{"id":208798,"date":"2008-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-14T10:10:37","modified_gmt":"2018-02-14T04:40:37","slug":"tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008<\/div>\n
CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                1\n\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &\nHARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.\n                       Crl. Appeal No.326-DB of 1998\n                       Date of decision: 18.7.2008\n\nTarlochan Singh & others                           ... Appellants\n\n                        Versus\n\nState of Punjab                                    ...Respondent\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH\n            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA\n\nPresent:    Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate,\n            for the appellants.\n\n            Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.\n\nRajan Gupta, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            Gurbachan Singh, his wife Agya Kaur, their sons Mohinder<\/p>\n
Singh and Tarlochan Singh and their daughter-in-law Harjinder Kaur<\/p>\n
were convicted and sentenced by the court of Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Ludhiana for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code (for short “IPC”). Gurbachan Singh and Agya Kaur were<\/p>\n
sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence under<\/p>\n
Section 304-B IPC and for three years rigorous imprisonment for offence<\/p>\n
under Section 498-A IPC and fine of Rs.2000\/- each. Other accused i.e.<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh, Tarlochan Singh and Harjinder Kaur were sentenced to<\/p>\n
life imprisonment for offence under Section 304-B IPC and three years<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 498-A IPC and fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.2000\/- each, in default whereof RI for another three months.<\/p>\n
            Gurbachan Singh and Agya Kaur have filed Crl. Appeal
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
No.560-SB of 1998. However, Mohinder Singh, Tarlochan Singh and<\/p>\n
Harjinder Kaur have preferred a separate appeal i.e. Crl. Appeal No.326-<\/p>\n
DB of 1998. Both the appeals are being taken up together by this court<\/p>\n
for disposal as they emanate from the same judgment of conviction and<\/p>\n
order of sentence, delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana<\/p>\n
on 15.6.1998.\n<\/p>\n
            More than one year after the marriage i.e. on 6.12.1996,<\/p>\n
Jasbir Kaur had to be admitted in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana with 95%<\/p>\n
burns.   On receiving a telephonic message, the police reached the<\/p>\n
hospital. Father of the deceased i.e. Mehtab Singh was present there.<\/p>\n
His statement was recorded by the police. Mehtab Singh made a detailed<\/p>\n
statement wherein he inter alia mentioned that his daughter was<\/p>\n
maltreated due to demand of dowry. This is despite the fact that he had<\/p>\n
spent sufficient amount at the time of marriage. Yet demands for cash,<\/p>\n
furniture, refrigerator, sofa-set, colour TV. etc. continued. His daughter<\/p>\n
had been telling him about all these demands, some of which was met by<\/p>\n
him from time to time. Mehtab Singh and his wife had last gone to the<\/p>\n
house of in-laws of deceased Jasbir Kaur on 1st December, 1996 when<\/p>\n
again a demand for refrigerator and sofa-set was made. However, they<\/p>\n
expressed their inability to meet this demand due to financial constraints.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, on 6th December, 1996 at 3.00 P.M. when Mehtab Singh was<\/p>\n
in his office on duty, his son Tarminder Singh informed that Mohinder<\/p>\n
Singh, brother-in-law of the deceased had come and told that Jasbir Kaur
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
was admitted in the hospital in burnt condition. Immediately thereafter,<\/p>\n
Mehtab Singh along with his wife had reached the hospital and found<\/p>\n
deceased Jasbir Kaur lying in the hospital badly burnt.         The entire<\/p>\n
statement of Mehtab Singh is on record as Ex.PB. The police thereafter<\/p>\n
started investigation and came to the conclusion that all the accused were<\/p>\n
guilty of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The charge<\/p>\n
was, thus, laid under these Sections. The case was committed to the<\/p>\n
Sessions Court for trial on 11.4.1997.\n<\/p>\n
