Judgment JORA SINGH, J. 1. Mohinder Singh, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.9.2000, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in case No.12-T of 18.2.1997/28.10.1996, arising out of FIR No. 176 dated 23.6.1996, registered under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Patiala. 2. By the said judgment, he was convicted under Sections 304 Part-II and 316 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: 1. Under Section 304 Part-II IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of 5000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Under Section 316 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of 2000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3 Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Ram Dass-complainant has five daughters and two sons. His eldest daughter namely Karamjit Kaur, was married with Mohinder Singh, four years back and from this wedlock Karamjit Kaur, had one son aged about 8-9 months and was pregnant again. Mohinder Singh, used to misbehave and maltreat Karamjit Kaur, for want of dowry. On 22.6.1996, his younger daughter Jarnail Kaur, had gone to the house of Karamjit Kaur. On 23.6.1996, he alongwith Jagar Singh, had gone to the house of his daughter Karamjit Kaur to bring back Jarnail Kaur. Then Jarnail Kaur, told them that Karamjit Kaur, was murdered by Mohinder Singh. An effort was made to contact Sarpanch and Lambardar of the village but they were not available. After that they had gone to Police Station, Bahadurgarh, to lodge report and police party met them near the university gate. Statement of the complainant was recorded. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Accused were arrested. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court. 5. Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PW-1 Dr. Accused were arrested. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court. 5. Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PW-1 Dr. K.K. Goel, stated that on 22.6.1996, there was ultrasound scanning of Baljinder Kaur. Ex. PA is the photostat copy of the register. PW-2 Dr. Rubi Bhatia, stated that on 22.6.1996, she had received the file of Baljinder Kaur, patient from Emergency Surgery Department. After examining the patient, head injury was noticed. PW-3 Dr. S.S. Oberoi, stated that on 23.6.1996, he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Karamjit Kaur and found following injury on her person: 1. A contusion 6 cm x 4 cm in size was present on the left temporal parietal region. On dissection the underlying bone of skull was found fractured and extra dual haematoma of the size of 7 x 3 x 0.5 cm was present under the fractured bones. The floor of anterior cranial fossa (left) was also found fractured. The stomach contained about 300 ml of semi digested unidentifiable food contents. All the thoraxes and abdominal organs were pale. The uterus was enlarged and had a female feotus of about six months of intera uterine age. Cause of death was head injury which was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in routine course of nature. PW-4 ASI Ashok Kumar, stated that on 1.7.1996, he had arrested the accused. PW-5 HC Gurmail Singh, was with the Investigating Officer, on 23.6.1996, when the place of occurrence was inspected. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and the same was made into sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PF, attested by the witnesses. Hair of the deceased were also taken into police possession after the same were made into sealed parcle. Clothes worn by the deceased after post mortem examination were also taken into police possession after made into sealed parcel. PW-6 Dr. Babar Singh Bhogal, stated that as per bed head ticket patient was admitted through emergency on 22.6.1996 at 11.30 p.m. and expired on 23.6.1996 at 4.25 a.m. Immediate cause of death was cardicrespiratory arrest and the antecedent cause was head injury. PW-7 Ram Dass, is the complainant. PW-6 Dr. Babar Singh Bhogal, stated that as per bed head ticket patient was admitted through emergency on 22.6.1996 at 11.30 p.m. and expired on 23.6.1996 at 4.25 a.m. Immediate cause of death was cardicrespiratory arrest and the antecedent cause was head injury. PW-7 Ram Dass, is the complainant. He has reiterated his stand before the police. PW-8 Jarnail Kaur, is the sister of the deceased and on oath stated that Karamjit Kaur, was married with Mohinder Singh. She was illiterate. During summer vacations in the year 1996, she had gone to see her sister Karamjit Kaur. Mohinder Singh, used to quarrel with Karamjit Kaur, for want of dowry. He was demanding a ceiling fan and a fridge. On 22.6.1996 at 8.00 p.m. Mohinder Singh, directed Karamjit Kaur, to bring a ceiling fan and a fridge. Karamjit Kaur, replied that her father is a poor man and not in a position to meet his demand. Then he started giving beatings to Karamjit Kaur. She was caught hold by Mohinder Singh, from her hair and he gave 2-3 pushes against the wall. She tried to intervene and rescued her sister but her sister became unconscious. Raula was raised. Joginder Singh, brother of the accused and his mother came to the spot. Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh and their mother had shifted Karamjit Kaur, to hospital. On the next day her father and Jagar Singh came. Entire story was brought to their notice. PW-9 MHC Surinder Pal Singh and PW-10 Constable Chet Ram, tendered their affidavits Ex. PL and Ex. PM, respectively. PW-11 Dr. Brij Mohan Singh Nagra, stated that on the intervening night of 22/23.6.1999, patient was brought to the Emergency Department in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. After examining the patient head injury was noticed. Patient had expired on 23.6.1996 at 6.25 a.m. Ex. PG/2 is the bed head ticket. PW-12 SI Rakesh Kumar, is the Investigating Officer. 6. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. 7. Defence version of the accused was that Karamjit Kaur @ Baljinder Kaur, wanted to go up stairs with the help of a wooden ladder. She had a fall from the ladder and received injuries. At the time of occurrence he was not present in the house. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. 7. Defence version of the accused was that Karamjit Kaur @ Baljinder Kaur, wanted to go up stairs with the help of a wooden ladder. She had a fall from the ladder and received injuries. At the time of occurrence he was not present in the house. When he came back then got her admitted in the hospital. Information regarding receipt of injuries was given to his in-laws. He is a labourer by profession. 8. In defence, Ram Chand, DW-1 appeared and stated that parties are known to him. There was no dispute amongst the deceased and her husband. On the day of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m. he heard noise from the house of Mohinder Singh and had gone there. At that time Mohinder Singh was not present in his house. Karamjit Kaur, had suffered a head injury by fall from a ladder. Information was given to Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh came and had shifted Karamjit Kaur, to hospital. 9. After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file. 11. After arguing for some time, when learned defence counsel for the appellant failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment then stated that impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Occurrence is dated 22.6.1996 and at that time appellant was 25 years old. According to the prosecution story, appellant gave 2-3 pushes to the deceased against the wall. According to doctor death was due to cardicrespiratory arrest or head injury. Appellant is the first offender and has minor son to support. Appellant has already undergone about 4 years out of the actual sentence. Requested to take lenient view. 12. Learned State counsel argued that no doubt appellant has already undergone near about 4 years out of the actual sentence but deceased was pregnant. 2-3 times deceased was hit against the wall. Occurrence was witnessed by Jarnail Kaur, real sister of the deceased. Injury was ante mortem in nature. No reason to disbelieve the eyewitness. 13. 12. Learned State counsel argued that no doubt appellant has already undergone near about 4 years out of the actual sentence but deceased was pregnant. 2-3 times deceased was hit against the wall. Occurrence was witnessed by Jarnail Kaur, real sister of the deceased. Injury was ante mortem in nature. No reason to disbelieve the eyewitness. 13. No doubt, learned defence counsel for the appellant has not challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction and simply requested to take lenient view but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence as to whether occurrence had taken place as per prosecution story or not? 14. Undisputedly, deceased was the legally wedded wife of the appellant and from this wedlock she had one minor son. Marriage was solemnized 4 years earlier to the present occurrence. Jarnail Kaur, is the real sister of the deceased and is the eye-witness. Occurrence had taken place in her presence. She appeared in Court and stated that during summer vacations she had gone to look after her sister and in her presence appellant gave 2-3 pushes to Karamjit Kaur (deceased) against the wall. He was demanding a ceiling fan and fridge. Karamjit Kaur was admitted in the hospital immediately after occurrence by the appellant, his brother and his mother. Death was on the next day and according to doctor cause of death was head injury. Un-natural death in the house of the appellant and no reason to disbelieve the eye-witness. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Judgment of the trial Court is upheld on the point of conviction. 15. Occurrence relates to the month of June, 1996, at that time appellant was 25 years old. He is the first offender. According to the prosecution story, appellant gave 2-3 pushes to the deceased against wall. Intention was not to murder but to cause injury because deceased had shown her inability to bring a ceiling fan and fridge from her parents. Appellant is a labourer and has to support his minor son. He has already undergone more than 4 years out of the actual sentence. Appellant is to become hardcore criminal if again sent back to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Appellant is a labourer and has to support his minor son. He has already undergone more than 4 years out of the actual sentence. Appellant is to become hardcore criminal if again sent back to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken, when he has minor son to support. 16. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, I take lenient view and direct the appellant to undergo imprisonment already undergone (4 years). Fine maintained. 17. For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.