Jagroop Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal and has been filed by Jagroop Singh, aged 221/2 years, and his father Shri Jit Singh, aged 60 years, and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 16th November, 1994, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, who convicted the appellants under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each, for allegedly committing dowry death of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur.

Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur was the real sister of P.W. Amarjit Kaur and was married to accused Jagroop Singh about 11/2 years prior to her death which took place on 9th September, 1993. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the marriage of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur with Jagroop Singh accused, both the appellants used to beat her on the ground that the deceased had not brought sufficient dowry and they used to ask her to bring more dowry from the house of her parents in the shape of six gold rings. About two months prior to the occurrence, Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur was turned out of the matrimonial home after giving beatings to her and she was specifically told that she had no necessity to return to the matrimonial home unless she secured six gold rings. The matter was complained to Smt. Amarjit Kaur P.W. by the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased was allegedly turned out from the matrimonial home and she started residing in the house of her parents in village Tungwali. Story of the prosecution further goes that 56 days prior to the occurrence, Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, her brother Mukhtiar Singh, Jagjit Singh from village Tungwali came to the house of Mst. Amarjit Kaur and told her that Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur was to be left at the house of the accused, on which she accompanied them. Both the accused told the witnesses that they were not inclined to rehabilitate Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur till arrangement for gold rings was made. However, on the persistent requests made by the deceased, her brother, her sister and Jagjit Singh, the accused permitted the deceased to stay in the house. On 9th September, 1993 at about 3 p.m. Sukhdev Singh, brother of Smt. Amarjit Kaur, went to the house of the latter and after taking tea he along with his sister Smt. Amarjit Kaur went to the house of the deceased Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur for the purpose of meeting her. They reached there at about 5.30 p.m. On reaching there they saw that Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur was lying on the ground in a room of the house while Jit Singh appellant was catching hold of her by her arms and Shri Jagroop Singh appellant was administering some poisonous substance forcibly into her mouth. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur was raising hue and cry. Upon seeing this Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Shri Sukhdev Singh also raised alarm, as a result of which both the appellants ran away from the place of occurrence. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur died at the spot.

Smt. Amarjit Kaur went to village Tungwali and she informed about the occurrence to her brother Mukhtiar Singh and mother Smt. Harnam Kaur, whereupon Mukhtiar Singh and one Jagjit Singh son of Kartar Singh accompanied her to the spot. Said Smt. Amarjit Kaur after detailing her brother Sukhdev Singh, Jagjit Singh and Lachhman Singh along with Mukhtiar Singh, proceeded for the Police Station in order to lodge the report, but on the way ASI Iqbal Singh met her near Court Complex and she made a statement before him, which was recorded and initially the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The case was investigated and both the appellants were chargesheeted under Section 302 read with Section 304B, Indian Penal Code. The Illaqa Magistrate supplied copies of the documents to the accused and the appellants were committed to the Court of Session to face the trial. Vide orders dated 16th February, 1994 charge under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. An alternative charge was also framed under Section 304B read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW 1 Dr. Narsi Ram, PW 2 Shri Dev Raj, Draftsman, PW 3 Smt. Amarjit Kaur, PW 4 Shri Sukhdev Singh, PW 5 Mukhtiar Singh, PW 6 Shri Gulshan Kumar, Muharrir Head Constable, PW 7 Shri Dhanna Singh, Constable, and PW 8 ASI Iqbal Singh. Shri Sukhdev Singh PW 4 and Shri Mukhtiar Singh PW 5 are the brothers of complainant Smt. Amarjit Kaur PW 3.

The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. The accused denied all those circumstances and the plea of Shri Jagroop Singh accusedappellant was as follows :

"I am innocent. Sukhwinder Kaur was suffering from mental ailment. Amarjit Kaur PW also suffers from similar ailment. Amarjit Kaur and her mother had been getting Sukhwinder Kaur treated for her mental ailment from Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma, who treats mental patients. They had taken Sukhwinder Kaur to that doctor on 5.7.1991 for that purpose there. We never raised any demand for dowry. My relations with Sukhwinder Kaur were cordial. Sukhwinder Kaur died at about 1.30 p.m. when I and my coaccused were not in the house. We do not known the cause of her death. Amar Singh and Ginder Singh were sent to Tungwali to bring Mukhtiar Singh and they brought Mukhtiar Singh and his mother Harnam Kaur. Sukhdev Singh came afterwards in jeep. My coaccused Jit Singh was present in the shop of Raman Property Dealer Barnala and I had gone to Bazar when Sukhwinder Kaur died. We were taken from there by Dalip Singh in his jeep after her death. This case has been got registered against us to blackmail us and out of greed."