             The accused were charge-sheeted. They, however, pleaded<\/p>\n
not guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
             The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove their case.<\/p>\n
The defence, on the other hand, examined four witnesses.<\/p>\n
             After recording the evidence and conclusion of trial, the trial<\/p>\n
Court came to the conclusion that all the accused were guilty of offences<\/p>\n
under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and awarded them sentences, as<\/p>\n
mentioned in the opening paragraph. The said judgment convicting the<\/p>\n
accused and sentencing them for offences under Sections 498-A & 304-B<\/p>\n
IPC has been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on<\/p>\n
various grounds.\n<\/p>\n
             The Additional Advocate General, Punjab has, however,<\/p>\n
contended that the accused have been rightly convicted by the trial Court.<\/p>\n
             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused<\/p>\n
the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
 CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellants has mainly stressed that<\/p>\n
the question of demand of dowry did not arise as it had come on record<\/p>\n
that the girl being very beautiful, the accused had brought her in one<\/p>\n
‘Chuni’ only and no dowry was demanded. Moreover, there was nothing<\/p>\n
on record to show that the deceased ever complained regarding demand<\/p>\n
of dowry. According to the counsel, even on the date of occurrence, she<\/p>\n
was taken to the hospital by Mohinder Singh, elder brother of her<\/p>\n
husband.\n<\/p>\n
            Apart from this, the learned counsel has argued that<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh and his wife Harjinder Kaur were living separately and<\/p>\n
there was no question of their involvement in this entire case. He has<\/p>\n
referred particularly to Ex.D1 in this regard i.e. the application for<\/p>\n
admission of his son Navjot Singh in Golden Public School Society,<\/p>\n
Jamalpur, Ludhiana, wherein address is given as “C-7, Labour Colony,<\/p>\n
Jamalpur, Ludhiana”.     He has also contended that a perusal of the<\/p>\n
statement of Investigating Officer would also show that the residence of<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur was separate from that of Tarlochan<\/p>\n
Singh. This apart, there was no specific allegation in the FIR against the<\/p>\n
elder brother and sister-in-law i.e. Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that<\/p>\n
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were not made out and as there was<\/p>\n
nothing on record to show that the deceased was harassed due to demand<\/p>\n
of dowry. Learned counsel has also argued that Jasbir Kaur was, in fact,
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
under depression due to the death of Manmohan Singh, another son of<\/p>\n
Gurbachan Singh as she had a liking for him.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
has contended that the statement of Mehtab Singh PW2 clearly shows<\/p>\n
that there were demands of dowry by the accused and the deceased was<\/p>\n
being continuously harassed due to that reason.   Learned State counsel<\/p>\n
also submitted that the deceased Jasbir Kaur had died an unnatural death<\/p>\n
within seven years of marriage and thus Section 304-B IPC was clearly<\/p>\n
attracted. According to the learned State counsel, there was sufficient<\/p>\n
evidence on record to show that the accused were guilty of offences<\/p>\n
under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. They had, thus, been rightly<\/p>\n
convicted by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
            We have seen the statement of Mehtab Singh PW2. He has<\/p>\n
narrated at length the entire story regarding marriage of his daughter to<\/p>\n
Tarlochan Singh and later on her harassment at the hands of her in-laws.<\/p>\n
He has also furnished a list of dowry articles, which is Ex. PD. He also<\/p>\n
produced some receipts of purchase of certain articles given to his<\/p>\n
daughter on demand of the dowry.       These receipts are exhibited on<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n
            This witness was cross-examined by the defence and a<\/p>\n
suggestion was put to him regarding his daughter being in depression due<\/p>\n
to the death of Manmohan Singh, the other son of Gurbachan Singh.<\/p>\n
However, he denied this suggestion. He was also asked whether Agya
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased lived separately from Tarlochan<\/p>\n
