Pawan Kumar vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—This is an appeal directed by Pawan Kumar S/o. Paras Ram against the judgment and order dated 9/10.7.2003 passed by Sh. Karnail Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which the accused appellant has been convicted u/s 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The law was set in motion by recording the statement made by Lal Chand to ASI Gurnam Singh in the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, who has stated that he has five children and elder of them is Sangita and younger to her is Sushma and younger to her is Chetan and then Satish and younger daughter is Asha. His elder daughter Sangita was studying in Khasla Girls College, Bathinda in B.A. Part I. Pawan Kumar accused was having a bad eye on his daughter Sangita. The complainant told Pawan Kumar that his engagement has already took place with a girl and as such he should not talk to his daughter. Even thereafter Pawan Kumar gave telephonic call to his daughter alluring her for marriage with him and used to harass her. The complainant disclosed the said fact to the father of Pawan Kumar. Pawan Kumar kept quiet for some time but later on again provoked his daughter to marry with him, otherwise they both will die. On 20.1.2001 Pawan Kumar took Sangita near Abohar Line. At about 2.30 p.m. the complainant received a telephonic call that Sangita was lying down near Abohar Railway line near Uria colony. The complainant alongwith Radhe Shyam reached the spot. Sangita was lying on the ground and Pawan Kumar was sitting at some distance besides her. Sangita was vomiting at that time. Sangita told him that she had consumed poisonous medicine on being compelled by Pawan Kumar which was brought by Pawan Kumar from a shop but Pawan Kumar did not consume any poisonous medicine in her presence. After that Sangita became unconscious and did not talk. During this period a van of Sahara Club came there and the complainant requested them to take her to Civil Hospital for treatment and they took them to Civil Hospital, Bathinda. The complainant and his friend Radhey Shayam went to house to inform his wife. Thereafter, the complainant, his brother Amar Nath, Radhey Sham and his wife Maya Devi reached Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where they came to know that his daughter Sangita has died due to consuming of poisonous substance and her dead body was lying in the Dead House of the hospital. The complainant has further stated that Sangita died due to compelling of Pawan Kumar for marrying with him forcibly and by compelling her to take poisonous substance.

After investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Charge u/s 306 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Dr. Sushil Gupta, PW-2 Dr. Kulwant Singh Brar, PW-3 Lal Chand complainant, PW-4 Radhey Shyam, PW-5 Constable Sukhdev Singh, PW-6 HC Fauja Singh, PW-7 ASI Gurnam Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-8 SI Gurdev Singh, who partly investigated the case, PW-9 HC Darshan Singh and closed the prosecution evidence.

The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied and pleaded false implication. He has stated that he has not added or contributed anything in the suicidal death of Sangita. He further stated that he was not present at the time of committing suicide by Sangita and he has been involved in this case because of admission in the hospital. The accused was called upon to lead his defence evidence. However, he did not to lead any defence evidence.

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty u/s 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.

Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment and order dated 9/10.7.2003 passed by Sh. Karnail Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but has submitted that the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 3 years, 8 months and 25 days including remission of 1 year and 8 days, out of substantive sentence of 5 years. He has further submitted that the appellant also consumed Sulphas tablets (poison). The occurrence relates to the year 2001 i.e. more than 12 years back. The appellant is on bail for the last about 10 years and has settled in his life. So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.

The prayer has been opposed by the State counsel.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case.

Although, counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction, but since this is first appeal, I have myself gone through the record of the case. The oral testimony of Lal Chand corroborated with medical evidence, proves the case of the prosecution. PW-4 Radhey Shyam also lends corroboration to the prosecution version. So, in these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial Court u/s 306 IPC stands affirmed.

Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, as per the conviction slip, the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 3 years, 8 months and 25 days, including remission of 1 year and 8 days out of the substantive sentence of 5 years. He is stated to be on bail since 23.10.2003 i.e. for the last about 10 years and must have settled in his life. The age mentioned by him in the judgment is 20-22 years at the time of occurrence. So, considering all the circumstances mentioned above, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone and I order accordingly. However, the sentence of fine stands affirmed.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.