Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 10 docs - [View All]
Section 3 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Section 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Karnataka High Court
Anwarbeig S/O Late Rehaman Beig vs State Of Karnataka By Its Kr Nagar ... on 12 November, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
                              1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013

                            BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2744/2006
BETWEEN:

1. ANWARBEIG
   S/O LATE REHAMAN BEIG
   AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
   D.NO 35, MASJID BEEDI
   KAMPALAPURA, PERIYAPATNA TALUK
   MYSORE DISTRICT

2. NAJABUNNISA
   W/O MASOODKHAN
   AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
   MAVATHUR VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TALUK
   MYSORE DISTRICT.                   ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI P NATARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS KR NAGAR POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE.                             ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B T VENKATESH, SPP-II)
      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(1) CR.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2006 PASSED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, MYSORE, IN
S.C.NO.203/2002, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.2 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 & 4 OF
D.P ACT AND CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 4
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A & 304-B
IPC & ETC.
                               2




      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

The appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'accused Nos. 2 and 4') were tried along with accused Nos. 1 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 1 and 3. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused 2 for offences punishable under section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accused 4 for offences punishable under section 498A and 304B IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 is the husband of accused No.4, accused No.3 (husband of deceased Reshma) is the son of accused Nos. 1 and 4. Accused No.2 is the maternal uncle of accused No.3. The marriage of accused No.3 and deceased Reshma was performed on 11.07.1999. It is alleged by the prosecution that at the time of marriage, accused had demanded and accepted dowry from the parents of the deceased. After the marriage, deceased was living in the house of accused 3 nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Mavathur village, K.R.Nagar taluk. Even after the marriage, accused was harassing and ill treating the deceased in connection with dowry demand and accused was demanding the deceased to bring a scooter and gold pendant. Accused No.4 was abusing and ill treating the deceased. The deceased had conceived and she was carrying pregnancy. Accused No.4 used to assassinate the character of deceased by saying that the child (fetus), the deceased was carrying had not been conceived through accused no.3. In other words, the deceased had conceived the child (fetus) through some one else. The deceased not able to bear the cruelty meted out to her, on 24.04.2000 at about 1.30 p.m., poured kerosene set herself on fire. She was shifted to Government Hospital at K.R.Nagar. After preliminary treatment, she was admitted in K.R.Hospital at Mysore. On 25.04.2000 at 3.30 p.m. PW-18( Sub-Inspector of K.R.Nagar police station) recorded the statement of the deceased in the presence of PW-9 Dr.S.R.M.Singh and registered the first information. The decease succumbed to burn injuries at 10.00 a.m. on 28.04.2000 in K.R.Hospital, Mysore. 4

3. Before formulating the points for determination and referring to evidence of prosecution witnesses and submissions made at the bar, it is necessary to state the facts which are not disputed;

The marriage of the deceased and accused no.3 was performed by PW-14 B.K.Samad (Father of the deceased) in front of his house in Dodda Koppalu village on 11.07.1999. Thereafter, deceased was living in the house of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Mavathur village. The deceased conceived and she was carrying pregnancy.

It is the case of the prosecution that accused were ill treating and harassing the deceased and they were demanding to bring additional dowry in particular a scooter and gold ornament (gold pendant). Several panchayats were convened in this regard but they did not yield any useful result. Accused No.4 was frequently abusing and ill treating the deceased. Accused No.4 was assassinating the character of deceased. She was abusing the deceased that she had become pregnant not through her husband but through 5 some one else, knowing full well that such abuse are likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. On 24.04.2000, during afternoon at about 1.30 p.m., deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire in the house of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. She was shifted to Government Hospital, K.R.Nagar and then she was admitted in K.R.Hospital at Mysore for treatment. On 28.04.2000, the deceased succumbed to burn injuries.