Singh. This suggestion was also denied by him. Another question was<\/p>\n
put to him whether elder brother of Tarlochan Singh, namely Mohinder<\/p>\n
Singh lived separately.      To this, this witness replied that after the<\/p>\n
occurrence (death of his daughter), Mohinder Singh had started living<\/p>\n
separately. He had shifted to Labour Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana after<\/p>\n
the episode.\n<\/p>\n
               Mehtab Singh PW2 also tendered in evidence a letter written<\/p>\n
by his daughter Jasbir Kaur, since deceased, on 5th June, 2005 Ex. PE.<\/p>\n
The said letter is being reproduced hereunder. Though the translation of<\/p>\n
the same may not be entirely grammatically correct, yet it is being<\/p>\n
reproduced as available on record:-\n<\/p>\n
               \"Dear Daidy and Mammi Ji and Baba Ji          5-6-05\n               Sat-Sri-Kal.\n\n                     We all are quite well, and we expect you welfare\n<\/pre>\n
               always from god. I further request that what Sute you have
\n               sewn of my mother-in-law. Her neck is to be lengthened
\n               from 1″ or 1\u00bd”. The Assan of salwar is to be lengthened 14
\n               or 14\u00bd. Daidy Ji I further request that what you require to
\n               send me, you should send me after checking properly. You
\n               should send me Bed, Dressing table and the Sofa with a
\n               table. You should also send me all the remaining utensils
\n               together. Daidy Ji incomplete and a little goods are not in
\n               proper tune in taking or in giving. One thing more the stand
\n               of the cooler must be 2\u00bc” long. Now you should not send
\n               any utensils of brass. Daidy Ji you must give me one new
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
            prant of the brass. The prant which you sent that is old and
\n            that is also stained. Now you should me send the goods new
\n            after being checked. The utensils and the goods which you
\n            are required to send I am sending you in writing as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            1.Prant of brass, 2. Patila Steel and aluminium big, 3.Balti of
\n            steel, Chakla-Velna of Steel, Karahi of 3 or 4 Kilos of
\n            aluminum, 4. Fry-Pin (non-stick), Six Thal of Steel and six
\n            tumbler, and six plates Rice-Tray, Tawa, Chah-Poni (Steel)
\n            Cooker for preparing tea. Two pressure cookers (5 liters), 6.
\n            Cups of Bone China, One serving Tray, One Jug and two
\n            laddles, one tiffen big of three dabbas. One big Dolu, two
\n            paltas, 3. Serving Dongas and steel dongas, service spoon,
\n            Nimbu crasher of silver One set biscuite of container, All
\n            these articles may be sent at one time, it is my request to
\n            you. Daidy Ji possible you must send a washing machine,
\n            but nothing more Daidy Ji, all is well. I am closing my
\n            letter. This goods may become late, but it should come
\n            collectively. Daidy Ji washing machine should of Samrat.\n<\/p>\n
                                            Yours daughter,
\n                                            Jasbir Kaur Arora.”\n<\/p>\n
            We have also perused vernacular version of this letter<\/p>\n
written on 5.6.2005. Contents of this letter very clearly show that Jasbir<\/p>\n
Kaur was under stress due to demand of dowry from her in-laws and she<\/p>\n
had been beseeching her father to meet these demands.<\/p>\n
            This apart, another witness Harjit Singh PW4, who was the<\/p>\n
mediator at the time of marriage between Tarlochan Singh and Jasbir<\/p>\n
Kaur, also stepped into the witness-box. This witness clearly stated that<\/p>\n
on 2.5.1995, father-in-law of the deceased had complained to him that
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
Mehtab Singh, father of the deceased, had not given dowry as per their<\/p>\n
standards and that he had many offers from well placed families for<\/p>\n
marrying his son, which he had declined and settled for daughter of<\/p>\n
Mehtab Singh. He had shown his dissatisfaction to PW4, the mediator.<\/p>\n
This witness again met father-in-law of the deceased on 2.6.1995, who<\/p>\n
again complained about the same issue. However, this witness assured<\/p>\n
him that their demands would be met. Later on, this witness, namely<\/p>\n
