeeto Bai, where all the accused were present. Jeeto Bai while weeping disclosed that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband beat her without any reason. Jit Singh and his brother made accused understand that every body is having daughters and sisters, they should not harass sister of the complainant unnecessarily. Accused promised not to maltreat Jeeto Bai in future. Jeeto Bai was taken by the complainant to his house. After 25/26 days, Beeban Bai, mother-in-law of Jeeto Bai came and took her to matrimonial home. Bakar Singh a week before the occurrence, went to the house of accused and requested to send jeeto Bai, upon which the accused replied that they have to go to Baba dehsianwala and Jeeto Bai will be sent later. On 16.8.1993, Gurdip Singh son of mangu Singh nephew of the complainant had gone to bring Jeeto Bai. Shingara singh husband of Jeeto Bai met Gurdip Singh on the way to Khundra and Farruwala but had not stopped the scooter and gone towards Mamdot. At about 12.00/1.00 p. M. Gurdip Singh reached at the house of Jeeto Bai, where she was found lying on a cot in her room in unconscious condition. Shingara singh husband of Jeeto Bai met Gurdip Singh on the way to Khundra and Farruwala but had not stopped the scooter and gone towards Mamdot. At about 12.00/1.00 p. M. Gurdip Singh reached at the house of Jeeto Bai, where she was found lying on a cot in her room in unconscious condition. Mother-in-law, father-in-law, jagir Singh, elder brother of the husband and his wife Santo were sitting in the verandah. Gurdip Singh inquired as to what has happened to Jeeto. They replied that they were sitting outside and gave evasive answers. Gurdip Singh went to other sister of the complainant Mehran Bai and narrated the whole story. Mehran Bai, Gurdip Singh and Chiman Singh son of Jagga Singh who is son of real maternal uncle went to the house of Jeeto and they along with accused brought Jeeto to a private hospital at Mamdot. Doctor referred Jeeto to ferozepur. Jeeto was got admitted in Mission Hospital, Ferozepur. She was taken in a tractor-trolly. Hukam Singh told to Gurdip Singh nephew of complainant that complainant party can do whatever they like. Gurdip Singh came to village talwandi Buttianwali. At that time, it was 8.30 P. M. Complainant party arranged conveyance and reached Mission Hospital, Ferozepur at 11.00 P. M. The family members of in-laws of Jeeto Bai had not talked with complainant party. Shingara Singh was not available in the hospital. Jeeto Bai was lying unconscious, therefore, a complaint was made. Jeeto Bai was got admitted in Mission Hospital, Ferozepur in I. C. U. on 16.8.1993 at 3.50 P. M. She was discharged on 18.8.1993 and was referred to christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. She was got admitted at christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, on 18.8.1993 and was discharged on 7.10.1993. Jeeto Bai died on 27.10.1993. Her autopsy was conducted on 28.10.1993 at 10.15 A. M. On basis of statement Ex. PH which was recorded in daily Diary Register vide entry No.20, formal FIR Ex. PH/1 was registered on 5.9.1993. The above said FIR was investigated. Report under Sec.173 cr. P. C. was submitted. 5. Case was committed by the Court of Area Judicial Magistrate along with the accused to the Sessions Court. On 27.7.1994 Sessions Judge, Ferozepur substantively charged Shingara Singh for offence under Sec.302 IPC and mahla Singh and Beeban Bai under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. P. C. was submitted. 5. Case was committed by the Court of Area Judicial Magistrate along with the accused to the Sessions Court. On 27.7.1994 Sessions Judge, Ferozepur substantively charged Shingara Singh for offence under Sec.302 IPC and mahla Singh and Beeban Bai under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To determine the cause of death, it is necessary to revert to medical evidence. Reference will be made to the testimony of Medical Officers in sequence of treatment extended to deceased jeeto Bai alias Guddo. 6. Prosecution has examined five medical witnesses. The defence has examined Dr. Richard David, Director, Medical Superintendent, Francis Newton Hospital, Ferozepur Cantt. , as DW.1. Jeeto bai alias Guddo , on 16.8.1993 at 3.50 P. M. was admitted in Intensive Care Unit of Francis Newton Hospital, Ferozepur Cantt. As per the record of the hospital, there was no injury on her person. She was brought in the hospital in unconscious condition. The cause of unconsciousness could not be diagnosed but as per the provisional diagnosis it was a case of poisoning. Jeeto Bai was discharged from Francis Newton Hospital, Ferozepur Cantt. , on 18.8.1993 and was referred to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. Dr. Joseph John from department of Medicines of Christian Medial College and Hospital, Ludhiana, appeared as PW.1. He stated that wife of Shingara Singh, appellant, was got admitted in the hospital on 18.8.1993 and was discharged on 7.10.1993. At the time of admission, she had suffered following injuries:- "1. Abrasion over the neck horizontal circumscribed all around the neck, above and below the adamas apple.2. Abrasion over the left shoulder.3. Ecchymosis over the conjunctivae, bilaterally bulbar aspect". 