Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhoop Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 September, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Surinder Gupta
CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1)
Crl. Appeal No.D-908-DB of 2009
Date of Decision: September 08, 2014.
Bhoop Singh
..........APPELLANT(s).
VERSUS
State of Haryana
........RESPONDENT(s).
(2)
Crl. Revision No.1637 of 2010
Sajjan Singh
..........APPELLANT(s).
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-D-908-DB-2009 and
for respondents No.2 to 4 in CRR-1637-2010.
Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl.A.G. Haryana.
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for
for complainant in CRA-D-908-DB-2009 and
for petitioner in CRR-1637-2010.
*******
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Appellant Bhoop Singh along with his father Om Parkash, mother Bhagwati and brother Harinder faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -2- Code (for short 'IPC') in Sessions Case No.21 of 2008 and vide judgment dated 19.09.2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul convicted appellant Bhoop Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `2000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. However, his co-accused Om Parkash, Bhagwati and Harinder (respondents No.2 to 4 in CRR-1637-2010) were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
CRA-D-908-DB-2009 By way of present appeal, appellant Bhoop Singh has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. CRR-1637-2010 Complainant Sajjan Singh has filed the present revision petition seeking conviction of respondents Om Parkash, Harinder and Bhagwati for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.
Brief Facts:
Sunita (since deceased) daughter of complainant Sajjan Singh was married with appellant Bhoop Singh on 22.02.2008. In his written complaint dated 16.08.2008 (Ex.PA) to the police, complainant has stated that he had given dowry in the marriage beyond his capacity but appellant Bhoop Singh, his father Om Parkash, mother Bhagwati, brother Harinder, sister Urmila along with Surinder and Ramji Lal both sons of Budh Ram and their wives, had been harassing his daughter for the last 4-5 months in order SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 to compel her to bring more dowry. Sunita had been complaining about the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -3- behaviour of aforesaid persons on her visit to the complainant, who along with his brother tried to make them realise his financial position but their behaviour did not change.
About 3-4 days before the incident, Sunita came to her in-laws' house when a demand of `1 lac was raised by the accused and she was asked to bring this amount from her father. Sunita called the complainant and informed him that the accused were harassing her due to their demand and had threatened to kill her.
On 16.08.2008, complainant received information about the death of his daughter and rushed to village Dongli along with his family member. He found the dead body of his daughter lying on the bed. She had been killed by throttling. An information was given to the police on telephone. ASI Kirorimal (PW10) along with his police party reached the spot, where the complainant presented a complaint Ex.PA on which ASI Kirorimal made his endorsement Ex.PA/2 and sent the same for registration of the FIR to Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, where FIR No.129 dated 16.08.2008 (Ex.PB) was registered.
Investigation ASI Kirorimal examined the dead body and conducted proceedings under Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). He prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.PJ) and recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the dead body to General Hospital, Narnaul through ASI Ram Chander and EASI Amar Singh for post- mortem with his application (Ex.PH).
SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39
Dr.K.M. Sharma (PW7) conducted post-mortem examination of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -4- the deceased. He described the condition of the dead body and the injuries found as follows:-
"It was the dead body of female wearing red kameez and white sameeze, brown salwar, black underwear. Rigor mortis was present, face and lips were cyanosed, eyes were bulging, conjunctiva was congested and haemorrhagic body forth coming from nose and mouth tetechae present on face neck and eye lids.
Reddish brown contusion 1.5 x 1.5 cm on left side of middle of neck. Four clustered reddish brown contusion 1x0.5 cm on the right side of neck in the middle 1/3. On dissection extra vasation of blood in subcutaneous and neck muscles present, the neck muscles were lacerated, fracture of left cornu of hyoid and superior cornu of thyroid cartilage present.
Injuries (a) reddish brown contusion 1.1 cm in front of right knee, (b) Four clustered pointed abrasion present on the dorsum of left hand opposite 3rd metacarpal.