The post-mortem examination report and medical evidence would reveal that death was due to toxemia consequent to burn injuries. There is no dispute that the deceased had set herself on fire in the house of the accused during the afternoon of 24.04.2000. It is also not in dispute that the deceased had suffered burn injuries and she died due to toxemia consequent to burn injuries in K.R.Hospital at Mysore on 28.04.2000. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that unnatural death of the deceased had taken place within a period of nine months from the date of marriage. The defence had made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that the deceased was suffering from abdominal pain and 6 therefore, she committed suicide by setting herself on fire. This aspect will be dealt in due course.

4. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence, acquitted accused No.1 (father-in-law of the deceased), accused No.3 (husband of the deceased) and accused No.4 (mother-in-law of the deceased) of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.2 (maternal uncle of accused no.3) for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.4 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.

5. The State has not filed appeal against the judgment of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 3, so also acquittal of accused Nos. 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

7

6. In this appeal, the following points would arise for determination:

1) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.2 (maternal uncle of accused no.3) had demanded dowry in connection with the marriage of accused no.3 and deceased Reshma ?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.2 had demanded and accepted dowry in connection with the marriage of accused no.3 and deceased Reshma ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.4 was subjecting the deceased cruelty by scolding her and also by assassinating her character and that accused no.4 was subjecting the deceased to cruelty in relation to dowry demand ?

8

4) Whether the prosecution has proved that soon before the deceased committed suicide, she had been subjected to cruelty by accused no.4 ?

My findings on the above points and reasons thereof are as follows:

Re. Point no.1

7. Accused no.2 is the maternal uncle of accused no.3 and he is a resident of Kamplapura. The learned trial judge having acquitted the primary accused viz., husband of the deceased (accused no.3) and parent's-in-law of the deceased (accused no.1 and 4) of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has convicted accused no.2 (maternal uncle of husband of the deceased) for offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and without considering the basic ingredients, nature of proof required to attract offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition 9 Act, 1961, has convicted accused 2 for offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

8. Under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, if any person after commencement of the Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.

Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is in the form of exclusion clause which provides certain things and presents do not fall within the definition of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides penalty for dowry demand.

9. In the case on hand, the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that accused no.1 to 4 had demanded 10 dowry and accused no.1, 3 and 4 had accepted dowry from the parents of deceased.

10. The prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that even after the marriage, when the deceased was staying in the house of accused no.1, 3 and 4, they were ill treating and harassing the deceased to bring dowry, in particular, gold ornaments and scooter.

11. The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused no.1 (father-in-law of deceased), accused no.3 (husband of deceased) and accused no.4 (mother-in-law of deceased) of offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

12. As per the case put forth by prosecution and evidence adduced by prosecution, accused no.1, 3 and 4 were primarily involved in demanding and accepting dowry. The learned trial judge has disbelieved the evidence adduced by prosecution in proof of charges for demand and acceptance of dowry made against accused no.1, 3 and 4. 11

In the circumstances, the crucial point for determination is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in convicting accused no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?

13. Before adverting to oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is necessary to refer to the investigation records, in particular, the first information registered on 25.04.2000 (marked as per Ex.P45), additional first information report dated 28.04.2000 (marked as per Ex.P47) and second additional first information report dated 13.05.2000 (marked as per Ex.P48).

14. As already stated, the deceased had set herself on fire in the house of accused 1, 3 and 4 at about 1.30 p.m., on 24.04.2000. She succumbed to burn injuries on 28.04.2000. It is the case of prosecution that on 25.04.2000, at about 3.30 p.m., deceased gave a statement before PW.18 in the presence of PW.9-Medical officer of K.R.Hospital. At the first instance, first information was registered for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against accused 12 no.4. On 28.04.2000, after the death of deceased, additional first information as per Ex.P47 was prepared and an offence under Section 306 IPC was included. The accused was shown as Najabunnisa (accused no.4 herein). It is only on 13.05.2000, after completion of inquest proceedings, the name of accused no.2 and offences under Sections 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were included.

15. In a decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 1042 (in the case of Babboo and Others -vs- The State of Madhya Pradesh) the Supreme Court has held, in a criminal trial absence of names in the first information report is of considerable importance.

