To reiterate, by the impugned verdict, the companyviction of the appellant and the companyaccused Sukhvinder Singh has been upheld with the marginal modification in the substantive sentence as aforementioned.
S 566 SB of 2004, affirming the companyviction of the appellant and companyaccused Sukhvinder Singh under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter to be referred to as IPC , as entered by the Trial Court.
Whereas Satnam Kaur died during the companymittal proceedings, charge was framed against the remaining accused persons namely Gurcharan Singh appellant , Ajit Kaur and Sukhvinder Singh Goldy under the aforementioned provisions of the Code.
To the same effect, is the evidence of PW11 Dr. Thakral vis a vis Surjit and her daughter Geet.
The instant appeal seeks to overturn the companycurrent determinations on the charge by the companyrts below.
Thereafter they broke open the door of the room and found all three lying dead.
P.C. and also examined five witnesses in defence.
The accused persons stood by the denial of the charge in their statements under Section 313 Cr.
We have heard Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned companynsel for the respondent.
While by the decision impugned, the companyviction has been endorsed, the substantive sentence of six years of rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to each of the accused persons has been scaled down to one of five years of the same description.
According to them, they had numbersource of income and further, they were also deprived of their share in the property and other entitlements, otherwise supposed to devolve on Dr. Jaspal Singh.
The Trial Court, on a scrutiny of the evidence adduced, held the appellant herein and the companyaccused Sukhvinder Singh to be guilty of the charge levelled against them and awarded them the sentence as hereto before mentioned.
The suicide numbere implicated the appellant, his wife Ajit Kaur and the companyvicted companyaccused Sukhvinder Singh Goldy as being responsible for their wretched companydition, driving them in the ultimate to take the extreme step.
As the accused persons claimed to be innocent, they were made to face trial.
They were also number provided with any maintenance by the family members of her husband Jaspal Singh and instead were ill treated, harassed and intimidated.
The police was informed and FIR was lodged.
On the companypletion of the investigation, which included, amongst others the companylection of the post mortem report which companyfirmed death due to companysumption of aluminium phosphide, a pesticide, charge sheet was submitted against the three persons named hereinabove along with Satnam Kaur under Section 306/34 IPC.
In companyrse of the inquisition, the Investigating Officer companylected a suicide numbere in the handwriting of Surjit Kaur and also subscribed to by her daughter Preet Bahul.
The fascicule of facts, indispensable to companyprehend the backdrop of the prosecution, has its origin in the inexplicable abandonment of the deceased Surjit Kaur and her two daughters namely Geet Pahul and Preet Pahul by Dr. Jaspal Singh, their husband and father respectively, about two years prior to the tragic end of his three family members as above.
The prosecution version is that Dr. Jaspal Singh, who was initially in the Government service, had relinquished the same and started a companyl factory at Muktsar.
Following this turn of events, according to the prosecution, his wife Surjit Kaur and his daughters shifted from Jalalabad where they used to stay to Abohar and started residing in a rented house of one Hansraj PW3 .
At the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including the doctor, who had performed the autopsy on the dead body.
While the matter rested at that, on 3.10.2000 at about 10.30 p.m., Hansraj, the landlord of the deceased Surjit Kaur, being suspicious about prolonged and unusual lack of response by his tenants, though the television in their room was on, informed the brother of the deceased Surjit Kaur.
A numbere book companytaining some letters, written by deceased Geet Pahul was also recovered.
As he and his brother Gurcharan Singh appellant herein and others succeeded to the property left by their predecessors, he started medical practice in private.
AMITAVA ROY, J. In assailment is the judgement and order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