Jit Singh appellant adopted the stand of his coaccused Jagroop Singh. When called upon to enter their defence, the accused examined DW 1 Anand Kumar, Registered Medical Practitioner; DW 2 Balaur Singh, DW 3 Dalip Singh, DW 4 Amar Singh and DW 5 Harbans Singh.

Learned trial Court partly believed the prosecution story. However, the defence version was rejected. The appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons of conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are contained in paras Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment, which are reproduced as under :

"10. Now, I advert myself to the other aspect as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove alternative charge under Sections 304B/34 of IPC or not. It is not disputed even by the accused that deceased Sukhwinder Kaur was married to accused Jagroop Singh about 11/2 years prior to the occurrence. Further, it is also proved on record that death of said Sukhwinder Kaur was not a natural death, the same being not under normal circumstances. Reference may be made in this context to the very statement of Dr. Narsi Ram PW 1 coupled with the report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PD when doctor opined vide report Ex. PE based on report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PD that the death of the deceased was due to poisoning in the form of chloro compound group of insecticide. Still furthermore, it is also apparent on record that death of the deceased was the result of her harassment by the accused on the demand of further dowry. At this juncture statement of PW Mukhtiar Singh may be referred wherein he asserted on oath as under :

About 2 months prior to the occurrence accused had turned Sukhwinder Kaur out of their house after beating her. Sukhwinder Kaur had told that accused had been demanding right since the marriage 6 rings of gold and had been making complaints about inadequate dowry. He talked about the same to his neighbour Jagjit Singh whereupon he accompanied by Jagjit Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur had come to the house of his sister Amarjit Kaur at Barnala. They all along with Amarjit Kaur then went to the house of the accused where accused told them that they could leave Sukhwinder Kaur with them provided they were able to give them six rings of gold. He then requested the accused to keep her on which they agreed.

Abovesaid version was supported by PWs. Amarjit Kaur, Sukhdev Singh in all material particulars. PW Amarjit Kaur rather specified that demand of the accused for six golden rings would be met in coming harvest whereupon accused had agreed to keep the deceased with them. It thus cannot be said that instant one is not a case of dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B of IPC. No doubt the accused, in order to wriggle out of the situation just referred made an abortive bid to prove that deceased was a mental case though at the same time they refrained from telling the cause of death, but to my mind they simply failed to rebut the presumption as provided under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under :

"When the question is as to whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and is shown that since before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused dowry death."

Reason is not far to seek for arriving at this conclusion. Dr. Anand Kumar DW 1 is simply a registered medical practitioner in Ayurvedic medicines who simply proved entry No. 205 dated 5.7.1991 in the register brought by him wherein the factum of coming of one Sukho of Tungwali to his clinic to whom he treated had been recorded but admittedly nature of her ailment was not mentioned nor even the nature of medicine administered by him to her though against other entries of other patients relevant disease had been mentioned. Furthermore, he specifically admitted in his crossexamination that he did not know either Sukho or person who brought her to his clinic personally. It thus cannot be said if in fact it was the deceased who was taken to him for treatment of some mental disease. Even otherwise if it be taken for the sake of argument that some mental disease afflicted her at any point of time it was for the accused in order to rebut presumption, that the deceased had died as a result of mental ailment and not harassment or cruelty meted out to her by them on account of demand for dowry.

The learned counsel for the accused contended with vehemence that once eye witness account has been discarded it is not safe to believe the version qua offence under Section 304B IPC and hence there is a case for acquittal of the accused on the alternative charge too. However, the contention raised cannot be said to be free from fallacy under the circumstances particularly when marriage within span of 7 years as provided under Section 304B IPC is admitted while death of the deceased in abnormal circumstances has been conclusively proved whereas there is least to disbelieve either Mst. Amarjit Kaur or PW Sukhdev Singh or PW Mukhtiar Singh on the point of cruelty meted out to the deceased by accused on the demand of further dowry. Even otherwise maxim `falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'' is neither a rule of law nor the rule of practice as the same cannot be said to be a sound rule to be complied looking to the condition in this country and so duty is cast upon the court to scrutinise the statements of the witnesses with care and caution and to rely upon that part of the statement which is found to be trustworthy. I find support for this view taken from the authority in case Phoola and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 Criminal Law Journal NOS42 (Raj.) relied upon by the learned Addl. P.P. during the course of arguments. The learned defence counsel has also contended that case of the prosecution is bad as recording of FIR suffers from delay and that despatch of the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate suffers from still further delay. I have considered this submission made too but find the same to be not weighty under the circumstances as prosecution version touching charge against the accused for offence under section 304B, IPC cannot be said having suffered from any deliberation muchless due deliberations.