16. In the case on hand, the investigation officer had no difficulty to include the name of accused 3 in the first information registered on 25.04.2000, in the additional first information registered on 28.04.2000, after the death of the deceased. It is only on 13.05.2000, the investigation officer has included the name of accused no.2 (Anwar Beig) 13 presumably for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the dying declaration said to have been given by the deceased there is no reference to dowry demand. The deceased has not stated that accused no.2-Anwar Beig was interfering with the affairs of the house of accused 1, 3 and 4.

17. PW.1-Rahamathulla is the elder brother of deceased. PW1 has deposed; that at the time of marriage negotiations, on behalf of accused no.1, 3 and 4, accused no.2 had demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-, a scooter and 100 grams gold as dowry in connection with the marriage of deceased Reshma and third accused Fayazullakhan.

PW.1 has deposed; that about 20 days prior to the date of marriage, the father of PW.1 namely PW.14- B.K.Samad gave a sum of Rs.25,000/- to accused no.2 in the presence of accused no.1, 3 and 4.

From the cross-examination of this witness, we find that that, at the relevant time, he was working as an Assistant Teacher in Guruvayyana Kopplalu village of 14 Periyapattana Taluk. He was living separately from his parents.

During cross-examination, he has admitted that he had seen accused no.2 and he had not visited the house of accused no.2. Accused no.2 is a resident of Kamplapura which is at a distance of 10 - 15 Kilometers from Mavathur.

PW.1 has admitted that during marriage negotiations the date of marriage was not fixed so also, the venue of marriage. PW.1 has deposed; that at the time of marriage negotiations, accused no.3 had not come to their house. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1, we find that he was living separately. His evidence that he had attended marriage negotiations is not free from reasonable doubt.

18. PW.14 - Samad is the father of deceased. PW.14 has deposed; that during marriage negotiations, on behalf of the accused, the following persons namely Masood Khan, Anwar Beig (Accused no.2) and Samiulla so also, accused no.3 had come to his house and they demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-, 100 grams gold and a Scooter. The mediators 15 decided that PW.14 shall give dowry of Rs.20,000/-, 3 gold rings, a gold chain, wrist watch and suit. After 15 days PW.4 gave a sum of Rs.25,000/- to accused no.2.

Thus, we find that the evidence of PW.1 and 14 is not consistent. PW.14 has not deposed that accused no.2 had demanded dowry. PW.14 has not deposed that accused no.2 was the recipient of dowry.

In addition to this, we have the evidence of independent witnesses namely PW.4-Ahamed Jan who at the relevant time was the Pesh Imam of Mosque of Hosur village, K.R.Nagar Taluk. He is a totally disinterested witness.

19. PW.4 has deposed; that during marriage negotiations of third accused and the deceased on behalf of accused the second accused and one Babu and Mohammed Khaleel were present. On behalf of bride, the father of bride namely PW.14, brother of bride namely PW.1 and their relatives had participated. During marriage negotiations, the persons who had come on behalf of bridegroom demanded PW.14 to give gold, money and vehicle. PW.4 gave a decision 16 that PW.14 shall give dowry of Rs.25,000/-, two gold rings, one gold chain to accused no.3 and the marriage expenditure shall be borne by PW.14. Thus, from the evidence of this witness we find that accused no.2 had neither demanded dowry nor he was recipient of dowry.

20. The learned trial judge having acquitted the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased who are alleged to have demanded and accepted dowry should not have convicted accused no.2 who had neither demanded dowry nor received the dowry. It is not the case of prosecution that accused no.2 was the recipient of dowry.

On over all appreciation of evidence, we find that, accused no.2 like other relatives of accused no.1 and PW.14 had participated in marriage negotiations. He had nothing to gain by demanding dowry. He was not the recipient of dowry. The learned trial judge having disbelieved the evidence of prosecution that husband (accused no.3) and parent's-in-law of the deceased (accused no.1 and 4) had demanded and accepted dowry, has accepted the same evidence to hold accused no.2 (maternal uncle of accused no.3) guilty of 17 offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As already stated, the acquittal of accused no.1, 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has not been challenged by the State and it has attained finality. In the circumstances, the learned trial judge was not justified in convicting accused no.2 merely because he had participated in the marriage negotiations like other relatives of accused no.1 and PW.14.

