The prosecution case briefly is that the deceased Gurtar Kaur was married to Baldev Singh, brother of the appellant, while the other deceased Sukho was married to the appellant.
After the investigation the abovementioned 4 accused persons were charge sheeted as stated above.
During the companyrse of the quarrel, it is stated that A 1 picked up a Kassi and Thana Singh A 4 picked up a Kulhari and assaulted the deceased.
The further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons including the appellant ran away from the place of the incident while PW 2 Pritam Singh went to the Police Station along with one Jagdip Singh DW 4 and lodged a companyplaint at about 11 a.m. at the Rode P.S. which is about 8 kms.
It is also stated that both PW 2 and his son Phulel Singh stayed overnight in the house of Jeet Singh and in the following morning on 7.11.1995 at about 9 or 10 a.m. A 1 and A 2 picked up a fight with the deceased ladies in regard to the companyplaint made by them to their father as to number payment of dowry.
from the place of the incident.
The injury caused to the deceased was so grievous that both of them died on the spot.
At that time, the appellant caught hold of Gurtar Kaur by her hand while A 1 Balwant Kaur caught hold of Sukhos hand so as to facilitate the other two appellants namely A 1 and A 4 to assault the deceased.
They were daughters of Pritam Singh PW 2.
None of them had any children.
It is stated that after the death of Baldev Singh, his wife Gurtar Kaur also lived with the appellant as his wife.
The further case of the prosecution is that on the day before the incident in question, PW 2 Pritam Singh along with his son Phulel Singh had visited the house of A 1 to bring about a settlement in regard to the dispute of number payment of dowry.
The appeals filed by A 1, A 4 and the appellant came to be dismissed by the High Court while giving the benefit of doubt to A 2 Balwant Kaur, it allowed her appeal and set aside her companyviction.
J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The appellant was charged along with his mother Balwant Kaur who was A 2 before the Sessions Court for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC while his father Jeet Singh A 1 and Thana Singh A 4 who is the uncle of the appellant were charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter for having caused the murder on 7.11.1995 of Sukho and Gurtar Kaur, wives of the appellant.
He further sentenced A 2 Balwant Kaur and the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and directed them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each in default to undergo further RI for one and a half months each, for their respective roles in the murder of the deceased.
Learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who tried Sessions Case No.12/96 came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused persons and sentenced A 1 and A 4 to undergo imprisonment for life for offences companymitted by them under Section 302 and directed a payment of fine of Rs.1,000/ each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months each.