Harjit Singh prevailed upon Mehtab Singh to give more dowry articles<\/p>\n
from time to time. This witness had also met Jasbir Kaur, who had<\/p>\n
requested him to send her brother Tarminder Singh to meet her. She had<\/p>\n
also delivered a letter through this witness. Harjit Singh also deposed<\/p>\n
that in October, 1995, there was dispute among the parties over the<\/p>\n
dowry articles and the accused had beaten Jasbir Kaur.<\/p>\n
            On certain aspects of his deposition, the prosecution<\/p>\n
requested the trial Court to allow it to cross-examine this witness (Harjit<\/p>\n
Singh) PW4, which request was accepted and this witness was cross-<\/p>\n
examined by the prosecution. In cross-examination, he admitted the fact<\/p>\n
that deceased Jasbir Kaur had told him that her in-laws had demanded<\/p>\n
various articles such as TV, refrigerator etc. and also that she was being<\/p>\n
humiliated and harassed.\n<\/p>\n
           The evidence of other witnesses have also been perused by us.<\/p>\n
PW1 has proved a bill regarding sale of a music deck to Mehtab Singh.<\/p>\n
The said bill is Ex. PA. PW3 has also proved sale of certain articles to
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
Mehtab Singh such as trunks etc. The bills are also exhibited. Another<\/p>\n
witness has deposed regarding sale of certain clothes to Mehtab Singh.<\/p>\n
Bills in that respect have also been exhibited. PW5 Elisheb Sharma has<\/p>\n
deposed regarding the admission of Jasbir Kaur on 6th December, 1996 in<\/p>\n
CMC Hospital, Ludhiana at 2.25 P.M. PW6 Mohd. Yamin has stepped<\/p>\n
into the witness-box and deposed regarding sale of certain ornaments to<\/p>\n
Mehtab Singh. He has proved a bill, which is Ex.PW6\/A, regarding sale<\/p>\n
of golden ornaments weighing about 45.620 grams. PW7 Baljit Singh,<\/p>\n
who owns a furniture shop, has shown sale of certain furniture to Mehtab<\/p>\n
Singh on 21.7.1995, vide bill Ex.PW7\/A.        PW8 Harminder Singh<\/p>\n
Draftsman prepared the site plan Ex. PW8\/A. PW9 is the doctor who<\/p>\n
conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of Jasbir Kaur<\/p>\n
on 7.12.1996 and found 95% burns on her body. This witness described<\/p>\n
the injuries on the dead-body in detail. PW10 is Wariam Singh ASI, who<\/p>\n
conducted the investigation. He has deposed regarding the investigation<\/p>\n
and fully supported the prosecution case. He has also shown certain<\/p>\n
recoveries of dowry articles, all of which have been exhibited. This<\/p>\n
witness also stated that Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur were not<\/p>\n
traced for quite some time and were declared proclaimed offenders by<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. However, later on they were found<\/p>\n
and their police remand was obtained. Mohinder Singh later made a<\/p>\n
disclosure statement regarding some golden ornaments and a ring.    His<\/p>\n
statement was recorded as PW10\/K, on the basis of which recovery of
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
these articles was effected. The articles were taken into possession vide<\/p>\n
recovery memo Ex.PW10\/L. A similar disclosure statement was made by<\/p>\n
Harjinder Kaur regarding a locket, clothes and utensils, which were<\/p>\n
concealed by her. These articles were recovered vide memo Ex.PW10\/M<\/p>\n
and taken into possession. The site plan in this respect was also drawn<\/p>\n
vide Ex.PW10\/O. All these articles were identified by Mehtab Singh.<\/p>\n
This witness was cross-examined by the defence but nothing substantial<\/p>\n
could be elicited.\n<\/p>\n
             The defence examined DW1 Principal of Golden Public<\/p>\n
School, Ludhiana in order to prove that Mohinder Singh was living<\/p>\n
separately i.e. in Labour Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana. However, except<\/p>\n
Ex.D1, the Principal did not bring any other documents i.e. register of<\/p>\n
admission etc. to support her deposition. On the other hand, she admitted<\/p>\n
that Ex.D1 was not filled up in her presence. She even admitted that<\/p>\n
Ex.D1 was not even signed by her or any other official of the school and<\/p>\n
on the form Ex.D1 there was no order passed to admit the child in the<\/p>\n
said school. Another witness DW2 stepped into the witness-box and<\/p>\n
deposed that Mohinder Singh lived about 1 K.M. away from the house of<\/p>\n
Tarlochan Singh, in Labour Colony. However, this witness did not know<\/p>\n
where Tarlochan Singh lived. He was not able to specify the street or the<\/p>\n