PW.4 has admitted that at the time of marriage, the accused namely the husband and parent's-in-law of the deceased had acknowledged receipt of dowry. In the circumstances, there is no evidence worth of its name to convict accused no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove that accused no.2 (maternal uncle of the deceased) had demanded and accepted dowry in connection with the marriage of deceased Reshma and accused no.3. The learned trial judge was not justified in 18 convicting accused no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

21. Now adverting to allegations made against accused no.4 and evidence adduced against accused no.4, we find that the allegations made against accused no.1(father-in-law of the deceased), accused no.3 (husband of deceased) and accused no.4 (mother-in-law of the deceased) are more or less similar but for the fact that accused no.4 was ill-treating and scolding the deceased. Accused no.4 was assassinating the character of deceased that she had not conceived through accused no.3 (husband of deceased) and she had conceived through someone else. We have oral evidence of close relatives of the deceased and statement made by the deceased, in proof of utterances made by accused no.4.

22. The learned counsel for accused has leveled much criticism against statement of deceased (marked as per Ex.P6). The learned counsel would submit that, history of injures noted in the case sheet (marked as per Ex.D2) are contrary to the contents of Ex.P6. In the case sheet, it is 19 noted that the deceased committed suicide as she was not able to bear abdominal pain.

This document (Ex.D2) cannot be accepted for more than one reason.

1. The evidence on record does not disclose that deceased had made such statement

2. The case sheet is not a document to record history of injuries.

3. The contents of case sheet would reveal that the husband of deceased had shifted and admitted the deceased to K.R.Hospital and he was her attendant.

4. In the case sheet (marked as per Ex.D2) the deceased had not stated that she committed suicide by setting herself on fire as she was not able to suffer abdominal pain.

23. It is true that the deceased was carrying 8 months pregnancy by which it cannot be inferred that she was suffering from abdominal pain. The contents of Ex.D2 does 20 not reveal that deceased set herself on fire as she was not able to bear severe abdominal pain.

The accused have made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that the deceased was suffering from abdominal pain and they had taken her to hospital. However, they have not produced documents. Therefore, the contents of case sheet (marked as per Ex.D2) cannot be a ground to discard the statement given by the deceased at 3.30 p.m. on 25.04.2000. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 28.04.2000. The first information registered on the basis of statement of the deceased was received by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 26.04.2000. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that statement of deceased had come into existence two days prior to her death.

24. PW.9-Dr.S.R.Mahimanjan Singh who was then working as Head of the Department and Medical Superintendent of K.R.Hospital, Mysore has deposed; that on 25.04.2000, at about 3.30 p.m., he was in surgical ward of K.R.Hospital. The deceased Reshma had been admitted to 21 K.R.Hospital on 24.04.2000 and she was treated in Burns Ward. The Police Inspector (PW.18) met PW.9 and told him that he has to record the statement of deceased Reshma for which purpose he wanted PW.9 to examine the deceased to find out whether she was physically and mentally fit to give statement. PW.9 examined the deceased and found that she was physically and mentally fit to give statement. Therefore, PW.9 informed the Police Inspector (PW.18-Jagadish) that the deceased was physically and mentally fit to give statement and he could record her statement. PW.18 recorded the statement of deceased in the presence of PW9 and thereafter, obtained her LTM to her statement. After the statement of deceased was recorded, PW.9 has certified that the statement of deceased was recorded in his presence and the patient (deceased) was conscious and she was articulating and speaking.

At this juncture, it is relevant to state that the statement of deceased was recorded, none of the relatives of the deceased was present. PW.9 did not know the accused. PW9 had no grudge or vengeance against the accused. 22 Therefore, the contention of accused that PW.9 has given false evidence regarding mental and physical condition of deceased cannot be accepted.

