Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1282 (PNJ)

Vinod v. State of Haryana

2016-05-04

GURMIT RAM, S.S.SARON

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavits of Mr. Ashok Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Karnal mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by Ram Pal and Asha (applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3). The same are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by Ram Pal and Asha (applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3) seeking suspension of their respective sentences of imprisonments during pendency of the appeal. 4. Phool Singh-complainant alleged that his daughter Reena (deceased in the case), who was a graduate, was married to Vinod (appellant No. 1) on 28.06.2012. The marriage was solemnized with pomp and show. The complainant gave dowry beyond his capacity in the marriage. He also spent Rs. One lac on ‘tikka’ ceremony. For about threefour months after the marriage, everything remained proper. Thereafter, it is alleged that the parents-in-law (applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3) and husband (appellant No. 1) of Reena (deceased) started subjecting her to cruelty in connection with demands for dowry. Reena returned to her parents’ home and informed her parents that her parents-in-law and husband were harassing her for dowry every time. The said position continued for about one year. It is alleged that applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3 and husband of deceased Reena subjected her to severe cruelty. Phool Singh- complainant made a complaint on behalf of his daughter in the Women Cell situated in the office of S.P., Karnal. Dates were fixed in the said complaint and the matter was got compromised. The next date fixed for appearance of both the parties was 27.02.2014. Reena (deceased) and her husband Vinod (appellant No. 1) went to Women Cell, Karnal on 27.02.2014. However, being a holiday the office was closed. Then they came to the house of Phool Singh-complainant at Karnal. They had their meals but, according to the complainant, Reena (deceased) was perturbed. She was counselled and sent with her husband-Vinod (appellant No. 1) to her matrimonial home at about 06:45 p.m. in the evening. Reena had a daughter aged about four months namely Kajal. She was also with them. The son of the complainant namely Tarun went to Railway Station, Karnal for leaving them. She was counselled and sent with her husband-Vinod (appellant No. 1) to her matrimonial home at about 06:45 p.m. in the evening. Reena had a daughter aged about four months namely Kajal. She was also with them. The son of the complainant namely Tarun went to Railway Station, Karnal for leaving them. Then later at about 10:30 p.m. at night, the father-in-law of Reena, i.e. Ram Pal (applicant/appellant No. 2), informed Phool Singh that Reena had not reached her matrimonial home while Vinod (appellant No. 1) had reached with the small child. Vinod (appellant No. 1) informed that Reena had separated from him in the train itself and did not meet him when he got down from the train. Phool Singh started searching for Reena during the night itself. Next morning, when they were going from Karnal to Panipat by the first train, they noticed that earlier to Railway Station, Panipat, opposite to Hari Nagar, a dead body of a girl was lying on the railway track. Phool Singh got down at Railway Station, Panipat and on foot went to the railway track at KMN 90/6-8. There they saw the dead body lying near the railway track. The complainant identified it to be that of Reena. Reena had received injuries on her head, waist, hands, arms and legs. She had been crushed. It was alleged that the in-laws of Reena had murdered her for dowry. Brothers-in-law of Reena namely Sanjay and Sonu were also in criminal conspiracy with her parents-in-law and husband and they all subjected her to cruelty for bringing inadequate dowry. The statement of Phool Singh-complainant was recorded by Inspector Randhir Singh (PW6). 5. During trial of the case, insofar as applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3 are concerned, it is alleged by the complainant that on 05.11.2013, on the occasion of ‘Bhaiya Dooj’, accused Ram Pal (applicant/appellant No. 2), Asha (applicant/appellant No. 3), Sanjay, Rashmi wife of Sanjay and Sonu along with deceased Reena and her minor daughter Kajal came to their house at Karnal. All of them started quarrelling with his daughter Reena in their presence. Accused Ram Pal and Asha (applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3) demanded Rs. One lac on the pretext of starting some work for accused Vinod (appellant No. 1). Sanjay and Sonu also supported the said demand. All of them started quarrelling with his daughter Reena in their presence. Accused Ram Pal and Asha (applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3) demanded Rs. One lac on the pretext of starting some work for accused Vinod (appellant No. 1). Sanjay and Sonu also supported the said demand. At that time Phool Singh stated that he was just a vegetable vendor and he did not have such an amount. At that, Sanjay pushed his daughter Reena. They also created a scene in the street. Several neighbours gathered there. All those persons went back after raising a quarrel. Thereafter, on 14.12.2013, it was alleged, a telephone call was received by the complainant-Phool Singh from Ram Pal (applicant/appellant No. 2) and the complainant was called to Panipat. When he reached Panipat, he saw that his daughter Reena was injured and she had been given a beating by her inlaws. The daughter of the complainant informed him that she was given a beating by Vinod (appellant No. 1), Ram Pal (applicant/appellant No. 2), Asha (applicant/appellant No. 3); besides, Sanjay and Sonu. 6. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material on record, has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ – for short). Applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each; besides, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) each and in default of payment thereof, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Besides, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months each and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) each and in default of payment thereof, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The sentences imposed on them have been ordered to run concurrently. Appellant No. 1 has, however, been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fourteen years; besides, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) and in default of payment thereof, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. 7. Appellant No. 1 has, however, been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fourteen years; besides, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) and in default of payment thereof, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. 7. According to the affidavits that have been filed, applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3 have undergone actual imprisonment of two years, one month and twenty-seven days and two years, one month and six days, respectively, as on 24.04.2016 out of the total sentence of imprisonment of seven years that has been imposed. 8. Applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3, as already noticed, are the parents-in-law of deceased Reena. It would require consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal whether they had raised demand for dowry soon before the death of Reena. The marriage of Reena was solemnized with Vinod (applicant/appellant No. 1) on 28.06.2012. Thereafter, according to the complainant, the matter was compromised in Women Cell, Karnal on 27.02.2014, when the incident had occurred. The allegations against applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3 relate to 05.11.2013, on which date they are said to have raised a demand of Rs. One lac on the pretext of starting some work for Vinod (appellant No. 1). The effect of the same would require consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 9. In the circumstances and keeping in view the period of imprisonment undergone by applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3 out of the total sentence of seven years that has been imposed, it would be just and expedient to suspend their sentences of imprisonments during pendency of the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentences of imprisonments of Ram Pal and Asha (applicants/appellants No. 2 and 3) shall, during pendency of the appeal, remain suspended, subject to their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat.