Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 839 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Brij Bhushan

2007-04-16

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment 1. The State has preferred this appeal against acquittal of the respondents of the charge under section 304-B read with section 34 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution is that Smt. Seema, deceased was married to Brij Bhushan, accused, one and a half years prior to her death, which took place on 14.2.1993. A daughter was born out of the marriage about six months prior to death of the deceased. Ram Parkash PW3 lodged FIR Ex. PE/2 before SI Sewa Ram pw7, alleging that the deceased was harassed for dowry soon before her death and death was in circumstances other than normal. In March 1992, the deceased went to her parents house and told them that the accused was demanding Rs.20,000/-. Ram Parkash gave the amount to her in the presence of his daughter Suman. In august 1992, Seema again went to her parents house and demanded Rs.20,000/- for satisfying the demand of the accused. This amount was also paid by her father. In December 1992, the accused demanded further amount and the deceased went to her father who was unable to pay the amount. On 14.2.1993, Ram parkash received a telephonic message from his son-in-law Ashok kumar that Seema, deceased was serious and was in hospital. He went to Malhotra Hospital at Phagwara and came to know that she had been referred to CMC, Ludhiana. He then went to CMC, ludhiana and found that Seema had died and her dead body was taken back to Phagwara. He then lodged the FIR on the same day. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased by dr. Karnail Singh PW1 on 15.2.1993. He found that the death was due to crenio cereberal injuries due to fracture of the base of skull etc. and the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After registering the fir, SI Sewa Ram PW7 conducted part of the investigation and pw8 Gurmej Singh conducted rest of the investigation. After investigation, challan was filed by Som Raj, SHO. 3. The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Karnail Singh, pw2 Ram Parkash, PW3 Tribhuwan, PW4 Tulsi Ram, Draftsman, pw5 Ashwani Kumar, PW6 Tejpal, PW7 SI Sewa Ram, PW8 gurmej Singh and PW9 Ram Lal MHC. 4. After investigation, challan was filed by Som Raj, SHO. 3. The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Karnail Singh, pw2 Ram Parkash, PW3 Tribhuwan, PW4 Tulsi Ram, Draftsman, pw5 Ashwani Kumar, PW6 Tejpal, PW7 SI Sewa Ram, PW8 gurmej Singh and PW9 Ram Lal MHC. 4. 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 accused. It was observed that evidence of Ram Parkash, father of the deceased, PW2 and tribhuwan, brother of the deceased, PW3 did not inspire confidence. There were contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the said witnesses. In the initial version, Ram Parkash pw2 did not state before the police that after 2/3 months of marriage, Seema had told him about harassment for dowry. There were several improvements in his testimony and the testimony of pw3 Tribhuwan. Version of Ram Parkash PW2 that amount was paid by him to Seema after taking from his son, was not corroborated by PW3 Tribuwan. It was also observed that death was not shown to be in circumstances other than normal and the version of the defence that death was on account of accidental fall of the deceased, on account of which she received injuries in the head, was a probable version. Even though, death of Seema soon after her marriage is unfortunate and there may be two views possible about the demand of dowry or about the cause of death, the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, based on appreciation of evidence. We are unable to hold that the view taken by the trial court is perverse. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:- "21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji sahabrao Bobade V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1973 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 cri LJ 1783) ). If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji sahabrao Bobade V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1973 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 cri LJ 1783) ). The principle was elucidated in ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: 1996 AIR SCW 2438: AIR 1996 SC 2035 (1996 Cri LJ 2867): "while sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. " In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.