Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Sukhdev Singh And Others on 7 July, 2008
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Criminal Misc.No.380 MA of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.No.380 MA of 2007
Date of decision: 7.7.2008
State of Punjab
-----Applicant
Vs.
Sukhdev Singh and others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.D.ANAND
Present: Mr. DS Brar, DAG, Punjab for the applicant-State.
Mr. APS Randhawa, Advocate with
Mr. P.S. Goraya, Advocate for the respondents.
Mrs. Baljeet Kaur Mann, Advocate for the complainant.
JUDGMENT:
The State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents of the charge under section 304-B IPC and seeks leave to appeal.
Case of the prosecution is that Balwinder Kaur, deceased was married to Sardool Singh, accused. After marriage, she was subjected to Criminal Misc.No.380 MA of 2007 2 harassment by her husband and his other relatives (respondents herein) and was turned out of matrimonial home after being given beatings. PW4 Kashmir Singh, brother of the deceased persuaded the respondents to rehabilitate the deceased. On 7.1.2001 at 10 AM, Balwinder Kaur came to her parental house and met PW1 Kashmir Singh and told him that since she was being harassed and was turned out of the matrimonial home to bring Rs.50,000/- to send Sardool Singh abroad (for employment), she had consumed poison. She fell down on the ground. She was taken to Government Hospital, Batala where she died. On receiving information from the hospital, ASI Tarolok Singh PW6 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Kashmir Singh which led to registration of FIR. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan. He also prepared inquest report and took steps for post mortem examination of the dead body. Post mortem was conducted by PW2 Dr. KK Singh on 8.1.2008. According to him, the cause of death was Aluminium phosphide on the basis of report of Chemical Examiner Ex.P3. After completing investigation, the accused were sent up for trial.
The prosecution examined Balwinder Singh as PW1, Dr. KK Singh as PW2, Constable Inder Singh as PW3, Kashmir Singh as PW4, Lakha Singh as PW5 and ASI Tarolok Singh as PW6.
The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they were residing separately. The deceased was residing at her parental house much before her death. A compromise had taken place between them. Criminal Misc.No.380 MA of 2007 3 They examined Dalerjit Singh as DW1, Lakhwinder Singh as DW2 and Jaswant Singh as DW3.
After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondents.
The reasons given by the trial court can be briefly summarized as under:-
(i) There was no evidence whatsoever that death took place within seven years of marriage and, thus, presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act did not arise. PW4 Kashmir Singh and PW5 Lakha Singh did not give the date of marriage.
(ii) There were contradictions in the version given by PW4 Kashmir Singh, brother of the deceased and PW5 Lakha Singh, uncle of the deceased on the issue of demand of dowry. Kashmir Singh stated that Sardool Singh had been sent to America, while Lakha Singh stated that demand of Rs.50,000/- was being made for sending Sardool Singh to America.
(iii) As many as eight persons were made accused without attributing any specific role in making the demand of dowry.Criminal Misc.No.380 MA of 2007 4
(iv) The deceased died at the house of her parents. As per compromise Mark 'B', the deceased was living at her parents' house. Sardool Singh was not residing in India. DW1 Dalerjit Singh, Member Zila Parishad stated that he was called by the DSP on a complaint of the deceased and at that time, the deceased was living at her parents' house.
DW2 Lakhwinder Singh also stated that the deceased was living at the house of her father Makhan Singh 6/7 months prior to her death. DW3 Jaswant Singh stated that Sardool Singh had gone abroad 2/4 months prior to the death of Balwinder Kaur. Thus, there was no sufficient evidence to prove demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence on record proved the demand of dowry soon before the death of Balwinder Kaur and as per FIR, death was within two years of marriage and was not a natural death and thus, presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act should have been raised.
We do not find any merit in the contentions raised. There is no substantive evidence about the date of death. The death took place in the Criminal Misc.No.380 MA of 2007 5 parental house of the deceased where she was already living. Evidence of PW4 Kashmir Singh and PW5 Lakha Singh about demand of dowry did not inspire confidence. In the circumstances, the finding of the trial court that there was no satisfactory evidence about proof of demand of dowry soon before her death cannot be held to be perverse or unreasonable.
No ground is, thus, made out for grant of leave to appeal. The application is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
July 7, 2008 (S.D.Anand)
'gs' Judge