All the remaining organs were markedly congested and blood and mucous was present in larynx and trachea and in both the lungs.
The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling which was sufficient to cause death under ordinary course of nature and is ante-mortem in nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The probable duration between death and post-mortem was 6 to 32 hours."
After post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to the complainant vide receipt Ex.PK/3.
ASI Kirorimal apprised Superintendent of Police, Narnaul about SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -5- the circumstances of the case and on his request, a letter (Ex.PK) was written by Superintendent of Police, Narnaul to Commanding Officer, Air Force Unit, where appellant Bhoop Singh was serving. ASI Kirorimal PW10 appeared before Air Commanding Officer, Air Force Station, Jodhpur with the letter Ex.PK of Superintendent of Police, Narnaul and moved application Ex.PK/1 with request to hand over the custody of appellant Bhoop Singh. After getting the appellant medico-legally examined, his custody was handed over to police and he was arrested on 19.08.2008. A certificate to this effect Ex.PK/2 was also issued by the Air Force Authority.
On the way, the Investigating Officer and EASI Amar Singh halted at a hotel near Rai Malikpur Border for having dinner, from where the appellant fled away along with handcuffs at about 10.30 p.m. On 21.08.2008, the appellant was produced before Sub Inspector Dilbag Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar Narnaul (PW11) by Lambardar Attar Singh and was taken into custody. During interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PF and got recovered a Dupatta (a piece of cloth thrown loosely over the shoulders by ladies with their dress) used in strangulating the deceased, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF/1.
Presentation of Final Report U/S 173(2) Cr.P.C.
After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court, wherein appellant Bhoop Singh, his father Om Parkash, mother Bhagwati and brother Harinder were named as accused.
SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul committed the case to the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -6- Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 28.11.2008. Finding a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC, the appellant and his co-accused were charge-sheeted vide order dated 15.12.2008 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 11.09.2009, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was also framed against the appellant and his co- accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution evidence In support of its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. Dr. K.M. Sharma, who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, was examined as PW7. Complainant appeared in the witness box as PW1, his wife Saroj Bala as PW8 and have supported the prosecution case. Bhikha Ram, Sarpanch of village Pavera where the complainant is residing appeared as PW9 and has stated that on the asking of complainant, he had gone to Om Parkash, father of the appellant and asked him and his family members not to harass Sunita for dowry. ASI Kirorimal, who conducted the investigation in this case, appeared as PW10, while SI Dilbag Singh, who conducted part investigation in this case, has been examined as PW11. Sub Inspector Kailash Chand PW12 had arrested co- accused Om Parkash, Bhagwati and Harinder and had also conducted the part investigation. PW15 Vinod Kumar Yadav produced record of sheet-roll of appellant Bhoop Singh to prove that he was absent from duty without leave from 6.00 p.m. on 14.08.2008 to 4.00 a.m. on 17.08.2008. PW2 ASI Mittersen had recorded the formal FIR Ex.PB; EASI Amar Singh PW3 had SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 received a parcel containing clothes of deceased after her post-mortem I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -7- examination, which was taken into possession by ASI Kirorimal vide recovery memo Ex.PC; PW4 Head Constable Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman had prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PD; EHC Abhay Singh PW4 was a witness of recovery memo Ex.PC/4 vide which certain documents were taken into possession; Head Constable Jagwant Singh PW6 was a witness to the disclosure statement and recovery of Dupatta from appellant Bhoop Singh. The dowry articles were also taken into possession in his presence vide recovery memo Ex.PG. PW13 EHC Vikram Singh had taken the special report and delivered it to the Illaqa Magistrate, while Parveen Kumar, Photographer PW13 had taken the photographs of the dead body Ex.PL/1 to Ex/PL/5.
Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
On completion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant and his co-accused while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which they denied and pleaded their false implication. Appellant Bhoop Singh has stated in his defence as follows:-
"Smt. Sunita since deceased was my wife and she resided in our house for 15/20 days after the marriage. She was never harassed in the matrimonial home nor any demand of any kind was raised by me or my family. In the evening of 14.08.2008, I had the telephonic information that my wife Smt. Sunita suffered some injuries due to fall from chajja upon which I rushed to my village and reached there on 15.08.2008. I was posted in Air Force Unit, Jodhpur at that time. In the morning of 15.08.2008, my parents had gone to Nangal Chaudhary to purchase SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -8- some household goods due to festival. They had gone at about 09.00 A.M. At about 10.00 A.M. When I was taking out my clothes from the almirah, I found a diary of my wife which was containing some poems etc. I also found two medical prescriptions of Shanti Hospital, Narnaul in that diary which revealed abortion of my wife on 16.06.08 in that hospital. I asked my wife about the same but she did not reply upon which I left the house for going to Jodhpur. I was brought from Jodhpur by the police of PS Nangal Chaudhary and in the night of 20.8.2008 I was in police custody in PS Nangal Chaudhary. My father Om Parkash was also called there by the police. The police had inquired the facts about the death of my wife. I had told the police about the aforesaid details. My wife had committed suicide under the fear of unveiling of factum of her abortion and her carrying of pregnancy since before marriage. My wife was never harassed in the matrimonial home nor was any demand of dowry raised by us. No car was given by my in-laws in the marriage. My in-laws have shown some items in the list of articles given in the marriage falsely which were not actually given. The police did not investigate the case properly under the political influence of my in-laws family. Prior to the occurrence my family and in-laws were having cordial influence. My wife stayed in the matrimonial house for 1 and ½ months only in all from the day of marriage till her death. My in-laws have tried to rope in whole of my family including our distantly related family members and my married sister who was ailing and was undergoing treatment in Bhiwani and had not visited our house even since February 2008. The allegations of my in-laws are totally false."SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -9-
Defence witnesses In defence, the appellant and his co-accused examined Dr. Alka Yadav, Shanti Hospital, Narnaul as DW1, Narender Singh Chaudhary, Principal Bharti Public School, Narnaul as DW2, Hitender Kumar, Private Accountant as DW3, Munni Devi wife of Satbir Singh as DW4, Surender son of Ramji Lal as DW5 and Satbir Singh son of Khet Ram as DW6. Arguments Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant Bhoop Singh was married with the deceased only six months prior to the incident. There was no demand of dowry. The appellant was employed in Air Force and was posted at Jodhpur at the time of incident. The contention that a separate car was demanded for the father of the appellant, has no basis because the family of appellant was already owning a car. The appellant was posted at Jodhpur and did not require a separate car. The deceased had lived in her matrimonial home only for 15/20 days. On 14.08.2008, the deceased suffered injuries due to fall from Chhajja and on receiving information, the appellant rushed to his village and reached there on 15.08.2008. While taking out clothes from almirah, he found a diary of his wife which contained some poems etc. He found two medical prescriptions of Shanti Hospital, Narnaul and came to know about an abortion was conducted on the deceased on 16.06.2008. It is a case of commission of suicide as the deceased on disclosure of factum of her abortion and carrying of pregnancy before marriage was feeling perturbed. The complainant out of frustration or may be due to the agony suffered by him because of extreme step of suicide SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 taken by his daughter named all the family members of appellant including I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -10- his distant relatives. Harinder, younger brother of appellant Bhoop Singh was a student at that time. The relations of father of appellant with the family of deceased were quite cordial and this fact is reflected from the evidence on file. Sameer Ganan son of complainant and brother of deceased was got admitted in Bharti Public School, Narnaul on the undertaking given by father of the appellant. He had taken admission in the school in April, 2008. The registration form of brother of deceased Ex.D5 was also submitted by father of appellant. The trial Court after appraisal of the entire evidence on file, has rightly reached the conclusion that the charge for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 IPC are not proved against the appellant and his co-accused. This contention of the complainant Sajjan Singh (PW1) and his wife Saroj Bala (PW8) that deceased had informed them on telephone about the demand of `1 lac made by the appellant and his co-accused is not worth reliance. They have stated that the deceased disclosed the threat of murder by the appellant and his co- accused in the event of non-fulfilment of their demand but they never rushed to her and came only after receiving information about her death. Their contention of demand of car is also not tenable as appellant Bhoop Singh and his family already owned a car and Om Parkash father of appellant Bhoop Singh was the only male member present in the family to use that car. Appellant Bhoop Singh being posted in Air Force at a far away station, did not require any car. Even if, the entire version of the prosecution be believed that the deceased was throttled by appellant Bhoop Singh, still no offence against Om Parkash, Bhagwati and Harinder is made out as they were not SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 even in the house at the time of incident. The testimony of DW4 Munni I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -11- Devi and DW6 Satbir Singh proves that on 16.08.2008 Om Parkash and his wife had gone to Nangal Chaudhary for purchasing household goods in the morning and returned at noon. They noticed that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the Chaubara and informed the complainant Sajjan Singh. Harinder was admittedly pursuing his studies of B.Ed in the year 2008 and was at Jaipur on the fateful day. On receiving information about the death of Sunita, he came with DW5 Surinder and other family members. Being the younger brother of appellant Bhoop Singh, he had no business to demand dowry from the deceased or her family. He has been implicated in this case without suggesting any reason or motive for demand of dowry and without any specific demand or reason for his common intention with Bhoop Singh to indulge in any crime. The trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent Om Parkash, his wife Bhagwati and Harinder in this case. The facts and circumstances of the case suggest that on taking of extreme step of suicide by Sunita after the fact of her illicit relations with one Rajesh and her abortion got revealed, the complainant, out of frustration and agony, implicated Bhoop Singh and all his family members.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the marriage of deceased was only six months old. The allegation of four months pregnancy of deceased at the time of her abortion on 16.06.2008, is not substantiated by any evidence on the file. Dr. Alka Yadav DW1, who had conducted the abortion has stated that pregnancy of the deceased at the time of abortion was less than two months. The deceased had not concealed anything from the doctor about her matrimonial SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 status. She had given her identity as wife of appellant Bhoop Singh and had I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -12- also given the address of her in-laws. She had not even tried to conceal the documents of termination of her pregnancy. In case, she had to conceal the fact of abortion, she could leave the documents either at her parental home or destroy the same. The death was caused due to strangulation by one hand. The injuries on the hand and leg of the deceased, suffered at the same time prove that she had struggled when the appellant was strangulating her and in the process received the injuries. The story propounded by the appellant and his co-accused that she had fallen from a Chhajja on 14.08.2008 and received injuries is just an after-thought and a concocted version. The complainant and his wife while appearing as PW1 and PW8 have categorically stated about the demand of dowry, mal-treatment of deceased and also the demand of car. The fact that they could not reach on receipt of the telephone of the deceased that the appellant and his co-accused have demanded `1 lac and had threatened to murder her, cannot be taken as a circumstance to discard their statements because the parents never expect that the husband or his family members on whose faith and confidence they have sent their daughter to their home, will turn into devils to take her life. The complainant side ignored many events so that better sense may prevail with passage of time. The testimony of the complainant and his wife is reliable, proves the offences for which the appellant and his co-accused have been charge-sheeted. The trial Court has committed an error while acquitting Om Parkash, Bhagwati and Harinder. He also sought their conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 IPC.
SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -13- Discussion We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal as well as for respondents No.2 to 4 in revision petition, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant (petitioner in the revision petition) and have carefully perused the record.
Firstly, we take the appeal filed by Bhoop Singh. The major stress of learned counsel for the appellant is on the fact that after the relations of deceased with one Rajesh became public and the appellant came to know of her abortion, the deceased apprehending ignominy, took the extreme step of committing suicide.
