Amrik Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Appellant was convicted for an offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) vide judgment dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Vide order of the even date, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:

This case was registered on the statement of Karnail Ram on 21.6.1998. He stated that he is resident of Mandi, P.S. Phillaur. He has four daughters and one son. Deceased Rani was his daughter, who was aged about 20/22 years. About four months prior to the occurrence, Rani was married with accused Amrik. Amrik accused had illicit relations with Bholi daughter of Pakhar Ram, who was residing opposite to the house of Amriik. The accused used to maltreat Rani and beat her on one pretext or the other. He used to say that he had married to Rani under compulsion and he is already married to Bholi. About one month ago, his daughter Rani came to their village Mandi and told this fact to him and his wife Piari. She was even reluctant to go to her in-laws'' house, but he sent his daughter to her in-laws'' house. On 20.6.1998, he had received information that his daughter is admitted in the civil Hospital, Phagwara due to burning by fire. He then accompanied by other relatives went to the civil hospital, Phagwara. There his daughter told to him, her mother, Piari and her uncle, Gurmej Ram that he husband has burnt her by sprinkling kerosene oil on her. On the way to Ludhiana, his daughter died. The accused had burnt her daughter after sprinkling oil on her. Statement of the complainant was recorded. The case was investigated. The post mortem of the deceased Rani was conducted. Formal FIR was got registered against the accused. Rough site plan was prepared. Accused arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.. After completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the deceased had stated before the Magistrate that she had accidentally caught fire. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the conviction of the Appellant u/s 306 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the Appellant be reduced to already undergone by him. The Appellant has undergone about 2 1/2 years of actual sentence.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the Appellant to already undergone by him.

Accordingly, conviction of the Appellant u/s 306 IPC, is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the Appellant is reduced to already undergone by him. The Appellant is directed to deposit the fine, as imposed by the trial Court, within one month from today, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.