house number. He further stated that he had never visited the house of<\/p>\n
Tarlochan Singh or Mohinder Singh. Another defence witness is DW3,<\/p>\n
who is father-in-law of Mohinder Singh accused. This witness stated
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
that Jasbir Kaur remained in depression after death of Manmohan Singh<\/p>\n
and she had committed suicide. In his cross-examination, however, this<\/p>\n
witness stated that he was not present when Jasbir Kaur allegedly<\/p>\n
committed suicide.      This witness also stated that he had made<\/p>\n
representation to higher authorities regarding false implication of the<\/p>\n
accused.   However, this witness was not able to produce any such<\/p>\n
application or receipt in that regard. Another witness DW4 is Girdhari<\/p>\n
Lal, who used to work with Tarlochan Singh on his embroidery shop.<\/p>\n
This witness only stated that he had been working at the shop for last<\/p>\n
about five years and he had seen Manmohan Singh brother of Tarlochan<\/p>\n
Singh committing suicide by taking some pills. This witness did not<\/p>\n
know the nature of the pills and stated that neither any inquiry nor a<\/p>\n
postmortem was conducted on the body of Manmohan Singh.<\/p>\n
            After going through the entire evidence on record, we are of<\/p>\n
the view that the accused have been rightly convicted under Section<\/p>\n
498-A and 304-B IPC. As regards the contention of the counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants that there was no demand of dowry and the girl was brought in<\/p>\n
one ‘Chuni’, the same does not impress us. Sufficient evidence has come<\/p>\n
on record in the shape of evidence of Mehtab Singh PW2 and other<\/p>\n
witnesses, which shows that not only there was demand of dowry from<\/p>\n
the in-laws of Jasbir Kaur but she was also harassed for the same. The<\/p>\n
letter Ex. PE, reproduced above, coupled with other evidence on record,<\/p>\n
goes to show that Jasbir Kaur was under constant pressure for more
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
dowry and she was being continuously harassed for the same by the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
            As regards the contention of learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants that Mohinder Singh, elder brother of Tarlochan Singh, and<\/p>\n
his wife were living separately, we are not convinced. The reliance<\/p>\n
basically is on Ex.D1, which is the application for admission of Navjot<\/p>\n
Singh son of Mohinder Singh in Golden Public School Society,<\/p>\n
Jamalpur, Ludhiana. The Principal, who stepped into the witness-box to<\/p>\n
prove this document, was not able to depose anything, which would<\/p>\n
inspire confidence. In fact, she stated that she had not brought any other<\/p>\n
record to prove the admission form, neither the same had been signed by<\/p>\n
her nor by any other official of the School. Thus, this type of weak<\/p>\n
evidence, would not go to prove that Mohinder Singh and his wife were<\/p>\n
separate in residence and mess from the other accused. In fact, PW2 in<\/p>\n
his cross-examination stated that Mohinder Singh had started living<\/p>\n
separately only after the occurrence had taken place. This statement of<\/p>\n
Mehtab Singh appears to be correct as the defence did not produce any<\/p>\n
concrete evidence such as ration-card, telephone bill, electricity bill or<\/p>\n
any other document to show that Mohinder Singh and his wife were<\/p>\n
living separately from Tarlochan Singh and other co-accused. Had that<\/p>\n
been the case, some concrete evidence would definitely have been<\/p>\n
available to prove the factum of separate residence of Mohinder Singh<\/p>\n
along with his wife.\n<\/p>\n
 CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
               The defence witnesses produced i.e. DW1 to DW4 miserably<\/p>\n
failed to prove the factum of separate residence of Mohinder Singh and<\/p>\n
his wife.\n<\/p>\n
               It may be noticed that all the accused are closely related and<\/p>\n
PW2 Mehtab Singh has clearly deposed that all of them had been making<\/p>\n
demands for more dowry. The version put forward regarding separate<\/p>\n
residence of Mohinder Singh and his wife is not believable from the facts<\/p>\n
of the case and the evidence on record. The same, therefore, deserves to<\/p>\n
be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
               As regards the role of Mohinder Singh in the entire episode,<\/p>\n
his name figures again and again at various places and even certain<\/p>\n