The first relevant fact which requires consideration in this case is as to whether the death of deceased was suicidal or homicidal. Dr. K.M. Sharma, PW7, a member of the Board of Doctors, who conducted post- mortem examination of the deceased, has denied that the cause of death was self strangulation by a soft scarf or chunni. He did not find fibre of cloth or any other material around the neck of the deceased. There were four clustered reddish brown contusions 1 x 0.5 cm on the right side of neck and a reddish brown contusion of 1.5 x 1.5 cm on the left side of middle of the neck, showing that a hand was put with full force on the neck of the deceased. There were four clustered pointed abrasions on the dorsum of left hand opposite third metacarpal and a reddish brown contusion 1.5 x 1.5 cm in front of right knee. The cause of death was throttling. The above description of the injuries rule out suicide by the deceased and further the SACHIN MEHTA injury on the left hand and right knee were caused when her neck was 2014.11.12 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -14- pressed with the left hand, she struggled and in the process received injuries on her left hand and right leg.
The second very strong circumstance appearing in this case is that the appellant had left his place of posting at Jodhpur on 14.08.2008 at 6.00 p.m. and came to his village from where he again went to Jodhpur and joined his duties at 4.00 a.m. on 17.08.2008. Here a very vital question which arises for consideration is as to what was the cause for his coming all the way from Jodhpur to his village on 14.08.2008 without taking leave or permission from his superiors. He is an employee of a disciplined force and had been allowed leave in the year 2008 on four occasions i.e. from 12.02.2008 to 20.03.2008; 25.04.2008 to 01.05.2008; 19.05.2008 to 23.05.2008; and 06.08.2008 to 08.08.2008. His last leave was allowed only eight days before the occurrence and six days before he left his place of posting, without leave. Here a story has been put forth that the deceased had fallen from a Chhajja on 14.08.2008, as such, he rushed to his village. The story appears to be concocted as there is no evidence that the parents of deceased were informed about the deceased falling from the Chhajja or that she was taken to any doctor. Moreover, the injuries on the left hand and right leg of the deceased were abrasions and contusions without any fracture, ruling out a fall from a Chhajja or the urgency for appellant Bhoop Singh to run away from his place of posting without informing his superiors or without taking any leave, particularly when his officers were so generous that they had allowed him leave from February to August 2008 on four occasions.
SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39
The above circumstance reveals that the appellant left his place I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -15- of posting on 14.08.2008 with some plan in his mind. The plea that on 16.08.2008 he came to know about the termination of pregnancy by the deceased when he found papers in this regard while taking out clothes from an almirah appears to be an after-thought. On 16.08.2008 he found an opportunity and throttled the deceased and then left for his place of posting at Jhodhpur where he returned at 04.00 a.m. on 17.08.2008. The plea has been taken by the appellant that he was taking out his clothes from the almirah when he found a diary of his wife containing some poems and two medical prescriptions revealing abortion of the deceased on 16.06.2008. He admits that he was with his wife in their bedroom till 10.00 a.m. on the day of occurrence. She was murdered on the same day. As per co-accused Om Parkash, he along with his wife Bhagwati had gone to Nangal Chaudhary to purchase some household goods and returned at about 01.00 p.m. and found the dead body of Sunita in her room and Bhoop Singh was not at home. The death had taken place in the matrimonial home in a room which the deceased and appellant were using as their bedroom and it is proved on file that the appellant was present with his wife at or near about the time of her death. The onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was on the appellant to explain as to how she died. The conduct of the appellant is very suspicious. Firstly, he left his place of posting without taking permission or leave or intimating his superiors; secondly, he has tried to show his concern for his wife, who as per him, had fallen from a Chhajja but on his visiting home, she died before he left for his place of posting; thirdly, father of appellant has stated that when they returned from Nangal Chaudhary after shopping at SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 01.00 p.m. appellant was not found in the house. It is quite surprising that he I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -16- left the home even without informing his parents. All this indicate that the appellant had murdered his wife in a well planned manner. He left his place of posting on 14.08.2008 as 15.08.2008 is a National Holiday and rushed back on 16.08.2014 to reach in the morning hours of the day but the strict discipline and vigil of the Air Force Authorities, did not allow him to succeed and his absence and arrival got recorded, thereby discrediting the appellant's effort of claiming any alibi.
