Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1572 (PNJ)

Jasbir Singh son of Chamela Ram v. Devender Kumar

2013-11-28

Fateh Deep Singh, Hemant Gupta

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Fateh Deep Singh, J.:- A case against Devender Kumar, his mother Karmo Devi and father Baldev Singh was got registered at Police Station Shahabad for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC on the complaint of complainant Jasbir Singh, who happens to be the father of deceased Anita. 2. The brief and precise allegations are that the marriage was solemnized between Anita and Devender Kumar on 6th February, 2010 in which an amount of Rs. 9 lacs was spent. But inspite of the same, accused were not happy over it. It is alleged that in-laws had demanded an Alto car, to which the family of the girl had shown inability. The allegations harbour on the fact that the girl was harassed and humiliated on several occasions and that when the girl was in advanced stage of delivery on 14th November, 2010 she was given beatings about which one Sultan Singh, driver telephonically informed the complainant father of the deceased girl during the intervening night of 14-15 November, 2010 that Anita has died. The father claims that on 15th November, 2010 when he went to the house of the girl, her dead body had already stood cremated. 3. After investigations and collection of evidence, on presentation of challan, during the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and proved documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. 4. Accused denied the allegations in the stand taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and examined two defence witnesses and proved a document Ex.DA. The Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra through judgment dated 28th May, 2013 acquitted the accused. The complainant Jasbir Singh has laid challenge to these findings through the instant appeal. 5. Going through the arguments of Mr. B.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the accused Devender Kumar and deceased Anita Devi took place on 10th February, 2010 and that the lady had died an unnatural death on 14th November, 2010 within the seven years of the marriage. It is also not refuted that at the time of death she was at the advanced stage of pregnancy. It is quite strange as has come on the record that at about 12.00 during the intervening night of 14-15 November, 2010 the father had received information regarding the death of his daughter. It is also not refuted that at the time of death she was at the advanced stage of pregnancy. It is quite strange as has come on the record that at about 12.00 during the intervening night of 14-15 November, 2010 the father had received information regarding the death of his daughter. It is the own stand of the complainant that when he arrived next day cremation has already taken place. It is by no means questionable that the village Surakhpur where the complainant resides and village Dera- Machhrouli, where the death has occurred fall within same very Police Station of Shahabad within a distance of few kilometres. In this era of facilities rather casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations of the father. He could have easily informed the police telephonically or his relations and even could have reached the place within a short time. The admission of Jasbir Singh, complainant in his statement that when they reached Shahabad, Ram Kumar PW4 maternal uncle of deceased-Anita had reached village Machharauli and telephonically informed that Anita had been brought there for cremation and in his presence she was cremated shows that all was not well with the prosecution. To further add to it DW1 Sultan Singh and DW2 who is mediator of this marriage negated these allegations. 6. The inordinate delay between the occurrence and the registration of FIR which was on 23rd November, 2010 is reflective that an embellished account has been put forth belatedly for a motivated cause and purpose. 7. The most important evidence has come through PW5 Dr. Ravinder Nath, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Shahabad, who has testified that on 14th November at about 11.45 p.m. while he was on duty the dead body of Anita was brought to the hospital by accused and he had pronounced her death and it was in the presence of doctor accused Baldev Singh telephonically informed parents of Anita Devi. He has also proved the entry in this regard as Ex.P3. To lend credence to this PW8 Dr. Neeraj Kumar Gaur, Gaur Nursing Home, Ladwa Road, Shahabad has also testified that when he examined Anita she was already dead and he advised to rush her to Civil Hospital Shahabad. He has also proved the entry in this regard as Ex.P3. To lend credence to this PW8 Dr. Neeraj Kumar Gaur, Gaur Nursing Home, Ladwa Road, Shahabad has also testified that when he examined Anita she was already dead and he advised to rush her to Civil Hospital Shahabad. Furthermore, it is the own case of the prosecution that has come through PW9 Ram Lal, Compounder, who had after initial aid advised to take the lady to a hospital. Thus, from this, it is clearly established beyond any doubt that it was not that the accused had kept this death as a secret and has cremated the dead body on the sly and which fact is duly corroborated by the defence witnesses consisting of DW1 Sultan Singh and DW2 Khem Raj. 8. The very query of the Court, had there been suspicious circumstance leading to this death, the two doctors and a compounder who had seen her would in all eventuality would have complained to the police. There is no worthwhile evidence to show as to any injury on her person or that any unnatural circumstances were visible leading to her death. The conduct of the complainant and the family of the deceased does not inspire any confidence and appears to be highly unplausible. Learned counsel for the appellant could not bring to the notice of the Court any worthwhile evidence to show as to the beatings given by the accused side and demand of Alto car. There is no specific role attributed to any of the accused and these are only sweeping allegations, general in nature, highly vague and ambiguous, bereft of finer details as to the date, time and place when such demands were raised and in whose presence the same took place. 9. Thus, from all this, a doubt is created in the mind of the Court as to the genuineness of these allegations. We do not find any illegality in the findings of the trial Court and the same needs to be upheld. We, therefore, decline the prayer to grant leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C and consequently, dismiss the appeal. ---------0.B.S.0------------