Latest news with #Section304-B

Business Standard

Service in Op Sindoor offers no immunity; SC asks commando to surrender

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied exemption to a man, who worked as a Black Cat Commando for 20 years and had served in Indian Army's 'Operation Sindoor', accused of killing his wife 20 years ago, and asked him to surrender. According to a LiveLaw report, the accused was convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) over 20 years ago. A two-judge bench was hearing a special leave petition filed against an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had dismissed the appeal and upheld his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The petitioner had also applied to the Supreme Court, seeking exemption from surrendering till the pendency of the proceedings before the apex court, the report mentioned. After the bench declined exemption to the petitioner, his counsel told the court, 'I can only leave with one line, I am a participant in Operation Sindoor. For the past 20 years, I have been a Black Cat Commando posted to my lord in Rashtriya Rifles.' The bench, unmoved by his counsel's remark, told the petitioner, 'That doesn't give you immunity from committing atrocity at home. This goes to show how physically fit you are, and how alone you could have killed your wife, strangulated your wife.' Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, one of the two judges hearing the plea, highlighted that the petitioner has been convicted of a serious offence. He said, 'This is not a case for exemption. It's a gruesome manner, the manner in which you strangled your wife. Exemption is for when the sentence is of six months, three months, or one year.' Background of the case In July 2004, a trial court in Amritsar convicted Baljinder Singh under Section 304-B of IPC for the death of his wife. The couple had been married for two years. According to the prosecution, the deceased was harassed and was subjected to cruelty in her husband's home for dowry. Eyewitnesses, who included the deceased's brother and his wife, in their complaint stated that when they entered their sister's matrimonial home on July 18, 2002, her husband (petitioner) and his father were strangulating her with a dupatta, while her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law held her arms and legs. The petitioner's counsel argued in the Supreme Court that the only allegation was the demand for a motorcycle, adding that the statements were made by two witnesses, who were closely related to the deceased. The bench granted the petitioner two weeks to surrender, and added, 'We decline the prayer for exemption from surrendering. Issue notice on the SLP returnable in six weeks.'