The abortion of deceased on 16.06.2008 is not an issue which requires any detailed discussion, still a reference to the medical document shows that the pregnancy was less than two months old at the time of abortion. The deceased was accompanied by her mother. She disclosed her identity to the doctor who conducted the abortion as wife of appellant and also gave the address of her matrimonial village. Though the doctor has stated that the pregnancy was two months old at the time of abortion, but even if the plea of appellant is accepted that it was a four months old pregnancy, still the inference of pre-marriage pregnancy cannot be drawn. The marriage was conducted about four months back and the date of pregnancy is counted from the date of last menstruation period. Even if it be believed that the deceased had undergone abortion without the knowledge and permission of the appellant and the pregnancy was four months old, this may have given cause for the appellant to discuss the matter with his wife, her parents or to hold a Panchayat but not to show such ferocity and cruelty so as to take her life. The above discussion reveals the motive for the appellant for killing his wife. He has also failed to discharge the onus so SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 heavily placed on him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -17-
On appraisal of the statement of witnesses, documents on file and the judgment of the trial Court which has elaborately discussed the entire evidence against the appellant, we feel no hesitation in reaching a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased was murdered by the appellant because she had undergone an abortion in the month of June, 2008.
Now, coming to the revision petition filed by the complainant, who has also levelled allegations of demand of dowry and the threat given to the deceased by respondents Om Parkash, his wife Bhagwati and son Harinder. Regarding respondent Harinder, complainant has stated that he had also asked for some gift from deceased. The occurrence took place in about six months of marriage of deceased. It is not disputed that complainant was having confidence in Om Parkash and while admitting his son Sameer in Bharti Public School, Narnaul in April 2008, he nominated Om Parkash as his guardian. The allegations have been levelled regarding the demand of car and `1 lac by the co-accused of the appellant. The car was already available with Om Parkash and his son Bhoop Singh was posted in Air Force at far away station and as such he did not require any car. The allegation that the deceased had informed the complainant on telephone that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (younger brother of husband), her husband and sister-in-law were harassing her and threatening to kill her if she did not bring `1lac, is not substantiated by any evidence. Harinder, younger brother of Bhoop Singh, was admittedly a young boy in search of a career. It has been stated by DW4 Munni Devi that Harinder was SACHIN MEHTA 2014.11.12 17:39 residing with her at Jaipur from 02.07.2008 as he was preparing for I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-908-DB of 2009 -18- competitive exam. At about 2/2.30 p.m. on 16.08.2008, they received information about the death of Sunita and on receipt of information, he along with his family and family of his brother Budh Ram and Harinder came to village Dongli. Munni Devi DW4 and her husband Satbir Singh DW6 have supported the plea of Om Parkash and Bhagwati that they had gone to Nangal Chaudhary to purchase household goods on 16.08.2008. Even if, the above evidence be discarded still the prosecution has not been able to place on file any evidence to prove the motive for Om Parkash, Bhagwati and Harinder to be a party with appellant Bhoop Singh to murder the deceased. We find no merits in the revision petition filed by the complainant.
As a sequel of our discussion above, we find no merits in the appeal filed by appellant Bhoop Singh as well as in the revision petition filed by complainant Sajjan Singh. The same are dismissed.
( RAJIVE BHALLA) ( SURINDER GUPTA )
JUDGE JUDGE
September 08, 2014.
Sachin M.
SACHIN MEHTA
2014.11.12 17:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh