Amitava Roy JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.
1. In assailment is the judgment and order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. S-566-SB of 2004, affirming the conviction of the Appellant and co-accused Sukhvinder Singh Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as "Indian Penal Code"), as entered by the Trial Court. While by the decision impugned, the conviction 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. The instant appeal seeks to overturn the concurrent determinations on the charge by the courts below.
2. We have heard Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
3. The fascicule of facts, indispensable to comprehend 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 coal factory at Muktsar. He suffered loss in the business and consequently failed to repay the loan availed by him in this regard from the bank. As he and his brother Gurcharan Singh (Appellant herein) and Ors. succeeded to the property left by their predecessors, he started medical practice in private.
4. Be that as it may, before leaving his family, he addressed a communication to the concerned bank expressing his inability to repay the loan inspite of his best efforts as he was not possessed of any property in his name. Dr. Jaspal Singh was thereafter not to be traced. 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). According to them, they had no source 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. They were also not provided with any maintenance by the family members of her husband-Jaspal Singh and instead were ill-treated, harassed and intimidated.
5. 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. Thereafter they broke open the door of the room and found all three lying dead. The police was informed and FIR was lodged.
6. In course of the inquisition, the Investigating Officer collected a suicide note in the handwriting of Surjit Kaur and also subscribed to by her daughter Preet Bahul. The suicide note implicated the Appellant, his wife Ajit Kaur and the convicted co-accused Sukhvinder Singh @ Goldy as being responsible for their wretched condition, driving them in the ultimate to take the ex........