# Iliyas v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 972
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2942 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iliyas-v-state-of-u-p-50430
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 304B
and 3⁄4 D.P. Act-Challenge to-Convictionhomicidal death-husband along with his
parents set her ablaze on non-fulfillment
of dowry-Trial court awarded punishment
for life time is very harsh-the husband has
been incarcerated for 15 years period
would be enough punishment, looking to
the advanced age of other accused who
would now be of 80 years and 70 years
respectively, period undergone would be
sufficient for them as punishment-Thus,
the sentence is modified.(Para 1 to 24)

B. 'Proper Sentence' was explaind in Deo
Narain Mandal Case by observing that
Sentence should not be either excessively
harsh
or
ridiculously
low.
while
determining the quantum of sentence, the
court should bear in mind the 'principle of
proportionality'. Sentence should be based
on facts of a given case, gravity of offence,
manner of commission of crime, age and
sex of accused should be taken into
account. (Para 16)

The appeals are partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sentence.
Thus,
the
criminal
justice
jurisprudence adopted in the country is not
retributive but reformative and corrective.
At the same time, undue harshness should
also be avoided keeping in view the
reformative approach underlying in our
criminal justice system.

31. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping
in view criminal jurisprudence in our
country which is reformative and corrective
and not retributive, this Court considers
that no accused person is incapable of
being reformed and therefore, all measures
should be applied to give them an
opportunity of reformation in order to bring
them in the social stream.

32. As discussed above, 'reformative
theory of punishment' is to be adopted and
for that reason, it is necessary to impose
punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of
proportionality'. It appears from perusal of
impugned judgment that sentence awarded
by learned trial court for life term is very
harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts
and circumstances of the case and gravity
of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as
discussed above, has held that undue
harshness should be avoided taking into
account
the
reformative
approach
underlying in criminal justice system.

33. Therefore, accused-persons are
punished under Section 304 (Part II) of
IPC. As far as the main culprits namely
Smt. Azzo Bano & Ajaib Bano @ Jabbo
and Smt. Razia Begum, are concerned, they
have undergone 12 years of incarceration,
hence, we hold that on completing 10
years, they would be freed. Fine not paid be
adjusted towards default sentence which is
3 months starting after 10th year of
incarceration. As far as the other two
accused namely Mohd Azeem and Mohd
Idris are concerned, their role in the above
incident is not proved. The husband took
deceased to Hospital. The brother in-law is
not even named in dying declaration, they
are acquitted. They need not surrender if
released on bail pursuant to order not
warranted in any other offence.

34. In view of the above, the appeal
is partly allowed. Judgment and order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge
shall stand modified to the aforesaid
extent. Record be sent back to the Trial
Court forthwith.

35. The accused are ordered to be
released on bail on 11.4.2023, they need
not surrender, but if yet not released, they
be released forthwith.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 972
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2942 of 2012
with
Criminal Appeal No. 7154 of 2011

Iliyas ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ravinda Prakash Srivastava, Sri Gaurav
Kumar Shukla, Sri Shesh Narain Mishra, Sri
Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Sri Prashant Kumar, Sri
Gopal Das Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate
5 All. Iliyas Vs. State of U.P.
973
A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 304B
and 3⁄4 D.P. Act-Challenge to-Convictionhomicidal death-husband along with his
parents set her ablaze on non-fulfillment
of dowry-Trial court awarded punishment
for life time is very harsh-the husband has
been incarcerated for 15 years period
would be enough punishment, looking to
the advanced age of other accused who
would now be of 80 years and 70 years
respectively, period undergone would be
sufficient for them as punishment-Thus,
the sentence is modified.(Para 1 to 24)

B. 'Proper Sentence' was explaind in Deo
Narain Mandal Case by observing that
Sentence should not be either excessively
harsh
or
ridiculously
low.
while
determining the quantum of sentence, the
court should bear in mind the 'principle of
proportionality'. Sentence should be based
on facts of a given case, gravity of offence,
manner of commission of crime, age and
sex of accused should be taken into
account. (Para 16)

The appeals are partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Veeran & ors. Vs St. of M.P. (2011) 5 SCR
300

2. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of AP (1977) AIR SC
1926

3. Deo Narain Mandal Vs St. of UP (2004) 7 SCC
257

4. Ravada Sasikala Vs St. of A.P. (2017) SC
1166

5. Jameel Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 12 SCC 532

6. Guru Basavraj Vs St. of Karn. (2012) 8 SCC
734

7. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh (2014) 7
SCC 323

8. St. of Punj. Vs Bawa Singh (2015) 3 SCC 441
9. Raj Bala Vs St. of Har. (2016) 1 SCC 463

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J. & Hon'ble Arun Kumar
Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar, learned
counsel for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 2942 of 2012 and Sri Surendra
Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 7154 of
2011 and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present criminal appeals challenges
judgment and order dated 19.11.2011
passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Basti in
Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2010 (State vs.
Akram Ali and another) whereby the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has
convicted
the
accused-appellants
for
commission of offence under Section 304B
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC')
and
sentenced
them
to
undergo
imprisonment for life. For commission of
offence under Section 498A I.P.C they are
sentenced
to
undergo
rigorous
imprisonment of two years six months with
fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in case of
default in payment of fine further to
undergo
nine
months
additional
imprisonment. For commission of offence
under Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act the court has
sentenced accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of six months each with fine
of Rs.1000/- each and in case of default in
payment of fine, further to undergo six
months' additional imprisonment.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that the accused-appellant Iliyas
was married to the deceased two years prior
to the incident, deceased was tortured and
harassed by the in-laws for non fulfillment
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of
demand
of
dowry
one
splendor
motorcycle or Rs. 50,000/- cash. On
28.02.2009 at about 1:00 p.m father of
deceased got information that accusedappellants Illiyas-husband of the deceased,
Akram Ali-father-in-law of the deceased,
mother-in-law of the deceased, Jabbar Ali,
Mohd. Tayyab had done to death his
daughter and set her ablaze.

4. On the basis of F.I.R., the
investigation started and charge-sheet was
laid. The learned Magistrate summoned the
accused-appellants and committed the case
to the Sessions Court as the offences
alleged to have been committed were
triable by the Sessions Court. The learned
Sessions Judge framed charges alternate
under Section 302 of I.P.C.

5. On being summoned, the accused
pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

6. The Trial started and the
prosecution examined 12 witnesses who are
as follows:

1
Deposition of Sayee
Mohd.
PW1
2
" " Habibur-Rahman PW2
3
" " Sahira Khatoon
PW3
4
" " Saiyed Ali
PW4
5
" " Mustaq Ali
PW5
6
" " Tahira Khatoon
PW6
7
" " Dr. Dileep Kumar
Gupta
PW7
8
" " Dr. Ram Kewal
PW8
9
" " Hauman Singh
PW9
10 " " Naresh Chandra
PW10
11 " " Hawaldar Yadav
PW11

7. In support of ocular version following
documents were filed and proved:

1
F.I.R
Ex.Ka.20
2
Written Report
Ex.Ka.1
3
Postmortem Report
Ex.Ka.3
4
Panchayatnama
Ex.Ka.2
5
Recovery memo of burnt
cloth
Ex.Ka 4
6
Recovery memo of cloth Ex.Ka.5
7
Recovery memo of earth Ex.Ka.6
8
Site Plan with Index
Ex.Ka.11
9
Site Plan with Index
Ex.Ka.12
10 Site Plan with Index
Ex.Ka.13
11 Charge-Sheet (Mool)
Ex.Ka.17
12 Charge-Sheet (Mool)
Ex.Ka.18
13 Charge-Sheet (Mool)
Ex.Ka.19

8. At the end of the trial, after
recording the statements of the accusedappellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and
hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution
and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge
convicted
the
accused-appellants
as
mentioned above.

