Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 743 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana

2010-02-01

S.S.SARON

body2010
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:- The applicant-Bhateri Devi (appellant No.4) seeks suspension of sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal. The custody certificate filed by the learned counsel for the State is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant-appellant No.4 has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jind for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ – for short) vide judgment and order dated 5.12.2008. She has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Sections 304-B/34 IPC; besides to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in the event of default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-A/34 IPC. She has has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 4. As per allegations of prosecution case, Mukhtiar Singh complainant on 17.7.2007 got his statement recorded on the basis of which FIR was registered. It is alleged by Mukhtiar Singh that his sister Suman was married to Naresh Kumar (appellant No.1). His father had spent about Rs.6 Lacs in the marriage. After her marriage, the family members of Kali Ram (appellant No.2) had harassed and taunted his sister for bringing insufficient dowry. On one occasion, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on their demand but despite that his sister continued to be harassed. On 16.7.2007 at about 9.30 p.m., Naresh Kumar (appellant No.1), the husband of his sister asked her to telephone the complainant to bring money otherwise she would be killed. The complainant consoled his sister with a promise to come in the morning. When he reached there in the morning, the appellants had done his sister to death by strangulating her. Then they threw her dead body in the Hansi Branch of canal minor. At about 6.00 a.m. in the morning Kali Ram (appellant No.2) and his wife Bhateri Devi (appellant No.4) came to Village Rajhala of the complainant and informed them that Suman (deceased) had run away from the house at night. They searched for her but she could not be found. At about 6.00 a.m. in the morning Kali Ram (appellant No.2) and his wife Bhateri Devi (appellant No.4) came to Village Rajhala of the complainant and informed them that Suman (deceased) had run away from the house at night. They searched for her but she could not be found. Thereafter, her dead body was found in the canal. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has convicted the applicant-appellant No.4 for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with Section 34 IPC in the manner as has been detailed above. 6. As per the custody certificate filed by the State, the applicant-appellant No.4 till 17.1.2010 has undergone imprisonment of one year, four months and 19 days. The hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. The sentence of imprisonment of Kali Ram (appellant No.2), the husband of the applicant-Bhateri Devi (appellant No.4) has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 20.8.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No.36421 of 2009. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant No.2-Kali Ram was noticed that he was a Branch Manager and had remained posted at different places. He was in custody for about ten months and the appeal was not likely to mature for hearing. Bhateri Devi-the applicant-appellant No.4 is the wife of Kali Ram and it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the applicant-appellant No.4 that she was residing with her husband- Kali Ram and was with him when he had remained posted at different places and not at the matrimonial home of Suman (deceased) and Naresh Kumar (appellant No.1). In this regard, a reference has been made to the statement of Rajbir Singh, Clerk (DW-2), who was an employee of the Bank in which Kali Ram (appellant No.2)-the husband of the applicant-appellant No.4 was serving. It is stated by him that Kali Ram was posted as Branch Manager and he retired as Branch Manager from the Bank at Muana on 30.4.2008. Rajbir Singh, Clerk (DW-2) knew Kali Ram personally and Kali Ram along with his wife (appellant No.4-applicant) used to reside at Muana during his tenure. The evidence referred to by the learned senior counsel is to be considered at the time of final hearing. Rajbir Singh, Clerk (DW-2) knew Kali Ram personally and Kali Ram along with his wife (appellant No.4-applicant) used to reside at Muana during his tenure. The evidence referred to by the learned senior counsel is to be considered at the time of final hearing. However, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the applicant-appellant No.4 is similarly placed as her husband-Kali Ram (appellant No.2) whose sentence of imprisonment has been suspended on 20.8.2009. It may also be noticed that the sentence of imprisonment of Anil (appellant No.3) has been suspended vide order dated 8.5.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No.17086 of 2009. Naresh Kumar (appellant No.1), who is the husband of Suman (deceased) is in custody. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. 7. In the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment of applicant-appellant No.4 on her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended. ------------