Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1421 (PNJ)

Bijender v. State of Haryana

2015-08-07

RAMENDRA JAIN, S.S.SARON

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Crl. Misc. application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/ appellant No.2 – Satinder son of Karambir during pendency of the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Amit Tomar (PW-1) son of Suresh Pal (PW-4) who was the brother of the deceased Renu. The sister of the complainant namely Renu was married with Bijender (appellant No.1) on 21.2.2006. The complainant had given sufficient dowry beyond their capacity in the marriage. However, the in-laws of Renu were dissatisfied with the dowry and they assaulted her on many occasions. They took Rs.1 lac from the complainant for purchasing a shop. Then they raised a demand for a car. Suresh Pal (PW-4), father of the complainant, expressed his inability to give more dowry. As the demand for dowry was not fulfilled, Renu was harassed more severely. Bijender (appellant No.1) made a call on the mobile phone that on 19.10.2011 he had got Renu to board a bus to go to her parents’ home. The complainant side and others requested him (Bijender – appellant No.1) to let them speak to Renu. Besides, they requested him to leave Renu at her parents’ home. However, he (Bijender – appellant No.1) did not adhere to any such request. When Renu did not reach her parents’ home in the evening, the complainant and others started a search for her but she was not found. Bijender (appellant No.1) himself lodged a missing report at Police Station Timarpur, Delhi on 19.10.2011 in respect of Renu being untraceable. A search was carried out for her. Between villages Rohad and Garhi near the bank of parallel canals, a dead body of a woman was found on 23.10.2011. She was identified to be Renu and her dead body had decomposed. 4. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has convicted the applicant/appellant No.2 – Satinder for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years, besides, to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. Bijender (appellant No.1) has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years, besides, pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years, besides, to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. Bijender (appellant No.1) has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years, besides, pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. Bijender (appellant No.1) has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, besides, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201 IPC. 5. During trial of the case, the complainant Amit Tomar (PW-1) who is the brother of the deceased Renu did not support the prosecution case. Initially he had supported the case. However, while appearing in Court on 22.5.2014 and 11.11.2014 he resiled from his earlier depositions Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P33. In the cross-examination recorded on 22.5.2014 Amit Tomar (PW-1) stated that accused Bijender (appellant No.1) and his family members never demanded any dowry at the time of marriage or after marriage from his sister or from them. The accused never tortured and harassed his sister on account of demand of dowry. It is also stated as correct that Renu (deceased) along with her husband Bijender (appellant No.1) had been living separately after the marriage from the accused persons. 6. Sohan Singh (PW-2) who is the maternal uncle of deceased Renu also did not support the prosecution case; although, he had initially supported it. It is also stated by him as correct that Renu (deceased) along with her husband Bijender (appellant No.1) had been living separately after the marriage from the accused persons. 7. Suresh Pal (PW-4) who is the father of the deceased has also not supported the prosecution case. He in his crossexamination stated as correct that Renu (deceased) was being kept with love and affection by the accused persons and she had never complained to them against the accused at any time during her matrimonial life. It is also stated as correct that Renu (deceased) and her husband Bijender (appellant No.1) had been living separately after the marriage from the other accused. It is stated as correct that the accused are innocent and are not responsible in any manner for the death of his daughter Renu. It is also stated as correct that Renu (deceased) and her husband Bijender (appellant No.1) had been living separately after the marriage from the other accused. It is stated as correct that the accused are innocent and are not responsible in any manner for the death of his daughter Renu. It is also stated as correct that he had verified from the persons present on the bank of the canal, from where the dead body of his daughter Renu was recovered that she was alone at the time of accident and had slipped in the canal on account of the accident. 8. According to the affidavit that has been filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Karnal, the applicant/appellant No.2 – Satinder has undergone actual imprisonment of one year, three months and twelve days as on 5.7.2015. 9. Keeping in view the evidence on record and the fact that the prosecution witnesses i.e. Amit Tomar (PW-1), Sohan Singh (PW-2) and Suresh Pal (PW-4) have stated that Bijender (appellant No.1) and Renu (deceased) were living separately from the other accused which would include Satinder (applicant/appellant No.2) and that they did not support the prosecution case, it would be just and expedient to the suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No.2 – Satinder during pendency of the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No.2 – Satinder shall, during pendency of the appeal, remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. ————————