9. It is submitted by Sri. S.K. Tiwari,
learned counsel for the appellant that the
accused have not been proved to have
demanded any dowry and death was not
due to demand of dowry but as the
deceased herself was not happy with the
life in the village and wanted to stay with
her husband in Bombay, she set herself
ablaze. It is further submitted that father-inlaw
and
mother-in-law
were
staying
separately from the husband and wife. The
Marriage took place and they were living
5 All. Iliyas Vs. State of U.P.
975
happily but due to poverty the accusedIliyas who was working in Bombay could
not take his wife there and there was
altercation according to D.W.-1 who never
went before the police till he was deposed
before the court as done in hindi movies, he
sprang into action only on 13.09.2011 when
he was posed as defence witness, he never
came before the police authorities to
narrate his version, that act is not done by
the accused, may that as it may be. Further
it is submitted that conviction is based on
presumption and is bad as the appellant has
no intention to do away with the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied
on the following authoritative judgments of
the Apex Court:-

(i) Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of
2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
6537/2019 decided on 23.11.2022;

(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2020
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3842 of
2020 decided on 20.08.2020;

(iii) Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of
2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
8948/2018 decided on 12.10.2018.

to contend that this is case of clear
acquittal/in the alternative if at all offence
is made out it is under Section 304 (1) of
I.P.C.

10. Learned A.G.A. has submitted
that the evidences of P.W-7 and P.W-8
clinches the issue, the death was due to
setting ablaze or rather due to the burn
injuries which are 100%. It is not the case
of the accused that they were not present at
the place of the offence and has conveyed
to the Court that the trial court has not
committed any error in convicting the
accused. It is further submitted that in none
of the defences it is shown that the accused
were not present at the place of offence or
they tried to save the deceased. Sri
Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A further
submitted that postmortem report goes to
show that it was not a suicidal death but
was first beaten and thereafter she was set
ablaze. There was blood coming out of the
nose. Postmortem report goes to reveal that
there were:-

(i) superficial to deep burn all over the
body except both sole (about 100%);

(ii) line of redness present at places;

(iii) blood coming out of both nostrils;

(iv) singeing of hair is there;

(v) The entire mass of the upper part
of the right thigh is exposed, the femur
bone is visible.

11. On hearing the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, two moot questions are to be
addressed by us namely whether the death
was homicidal death and whether the
offence would be punishable under Section
302 or 304 Part I or Part II or Section 304
B of Indian Penal Code. Before sifting the
evidence, it is relevant here to discuss the
law
pertaining
to
culpable
homicide
amounting to murder, culpable homicide
not amounting to murder and the dowry
death. Section 299 of the Indian Penal
Code, which reads as under:

"299. Culpable homicide: Whoever
causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide."

12. The academic distinction between
''murder' and ''culpable homicide not
amounting to murder' has always vexed the
Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
loose sight of the true scope and meaning
of the terms used by the legislature in these
sections, and allow themselves to be drawn
into minute abstractions. The safest way of
approach
to
the
interpretation
and
application of these provisions seems to be
is to keep in focus the keywords used in the
various clauses of Section 299 and 300 of
I.P.Code. The following comparative table
will be helpful in appreciating the points of
distinction between the two offences.

Section 299
Section 300
A
person
commits
culpable homicide if the
act by which the death
is caused is done-
Subject to certain
exceptions
culpable
homicide
is
murder if the act
by
which
the
death is caused is
done.

INTENTION

(a) with the intention
of causing death; or
(1)
with
the
intention
of
causing death; or
(b) with the intention
of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to
cause death; or
(2)
with
the
intention
of
causing
such
bodily injury as the
offender knows to
be likely to
cause the death of
the
person
to
whom the harm is
caused;
KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE
(c)
with
the
knowledge that the act
is
likely
to
cause
death.
(4)
with
the
knowledge that the
act
is
so
immediately
dangerous
 that it must in all
probability
cause
death
or
such
bodily injury as is
likely
to
cause
death, and without
any
excuse
for
incurring the risk
of causing death or
such injury as is
mentioned above.

13. It is submitted by the learned
Advocates for the accused-appellants that
the case of the accused-appellant-Iliyas
who was very young at the time of incident
and has two aged parents would fall within
the purview of Section 304(1) I.P.C and the
punishment of life imprisonment is not
commensurate
with
the
offence
and
therefore this Court to consider the facts as
there was no premeditation, the deceased
died due to her wish of staying in a
metropolitan city like Bombay which has
resulted in her committing suicide. From the
upshot of the facts, it appears that the death
caused by the accused was not premeditated,
accused though had knowledge and intention
that their act would cause bodily harm to the
deceased but did not want to do away with
the deceased. It is submitted by learned
counsel that the instant case falls under the
Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
While considering Section 299 as reproduced
herein above offence committed will fall
under Section 304 Part-I as per the
observations of the Apex Court in Veeran
and others Vs. State of M.P. Decided,
(2011) 5 SCR 300 which have to be also kept
in mind.