recoveries of dowry articles were made from him and his wife. Thus, it<\/p>\n
is not possible for this Court to hold that Mohinder Singh and his wife<\/p>\n
Harjinder Kaur were living separately and had no role to play in the<\/p>\n
crime.\n<\/p>\n
               As regards the role of the rest of the accused, the same has<\/p>\n
been proved beyond doubt as we have already arrived at a conclusion<\/p>\n
that Jasbir Kaur was being continuously harassed for dowry and she had<\/p>\n
died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage to Tarlochan<\/p>\n
Singh. The evidence of Mehtab Singh, father of Jasbir Singh, has been<\/p>\n
corroborated by other prosecution witnesses such as the mediator PW4,<\/p>\n
the Investigating Officer PW10 and the other prosecution witnesses, who<\/p>\n
proved various bills by which various dowry articles were bought.
\n CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
             The accused Gurbachan Singh and Agya Kaur i.e. parents of<\/p>\n
Tarlochan Singh, have preferred a separate appeal i.e. Crl. Appeal<\/p>\n
No.560-SB of 1998. However, we have been informed that Gurbachan<\/p>\n
Singh has expired. Therefore, appeal qua him stands abated. As regards<\/p>\n
Agya Kaur, since we have already arrived at a conclusion that all the<\/p>\n
accused are closely related and were guilty of harassing Jasbir Kaur<\/p>\n
resulting in her death within seven years of her marriage to Tarlochan<\/p>\n
Singh, the conviction of Agya Kaur is maintained.\n<\/p>\n
             We are, therefore, of the confirmed view that no interference<\/p>\n
is called for in the impugned judgment as regards conviction of the<\/p>\n
accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.\n<\/p>\n
             However, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently<\/p>\n
argued that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon accused<\/p>\n
Tarlochan Singh, Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur is very harsh. The<\/p>\n
evidence was of such a nature where the possibility of the deceased<\/p>\n
setting herself on fire could not be ruled out. The counsel argued that on<\/p>\n
the question of sentence, a lenient view be taken as Section 304-B<\/p>\n
provides for a minimum sentence of seven years and in the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, there being a possibility that Jasbir Kaur had<\/p>\n
set herself on fire, the minimum sentence provided in the said Section be<\/p>\n
awarded. This argument of the counsel is acceptable in the entire facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the case and we modify the order of sentence and<\/p>\n
reduce it to seven years.\n<\/p>\n
 CRA No.326-DB of 1998                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
            Thus, judgment of conviction is confirmed. Sentence of<\/p>\n
appellants Tarlochan Singh, Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur is<\/p>\n
reduced to seven years. Rest of the sentences to remain intact.<\/p>\n
    (UMA NATH SINGH)                              (RAJAN GUPTA)\n           JUDGE                                       JUDGE\n\nJuly 18, 2008\n'rajpal'\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008 CRA No.326-DB of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Appeal No.326-DB of 1998 Date of decision: 18.7.2008 Tarlochan Singh & others … Appellants Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208798","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-14T04:40:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-14T04:40:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3508,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-14T04:40:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-14T04:40:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-14T04:40:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008"},"wordCount":3508,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008","name":"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-14T04:40:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlochan-singh-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tarlochan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208798","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208798"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208798\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208798"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208798"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208798"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}