7. Injury No.1 was found to be dangerous to life. According to this witness, the duration of injury was recent and the mode of injury as strangulation was possible. PW.5 Dr. Jyoti Sidhu, stated that on 25.8.1993, an application was submitted by the police Ex. PG and she gave opinion Ex. PG/1 that Jeeto alias guddo was not fit to make statement. PW.4 Dr. Harish Gambhir, Medical Officer, Christian Medical College and Hospital, ludhiana, stated that on 20.9.1993, on application Ex. PF made by the police, he had opined vide Ex. PF/1 that Jeeto alias Guddo was unfit to make statement. PW.2 Dr. Avtar Singh and PW.3 Dr. PG/1 that Jeeto alias guddo was not fit to make statement. PW.4 Dr. Harish Gambhir, Medical Officer, Christian Medical College and Hospital, ludhiana, stated that on 20.9.1993, on application Ex. PF made by the police, he had opined vide Ex. PF/1 that Jeeto alias Guddo was unfit to make statement. PW.2 Dr. Avtar Singh and PW.3 Dr. B. C. Paul had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Jeeto Bai. According to the doctor, in the police file, it was alleged that it was a case of strangulation followed by prolonged coma. No external mark of injury was found by these doctors. 8. According to PW.2 Dr. Avtar Singh and PW.3 Dr. B. C. Paul, cause of death, in their opinion, was due to asphyxia arising out of aspiration of gastric contents into the respiratory tract because of coma, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In cross-examination, PW.2 Dr. Avtar Singh stated that the time elapsed between injury and death was within a few minutes i. e. within five minutes. 9. Complainant Ajit Singh, appeared as PW.6. He reiterated what was stated in the FIR. Ajit Singh withstood the test of searching cross-examination and defence failed to gain anything to their advantage. Prosecution further examined PW.7 Teja Singh. This witness claimed himself to be an eye witness and stated that he heard the noise and went to the house of accused. He further stated that accused Mahla Singh had caught hold of the deceased from her legs and Shingara Singh accused had put a dupatta around the neck of deceased and was sitting on her chest. 10. Mehran Bai, elder sister of Jeeto Bai alias Guddo, appeared as PW.8 and corroborated the testimony of PW.6 ajit Singh. Gurdip Singh, nephew of the complainant and the deceased, appeared as PW.9. He deposed that he had reached the village of accused. At that time, jeeto was lying on the cot in an unconscious condition. Her mother-in-law beeban Bai, father-in-law, elder brother of Shingara Singh and wife of elder brother of Shingara Singh were present there. They could not reply satisfactorily to the enquiries made by him regarding the condition of Jeeto bai. In cross-examination, this witness stated that his statement was recorded by the police after 20 days of admission of Jeeto Bai in the Mission Hospital. They could not reply satisfactorily to the enquiries made by him regarding the condition of Jeeto bai. In cross-examination, this witness stated that his statement was recorded by the police after 20 days of admission of Jeeto Bai in the Mission Hospital. This witness denied that he had stated to the police that Shingara Singh was suspecting Jeeto Bai of illicit relations. The witness was confronted with the statement Ex. DB where it was so recorded. PW.10 Balwinder Singh, Head Constable, tendered his affidavit Ex. PK into evidence. PW.11 Baldev Singh, Sub Inspector, investigated the case. PW.12 mangat Singh, Sub Inspector, was the Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed regarding various facets of the investigation. 11. Appellants were examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. They denied all incriminating circumstances put to them. Shingara Singh stated that he was residing separately from his parents, he got his wife admitted in the Mission hospital and after discharge, she was got admitted in the hospital at Ludhiana. Other two accused pleaded false implication. 12. In the present case, occurrence is said to have taken place on 16.8.1993. On the same day, Jeeto Bai alias Guddo was got admitted in Francis Newton Hospital, Ferozepur Cantt. , in an unconscious condition. She was discharged from Mission Hospital, Ferozepur, on 18.8.1993 and was referred to Christian Medical College and Hospital, ludhiana, where she remained admitted from 18.8.1993 to 7.10.1993. In the present case, Jeeto Bai alias Guddo died on 27.10.1993 and her autopsy was conducted on 28.10.1993. No evidence has come on record as to what was the medical condition of Jeeto Bai right from 7.10.1993 to 27.10.1993 when she died. From 7.10.1993 to 27.10.1993 the deceased remained in the house of the complainant. The deceased, on 16.8.1993, was got admitted at Francis Newton hospital, Ferozepur Cantt. As stated earlier, she was unconscious. The cause of unconsciousness could not be diagnosed but provisionally it was diagnosed to be a case of poisoning. In the present case, no viscera of the deceased was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Therefore, administration of poison is ruled out. A ligature mark was found on the person of deceased by PW.1 Dr. Joseph john and according to the witness duration of the injury was recent and mode of injury as strangulation was possible. In the present case, no viscera of the deceased was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Therefore, administration of poison is ruled out. A ligature mark was found on the person of deceased by PW.1 Dr. Joseph john and according to the witness duration of the injury was recent and mode of injury as strangulation was possible. If it was a case of strangulation, appellant would have been charged for an offence under Sec.302 IPC. But the trial Court has disbelieved PW.7 Teja Singh who was the eye witness to the fact that in his presence Shingara Singh had put a dupatta around the neck of Jeeto bai and was pulling the same. The trial Court observed as under:- "even he did not inform Panch, Lambardar of the village or the police. So, from the entire evidence of this witness, it is established that he had not seen the occurrence. So, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Teja Singh". 