25. PW.18-Jagadish was working as the Sub-inspector of Police of K.R.Nagar Police Station. PW.18 has deposed; that on receiving information from Devaraja Police Station, Mysore, about admission of deceased Reshma to K.R.Hospital on 24.04.2000, he reached K.R.Hosptial and he contacted PW.9-Dr.S.R.M.Singh and recorded the statement of deceased in the presence of PW.9.

During cross-examination, he has deposed; that before recording the statement of deceased Reshma, he had confirmed from the Medical Officer about the mental and physical fitness of the deceased to give statement. From the cross-examination of PW.9 and 18, it is seen that much of the cross-examination of these two witnesses is concentrated on the mental and physical condition of the deceased, nature of drugs administered to deceased to subside pain of burn injuries.

23

26. It is seen from the records that on the basis of statement of the deceased (marked as per Ex.P6) PW.18 registered first information and the first information reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 10.30 a.m., on 26.04.2000. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that the deceased succumbed to burn injuries on 28.04.2000. Therefore, the statement of the deceased which had come into existence at the point of time suggested by the prosecution had also reached the jurisdictional Magistrate. As already stated, none of the close relatives of the deceased was present when the deceased gave her statement as per Ex.P6. PW18 - Investigation Officer who had recorded the statement did not know the accused. PW18 had no grudge or vengeance against the accused. In the statement given by the deceased, it is clearly narrated that she was ill treated and harassed by the accused and in particular by accused no.4. She has also given the details of events that had taken place on the date of incident. There are no reasons to suspect the contents of statement of the deceased, wherein, she has stated that she was being harassed and tortured by 24 accused no.4 not only in relation to dowry but also in relation to other household work. The deceased has narrated that accused no.4 was openly scolding the deceased that she was characterless and she had conceived not through her husband (accused no.3) but through someone else. These words uttered by accused no.4 to assassinate the chastity of deceased are sufficient to drive an ordinary woman to commit suicide.

27. The next point for consideration is whether the cruelty meted to the deceased by accused no.4 was dowry related cruelty. As already stated, the evidence given by close relatives of the deceased and other independent prosecution witnesses in relation to cruelty meted to the deceased by accused no.1 and 3 has not been accepted by the trial court. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the same evidence to hold that the deceased was being subjected to dowry related cruelty by accused no.4. The evidence of close relatives of the deceased, in particular, father, elder brother, mother of the deceased and also the neighbors of the accused is sufficient to prove that deceased was being constantly 25 subjected to harassment by accused no.4, the deceased was being scolded by accused for not bringing sufficient presents when she had gone to festival to her parental house. Accused no.4 was abusing the deceased that she was a characterless woman, she had become pregnant not through her husband (accused no.3) but through someone else and the fetus she was carrying in her womb was not the fetus of her son.

In my considered opinion, these abuses uttered by accused no.4 are likely to drive the ordinary woman of petulance to commit suicide. Therefore, it can safely be held that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty by accused no.4. Accused no.4 knew that her cruel conduct and attitude towards the deceased was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide.

28. As already stated, the learned trial judge has acquitted accused no.4 of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that cruelty meted to the deceased by accused no.4 was in relation to dowry however, the cruelty 26 meted to deceased by accused no.4 falls within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, I hold that accused no.4 by her cruel conduct and behavior had harassed and tortured the deceased. Accused no.4 had assassinated the character of the deceased knowing full well that such abuse and character assassination would drive the deceased to commit suicide. Accused no.4 had instigated and abetted commission of suicide by deceased and accused no.4 is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

29. The learned trial judge instead of convicting the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, should have convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Points no.2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

30. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:

ORDER The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 27 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is set aside. Accused no.2 is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction and sentence of imprisonment of accused no.4 is modified. Accused no.4 is acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The conviction of accused no.4 for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentence imposed thereon are confirmed. Accused no.4 is convicted of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

Having regard to the fact that accused no.4 is a woman aged about 60 years, she is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

If accused no.2 has deposited the fine amount, the same shall be refunded to him. The period of detention 28 undergone by accused no.4 is given set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srl/Np/-