Partly allowed

Balwinder Masih Etc., v. State of Pb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2014CRA-S/2174/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for dowry harassment and sentencing. Trial court acquitted under Section 304-B IPC but convicted under Section 498-A IPC. High Court affirmed conviction but reduced sentence for aged appellants to time served.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 498-A IPC affirmed; sentence of Bhajan Masih and Veero reduced to period already undergone.

Balwinder Masih Etc., Vs State of Pb.Etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRA S No. 2174 SB of 2003 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRA S No. 2174 SB of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.5.2014

¶4

Balwinder Masih and others

¶5

State of Punjab

¶6

................Appellants vs. .................Respondent

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶8

Present: Sh. Akshay Partap Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶9

Sh. Arshvinder Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶10

K.C. Puri, J.

¶11

Challenge in this appeal is against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2003 passed by Sh. C.D. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the accused-appellants were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

¶12

Shorn of the unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case

¶13

Chugh Banita 2014.05.27 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶14

CRA S No. 2174 SB of 2003 -2-

¶15

are that on 8.9.2000 complainant Munshi Ram went to the Police Station Kahnuwan and lodged a report that his daughter Sunita was married with accused Balwinder Masih on 18.2.1997. Balwinder Masih is serving in CRPF. The complainant gave dowry in the marriage as per his capacity. After some time of marriage, Veero the mother-in-law of Sunita, Bhajan Masih, father-in-law, Balwinder Masih husband and Soma younger brother of Balwinder Masih started maltreating Sunita for bringing less dowry. Sunits used to tell about it to her parents. The complainant and his wife Bashiran went to the house of the accused and made request that they are poor persons and they have given dowry as per their capacity and they should not harass Sunita, but the accused remained harassing Sunita and also giving beatings to her. About 6/7 months before 8.9.2000 Sunita was given beatings by the accused and turned out from their house and Sunita came to the house of her parents and told the whole matter. The complainant, his wife Bashiran, Sarpanch Iqbal Singh and Rachhpal Singh, Member Panchayat of village Sahiapur alongwith Ex-Sarpanch Gurdial Singh went to the house of the accused Balwinder Masih where Balwinder Masih, his mother Veero and father Bhajan Masih and brother Soma were present. The complainant and the Member Panchayat enquired from the accused as to why they were maltreating Sunita and before the Panchayat accused told that the complainant has not given dowry as per their requirement and the scooter was also not given in the dowry and in case they want that Sunita should live peacefully then they should

¶16

Chugh Banita 2014.05.27 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶17

CRA S No. 2174 SB of 2003 -3-

¶18

meet their demand. The complainant and Member Panchayat made request to the accused but the accused remained adamant. About 6/7 months before the occurrence, the accused Balwinder Masih and his brother came to the house of the complainant and raised a dispute, but the matter was compromised. On 8.9.2000 complainant came to know from the reliable sources that accused Balwinder Masih came on leave 2/3 days earlier. The accused Balwinder Masih, his mother Veero, father Bhajan Masih and brother Soma gave beatings to Sunita and that Sunita consumed poison on 7.9.2000 and she expired at Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. It was the firm belief of complainant Munshi Lal that accused administered poison to Sunita and compelled her to commit suicide. Accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused for trial.

¶19

Charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶20

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Dr. Vijay Kumar, PW-2 Munshi Lal – complainant, PW-3 SI Sakattar Singh, PW-4HC Pappi Masih, PW-5 ASI Rajesh Kakkar, PW-5/A Bashiran, PW-6 HC Jasbir Singh, PW-7 Constable Bur Singh, PW-8 Constable Balwinder Singh, PW-9 J.S. Dhanjal, Draftsman, PW-10 Iqbal Singh and closed the prosecution evidence.

¶21

The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied. Accused Balwinder Masih alleged that he has been falsely implicated

¶22

Chugh Banita 2014.05.27 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶23

CRA S No. 2174 SB of 2003 -4-

¶24

in this case. Sunita after her marriage with him had been leading a cordial and happy life during the year before her death. She was never tortured, beaten or harassed by him or his parents or his brother for want of any kind of dowry. During her married life she gave birth to two male children. They were being looked after by his mother Veero, who is also accused alongwith his father and younger brother Tarsem Masih @ Soma, who is minor and school going student. Sunita had been living with him with two infant children at his place of posting in CRPF Unit which was stationed at Faizabad (U.P.). He further stated that he had come on 15 days leave w.e.f. 4.9.2000 to 20.9.2000 and reached his parents-in-laws house at village Rania. After dropping from train at Dhariwal Town just two or three days before the occurrence. Sunita had developed illness at her parents house and she was given medical treatment at Dhariwal Hospital. He too had suffered from typhoid fever before he left his Unit at Faizabad on leave on 4.9.2000. Sunita under medical advise had taken certain medicines which affected her health adversely and she died with full knowledge of her parents. She died in normal circumstances, but her parents blackmailed him and his parents by manipulating the whole story to show that Sunita had died under abnormal circumstances. Accused Balwinder Masih and Veero also took similar pleas.

¶25

The accused were called upon to lead their defence evidence and they examined DW-1 Gurdial Singh, DW-2 Swaran Singh, DW-3 Constable Nathanial. Accused Balwinder Masih himself appeared as

¶26

Chugh Banita 2014.05.27 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶27

CRA S No. 2174 SB of 2003 -5-

¶28

DW-4 and closed the defence evidence after tendering certain documents.

¶29

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence on the file, acquitted the accused under Section 304-B IPC but held them guilty for offence under Sections 498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.

¶30

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 12.11.2003 passed by Sh. C.D. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of the appellants but has submitted that so far as main accused Balwinder Masih is concerned, he has already undergone the sentence awarded by the trial Court and has been released thereafter. Accused Bhajan Masih has undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year and 20 days, whereas Veero has undergone incarceration for a period of 11 months and 12 days, including remission of 8 days. It is submitted that age of Bhajan Masih has been mentioned as 62 years and the age of Veero has been mentioned as 60 years in the judgment dated 12.11.2003. So, by adding another 13 years, Bhajan Masih is now aged 75 years, whereas Veero is now aged about 73 years. They are not the previous convicts. Both of them have already undergone incarceration for about 1 year. So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.

¶32

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer.

¶33

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival

¶34

Chugh Banita 2014.05.27 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶35

CRA S No. 2174 SB of 2003 -6-

¶36

submissions made by both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case.

¶37

All the three accused were put to stand trial for offence under Sections 304-B, 34 IPC. However, the learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence acquitted the accused under Section 304-B IPC, but convicted them under Section 498-A IPC. The main accused Balwinder Masih has already undergone the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The parents of Balwinder Masih have also undergone incarceration for about 1 year of actual sentence each, as narrated above. They are in the evening of their life and are on bail for the last more than 10 years. So, considering all the circumstances mentioned above, the conviction of all the appellants under Section 498-A IPC stands affirmed. However, the sentence of Bhajan Masih and Veero stands reduced to the period already undergone.

¶38

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for

¶40

compliance.

¶41

( K.C. Puri ) 14.5.2014 Judge chugh

¶42

Chugh Banita 2014.05.27 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Balwinder Masih Etc., v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Masih Etc., v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarabjit Singh and Ors. Vs Madha Singh and Ors.

Avdesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Sardool Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kashmir Vs State of Haryana

Arvind Kumar etc. Vs State of Hy.