13. The trial Court, taking into consideration the statement of PW.1 Dr. Joseph John, observed as under:- "dr. Joseph John has also opined that the injuries on the person of Jito were the result of strangulation. As it has been discussed above that the accused have not strangulated Jito, so it is only established that jito had strangulated herself due to the harassment meted out to her by accused shingara Singh and Beeban Bai. No doubt, suicide by strangulation is not very common though sometimes met with as it has been laid down in Modis Textbook of medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 154. It further shows from the post mortem conducted by Dr. Avtar Singh that the death was the result of strangulation as skull, both lungs, larynx, stomach, liver, spleen, kidneys were congested". 14. Thus, according to the trial Court, deceased had strangulated herself. This Court may not prima facie agree with the finding of trial Court but an application bearing Criminal Misc. No.3-MA of 1998 seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.2.1998. 15. According to the doctor, who conducted the autopsy in the present case, death was due to asphyxia arising out of aspiration of gastric contents into the respiratory tract which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life. 16. Mr. 15. According to the doctor, who conducted the autopsy in the present case, death was due to asphyxia arising out of aspiration of gastric contents into the respiratory tract which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life. 16. Mr. S. C. Chhabra, Advocate, appearing for the complainant, has stated that coma was the result of attempt to commit suicide and it has come in evidence that right from 16.8.1993 till 27.10.1993 deceased remained in coma and aspiration of gastric contents during the coma has contributed to her death. Thus, the finding of the trial Curt is sound and ought to be accepted by this Court. 17. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has forcibly contended that death by strangulation necessarily is a murder and appellants cannot be convicted for abetment to suicide. Furthermore, it is submitted that strangulation was not the cause of death. It was aspiration of gastric contents due to which deceased died during coma. Coma has not led to death of Jeeto Bai. Therefore, death, in no case, can be assumed to be suicide. 18. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made. Deceased suffered injury in the house of accused. Law bind the accused with presumption to explain as to how deceased suffered these injuries. Except that accused had taken her to the hospital, no explanation has been coming forward. Counsel further submitted that when the deceased was admitted at Mission Hospital on 16.8.1993, there was no injury on her person. The injury was noticed only on 18.8.1993 at Christian Medical College and Hospital, ludhiana and according to doctor, this injury was recent. Therefore, it is for the complainant to explain, who were accompanying the deceased, and as to how abrasion on the neck was suffered. In the present case, when the deceased was got admitted at Mission Hospital by the accused she was unconscious. How she became unconscious, it is for the accused to explain. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit singh and Others V/s. State of Punjab 1989 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 18 that it is for the accused to explain as to how a young bride had turned into corpse and what was the cause of death. Even otherwise, presumption under Sec.113a of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , is against the accused. 19. Even otherwise, presumption under Sec.113a of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , is against the accused. 19. To conclude, it can be safely inferred that deceased had died within seven years of her marriage and her death was not natural under normal circumstances. PW.6 Ajit Singh, on the very next day, had made the statement to the police which was lodged in Daily Diary Register. The statement has been exhibited as Ex. PH. In the statement Ex. PH it has been specifically stated that deceased was given beating by the appellants. Earlier to the occurrence, relations had gathered and accused had promised not to repeat the act of beating. PW.8 Mehran Bai has stated that accused used to give beating to Jeeto bai alias Guddo, deceased. Thus, the trial Court has rightly held appellants guilty for offence under Sec.306 IPC. Counsel for the appellants has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1994. The appellants have suffered protracted trial of more than 16 years. Therefore, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial, sentence of appellants should be reduced. 20. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. However, I am of the view that benefit of protracted trial can be granted to the appellants. Hence, their sentence is reduced from four years to three years rigorous imprisonment. 21. For the detailed discussion made above, no separate orders are required to be passed in Criminal Revision No.280 of 1998 and the same is also dismissed.