The learned counsel for the accused lastly contended that instant one is a fit case for acquittal of accused Jit Singh as he was found innocent even during investigation. However, this contention raised cannot be said to be more than misconceived in any manner for the bare reason that no part of Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, imposes the duty on the Investigating Officer to submit his opinion as to whether or not an accused person is innocent and if on the evidence actually recorded by the Court the guilt of an accused person is substantiated, the court cannot be called upon to acquit the accused for the lone reason that an Investigating Officer had for certain reasons considered the accused to be innocent."

Aggrieved by the conviction and the order of sentence the appellants have filed the present appeal, which I have disposed of with the assistance rendered by Shri B.S. Bhasaur, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Shri J.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, whose assistance have gone through the record of this case.

The first submission which was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the witnesses of the prosecution, namely, Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh have been disbelieved by the trial Court with regard to the allegations of murder and in these circumstances their statements cannot be held truthful with regard to alleged demand of dowry. I do not subscribe to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants because the law as applicable to our Country is well settled. False on a particular point, need not be false on other points too. If Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh have been disbelieved on the point of murder, it does not mean that they are not in a position to tell about the alleged acts of cruelty, which might have been given to the deceased. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that after the death of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, the relations between the complainant party and the accused party must have become sour and it has been seen in our experience that with the death of a woman, her parents try to exaggerate the things and try to involve every member of the family of the husband in order to teach them a lesson because the woman had died in the house of her inlaws. This has exactly happened. The trial Court was justified when it came to the conclusion that Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh virtually became the chance witnesses with regard to the allegations of murder. Had these two witnesses come late at the house of the accused, they could not possibly tell in what circumstances the death of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur had taken place. Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh are the real relations of the deceased. They were in a position to tell whether Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur was happy in the house of her inlaws and whether there was any demand of dowry etc. and whether any harassment was caused to the deceased or not. In this regard I have to see the statement of Smt. Amarjit Kaur and that of Sukhdev Singh besides the statement of Mukhtiar Singh. Their statements cannot be ignored simply on the ground that they are related to Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur but I have to see whether the defence has been able to create a reasonable dent in the story of the prosecution. In order to prove the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution was bound to prove on the record that the death of the woman had taken place within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty. With the aid of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution can further prove the charge by asking the Court to draw certain inference.