14. This takes us to the alternative
submission of learned counsel for the
5 All. Iliyas Vs. State of U.P.
977
appellants that the quantum of sentence is
too harsh and requires to be modified even
if offence is believed to be committed as
per Section 304B of I.P.C. and this Court
concurs with the finding of Additional
Sessions Judge.

15. In this regard, we have to analyse
the theory of punishment prevailing in
India.

16. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of
AP, [AIR 1977 SC 1926], explaining
rehabilitary & reformative aspects in
sentencing it has been observed by the
Supreme Court:

"Crime is a pathological aberration.
The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed
and the state has to rehabilitate rather than
avenge. The sub-culture that leads to
antesocial behaviour has to be countered
not by undue

cruelty
but
by
reculturization.
Therefore, the focus of interest in penology
in the individual and the goal is salvaging
him for the society. The infliction of harsh
and savage punishment is thus a relic of
past and regressive times. The human today
vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a
person
who
has
deteriorated
into
criminality and the modern community has
a primary stake in the [11] rehabilitation of
the offender as a means of a social defence.
Hence a therapeutic, rather than an
'interrorem' outlook should prevail in our
criminal courts, since brutal incarceration
of the person merely produces laceration of
his mind. If you are to punish a man
retributively, you must injure him. If you
are to reform him, you must improve him
and, men are not improved by injuries."

17. 'Proper Sentence' was explained in
Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP
[(2004) 7 SCC 257] by observing that
Sentence should not be either excessively
harsh
or
ridiculously
low.
While
determining the quantum of sentence, the
court should bear in mind the 'principle of
proportionality'. Sentence should be based
on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence,
manner of commission of crime, age and
sex of accused should be taken into
account. Discretion of Court in awarding
sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or
whimsically.

18. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of
A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme
Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs
State of UP [(2010) 12 SCC 532], Guru
Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, [(2012) 8
SCC 734], Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan
Singh, [(2014) 7 SCC 323], State of
Punjab vs Bawa Singh, [(2015) 3 SCC
441], and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana,
[(2016) 1 SCC 463] and has reiterated that,
in operating the sentencing system, law
should adopt corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts
and given circumstances in each case,
nature of crime, manner in which it was
planned
and
committed,
motive
for
commission of crime, conduct of accused,
nature of weapons used and all other
attending circumstances are relevant facts
which
would
enter
into
area
of
consideration. Further, undue sympathy in
sentencing would do more harm to justice
dispensations and would undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law. It
is the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to nature of offence
and manner of its commission. The
supreme court further held that courts must
not only keep in view the right of victim of
crime but also society at large. While
considering
imposition
of
appropriate
punishment, the impact of crime on the
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
society as a whole and rule of law needs to
be balanced. The judicial trend in the
country has been towards striking a balance
between reform and punishment. The
protection of society and stamping out
criminal proclivity must be the object of
law which can be achieved by imposing
appropriate sentence on criminals and
wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain
order and peace, should effectively meet
challenges confronting the society, as
society could not long endure and develop
under
serious
threats
of
crime
and
disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to
avoid undue leniency in imposition of
sentence.
Thus,
the
criminal
justice
jurisprudence adopted in the country is not
retributive but reformative and corrective.
At the same time, undue harshness should
also be avoided keeping in view the
reformative approach underlying in our
criminal justice system.

19. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping
in view criminal jurisprudence in our
country which is reformative and corrective
and not retributive, this Court considers
that these accused person are not incapable
of being reformed and therefore, all
measures should be applied to give them an
opportunity of reformation in order to bring
them in the social stream looking to old age
of two accused (father-in-law and motherin-law).

20. As discussed above, 'reformative
theory of punishment' is to be adopted and
for that reason, it is necessary to impose
punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of
proportionality'. It appears from perusal of
impugned judgment that sentence awarded
by learned trial court for life term is very
harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts
and circumstances of the case and gravity
of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as
discussed above, has held that undue
harshness should be avoided taking into
account
the
reformative
approach
underlying in criminal justice system.

21. Having given our anxious thought
and going through medical evidence we are
very clear that the deceased died due to
what is known as homicidal death not
suicide and punishable as per Section 304
B of I.P.C, it was the duty of the accused to
show on preponderance of evidence that
the act was not committed by them within
the seven years of the marriage.

22. The facts goes to show that the
culpable homicide was suicidal death, we
concur with the learned Judge and invoke
Section 106 of the Evidence Act for coming
to the conclusion that the death was within
7 years of marriage.

23. The accused Illiyas has been
incarcerated for 15 years of incarceration is
enough punishment for a young person who
was serving in Bombay, the parents were
living separately from the children, however,
the overt act has been proved by leading
evidence and therefore also this Court concurs
with the learned Judge, however, we will go
by the theories of punishment. We are
convinced that death occurred within the
meaning of Section 304B of I.P.C. This takes
us to the sentencing theories prevailing in
India. The husband has been incarcerated for
15 years that period would be enough
punishment, looking to the age of Akram Ali
and the other accused would now be of 80
years and 70 years respectively, hence looking
to their advanced age period undergone would
be sufficient for them as punishment.

24. Both these appeals are partly
allowed. The judgment and order by the
5 All. Veerpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
979
learned Sessions Judge shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the Court
below forthwith.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 979
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4774 of 2016

Veerpal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri Ankur Singh
Kushwaha, Sri Bhishm Pal Singh, Sri J.B. Singh,
Sri Jai Prakash Singh, Sri Rudra Pratap Mishra,
Sri Ajay Kumar, Sri V.P. Srivastava(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 147 &
302/149-Challenge
to-Conviction-
the
testimony of P.W.-1 has to be viewed in
light of the testimony of eyewitness,
P.W.-3
as
well
as
all
the
other
eyewitnesses, including the brother of the
P.W.-1 (i.e., the P.W.-5) who all negated
the case of the prosecution regarding the
guilt
of
the
accused-Though
leading
questions
were
put
to
the
hostile
witnesses
regarding
their
testimony
against the prosecution to the effect that
due to threat or a compromise they were
giving such a testimony, the witnesses
denied the same-P.W.-5, the witness who
turned hostile, was the real brother of the
deceased and no such circumstance or
motive has been demonstrated as proved
by the prosecution that would lead to a
finding that his testimony is unbelievableThe testimony made by the P.W.-3 and
P.W.-8 as hostile witnesses that the
deceased was found impaled on the knife
like grille behind the shape of the
deceased has not been explored by the
trial court. The doctor conducting the
post-mortem examination (PW-4) that the
injuries of the deceased were not stab
wounds to create a doubt as to the cause
of the injuries- neither the P.W.-1 nor the
P.W.-3 nor the P.W.-8 were present at the
site when the accused allegedly reached
the site of the incident on their vehicles.-
It were only the independent witnesses
who could have testified the factum of the
accused reaching the site and advancing
towards the deceased-The location of the
P.W.-1 at the time of the incident is itself
under cloud in view of the testimonies of
P.W.-3
and
P.W.-8.
The
P.W.-8
has
testified the reason for the police directing
their investigation against the accused
that the police were angered by the
behaviour of the accused towards them
during an incident some days prior to the
death of the deceased- the police had
stated that since foreigners were involved,
the case would be difficult to be proved-
There is an important element with regard
to lack of adequate lighting at the site and
so it is doubtful that the P.W.-1 could have
actually seen the faces of the accused
from a distance of 67 steps on a winter
night-Given
the
entire
facts
the
circumstances, the accused persons are
entitled to benefit of doubt-The case of
the prosecution has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

The criminal appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Subramanya Vs St. of Karn.

2. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs St. of U.P.

3. Pulukuri Kottaya & ors.. Vs The King Emperor

4. Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs St. of Punj.