Now it is to be seen whether from the statements of the three material witnesses, namely P.W. 3 Smt. Amarjit Kaur, PW 4 Sukhdev Singh and PW 5 Mukhtiar Singh, the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, with regard to the demand of dowry and cruelty has been proved or not. So far the other two ingredients are concerned, it is the common case of the parties that Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur died under abnormal circumstances and within seven years of her marriage. According to PW 3 Smt. Amarjit Kaur both the accused harassed Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry. They were demanding six rings of gold. About two months before the present occurrence the accused turned Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur deceased out of their house. Resultantly, Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur came to the house of Smt. Amarjit Kaur. The deceased told her sister that she was beaten and turned out of the house by the accused by saying that she should come back to their house only with six gold rings. It has also come in the statement of Smt. Amarjit Kaur that she took the deceased to village Tungwali and left her at the house of her parents. About 67 days before this occurrence Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur again came to her house at Barnala accompanied by her brother Mukhtiar Singh and their neighbour Jagjit Singh. She accompanied them to the house of the accused. Both the accused were present in their house and they again made an inquiry if the deceased had brought the rings and the accused told them that if she had brought the rings, she can be left in the matrimonial home, otherwise, she may be taken away. Upon this Mukhtiar Singh told the accused that they should rehabilitate Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur in their house and the demand or rings would be met at the time of next harvesting season. Resultantly, the appellants agreed to keep Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur in their house on that promise. Smt. Amarjit Kaur is none else, but the real sister of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur. She is a probable witness who can depose about the conduct of the deceased as well as the alleged demand made by the appellants. We have seen in experience that in such like cases a person in distress would always like to take in confidence his or her relations, such as, parents, sister and brother and the wife of the brother. Resultantly, there was no abnormality in the conduct of the deceased or that of PW 3 that the deceased complained that she was not happy in the house of the appellants and she was being treated with cruelty on the ground of inadequate dowry. The statement of PW 3 is corroborated in all material particulars by PW 4 Sukhdev Singh and PW 5 Mukhtiar Singh. Their testimony cannot be disbelieved on the ground because they are the brothers of the deceased and that PW 3 Smt. Amarjit Kaur is her sister, so long as they are in a position to depose a fact that can reasonably be reposed in them.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no question of demanding dowry because it has come in the statement of PW 3 that at the time of the marriage, the appellants were satisfied with the dowry goods and there was no demand raised by them at the time of the marriage. This argument is not acceptable to the Court. If a greedy husband has not raised any demand of dowry at the time of the marriage or soon before or after the marriage, it does not mean that he could not raise the demand of dowry after the marriage. There is a specific statement of PW 3 Smt. Amarjit Kaur that the accused started raising the demand of dowry a few days after the marriage. In these circumstances the greed of the husband came out when he became frustrated on seeing the dowry articles. If the dowry according to his expectations had not been received, possibility is that he started harassing the deceased on the ground of inadequate dowry.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged demand of dowry is an excuse. In fact, the deceased on account of mental depression might have committed suicide. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellants submitted that according to PW 3 Smt. Amarjit Kaur, she did not complain against the alleged demand of dowry anywhere and she did not talk to anybody in her parental village about this. Moreover, according to Dr. Anand Kumar, DW 1, the deceased used to visit his shop for mental depression. Both the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are totally devoid of any merit. It is not a rule of law nor a rule of prudence that the relations of the victim should go on talking everywhere that their daughter is being harassed in the house of her inlaws. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the first anxiety of the parents and sisters/brothers of the victim would be to rehabilitate her in the house of her inlaws, so that the sensitive relations between the husband and the wife should not become further strained. I have already stated above that this is a sensitive domestic matter and the relations of the victim would try to solve this problem inter se between the family of the girl and the family of the boy. If such like matters are talked in general, any party can take into its head that it has been defamed in public. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the matter was not brought to the notice of others in the parental village of the victim Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur. With regard to the alleged ailment suffered by the deceased, I do not find any satisfactory evidence on the record. DW 1 Shri Anand Kumar is simply a Registered Medical Practitioner in the Ayurvedic medicines. The occurrence has taken place in the year 1993. According to this witness, Sukho i.e. Sukhwinder Kaur of village Tungwali visited his shop on 5.7.1991. The witness has stated that since he treated only mental patients, therefore, he could say that she was a mental patient. In the crossexamination DW 1 has stated that he did not possess any professional or educational qualification. The parentage or other particulars of `Sukho'' have not been mentioned in the register. The name of the medicine administered to Smt. Sukho has also not mentioned in the register. He does not know Sukho personally nor her sister Smt. Amarjit Kaur who allegedly accompanied `Sukho''. It has also not been mentioned in the register of DW 1 that Smt. Amarjit Kaur is the sister of Smt. Sukho. Further this witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge about it. Some of the entries in the register of treatment brought by this witness indicated the nature of ailments suffered by the patients, who were suffering from fever and blood pressure. The signatures of `Sukho'' or Smt. Amarjit Kaur did not appear in the register. In these circumstances it is difficult for this Court to believe that Smt. Sukho was a case of mental depression or that she had the tendency to commit suicide.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged demand of gold ornaments etc. was an excuse. As per the story of the prosecution it was agreed upon between the complainant party and the accused party that the alleged demand of gold rings would be met after the harvesting season. Since there was compromise, therefore, the accused had no occasion to commit the offence in the month of September. The argument is again devoid of any merit. The story of the prosecution is that on the assurance given by the PWs, the accused party agreed to rehabilitate the deceased. Thereafter the victim started residing in the house of the accused. In these circumstances, it is for the accused to explain under what circumstances the deceased died in an unnatural way and under abnormal circumstances. The possibility can always be there that taunts could be extended to the deceased and that the deceased might be pressurised to meet the demand of dowry. In these circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that a case under Section 304B Indian Penal Code is not made out. At the most an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been committed. Elaborating his argument, Mr. B.S. Bhasaur relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, 1997(3) Recent Criminal Reports 85. The contention of Mr. Bhasaur is that there is no evidence that the deceased was harassed during the last 1015 days before her death and, therefore, it cannot be said that she was harassed or maltreated with cruelty soon before her death. Hence the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would not apply. The counsel also relied upon Ramesh v. State of Haryana, 1997(3) Recent Criminal Reports 19. It has also been submitted by Shri Bhasaur that once the PWs have not been believed on the allegations of Section 302, Indian Penal Code, they cannot be believed for the offence under Section 304B of the said Code. Reliance was also placed on Chander Pal v. State, 1997(3) Recent Criminal Reports 686. I have considered the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. These citations are distinguishable on facts. So far as the legal proposition is concerned, there possibly cannot be any dispute with the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and we have to see what evidence has come on the record. It is stated by PW 3 Smt. Amarjit Kaur that about 67 days before this occurrence Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur deceased complained to her that she was being harassed and for that reason she accompanied the deceased along with her brother Mukhtiar Singh and Jagjit Singh and went to the house of the accused, where the demand of dowry was again repeated. In these circumstances it can be reasonably inferred that there was demand of dowry soon before her death.

Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 69. This authority is not applicable because in the cited case the demand for dowry was made two years before the suicide and in these circumstances the High Court held that the demand was not made soon before the death and in these circumstances the ingredients of Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, were not made out. At the cost of repetition, in the present case there was demand for dowry 67 days before the date of occurrence and resultantly, the essential ingredients of section 304B, Indian Penal Code, are attracted in this case. It is the common case of the parties that the cause of death in this case was the administration of chloro compound group of insecticide (poison), as opined by Dr. Narsi Ram (PW 1) in his opinion, (Exhibit PE), which was given after the receipt of the report (Exhibit PD) of the Chemical Examiner. The counsel also referred to Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Reports 652 , Babu Singh and others v. State of M.P., 1997(4) Crimes 337, and Arjun and another v. State of M.P., 1997(4) Crimes 321. All these authorities are distinguishable on facts again. The State of Punjab has placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh alias Bagga, 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports 102 a Division Bench authority of this Court, in which it was held that even if the accused have been acquitted for the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, yet the husband of the deceased can be convicted for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It was further held by the Division Bench that if there is no explanation given by the accused as to how the bride died in unnatural circumstances, such an accused can be convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In this cited case the death of the bride took place within six months of her marriage due to poisoning and it was proved on the record that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of the alleged demand of dowry. The facts of this D.B. authority are quite close to the facts in hand.

It was lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that even by all probabilities, the case against Jit Singh appellant is doubtful. According to Mr. Bhasaur, the case of the prosecution is that there was a demand of six gold rings. Jit Singh is an old man and he would be the last man to ask for the gold rings. Any demand of gold possibly can be either on the part of the husband or by some women folk. Jit Singh has been roped in because of the fact that he is the father of the coaccused. This argument of Mr. Bhasaur requires deeper consideration. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of inadequate dowry, i.e., she was being coerced to bring six gold rings. Such a demand is unlikely to be made by appellant Jit Singh. This aspect of the case has not been appreciated by the learned trial Court in recording the conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants. It is for the prosecution to establish the charge beyond any reasonable doubt. In these circumstances the benefit of doubt can be extended to appellant Jit Singh.

The net result is that the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence visavis Jit Singh appellant is hereby set aside and his appeal stands accepted. So far as the appeal of Jagroop Singh is concerned, it is hereby dismissed, as the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, against him, beyond any reasonable doubt. I also do not agree with the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants when he argued that this Court should visit with leniency in the matter of sentence visavis Jagroop Singh appellant. This appellant does not deserve sympathy in the matter of sentence also as it is on account of his maltreatment and demand of dowry, the deceased had died under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. This appellant has committed crime against the weaker section of the society. Resultantly, the appeal of Jagroop Singh appellant is hereby dismissed.

Intimation be sent to all concerned in regard to the acceptance of the appeal of Jit Singh and he be set at liberty forthwith, if not convicted and sentenced in any other case.

The appeal is allowed in part.