State of Punjab and Etc. Vs. Raghbir Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - after four months of the marriage, harbans singh expired, thereafter, she was re-married with raghbir singh accused (younger brother of harbans singh). kulwant kaur, mother of the accused, was not happy with this marriage. they were informed that the accused were not happy with her marriage and they were alleging that bhupinder kaur was not doing any domestic work and that she be taken to her parental house. as her mother was step mother, she refused to take her in their house and when bhupinder kaur came back from her parental house, she was not well. 7. in defence, the accused examined sardara singh (dw1), kartar singh (dw2) and harinder singh (dw3). 8. while observing that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. pd/2 that the accused were not happy that bhupinder kaur was not working in the house, is not sufficient to hold that the accused were guilty of cruelty. as a matter of fact, apprehending that the prosecution may not succeed over the story as set up by it in the fir, the prosecution witnesses made fervent unsuccessful endeavour to improve the original version to introduce the allegations of demand of dowry with a view to bring the prosecution case within four corners of presumption provided under section 113-a and 113-b of indian penal code so that the accused could be convicted under section 304b of the code.a.n. jindal, j.1. this judgment disposes of criminal appeal no. 155-dba of 1997 filed by the state of punjab and criminal revision no. 743 of 1996 filed by the petitioner complainant balbir singh, having been arisen out of the judgment dated ibs' 1996 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, ropar, whereby the accused respondents raghbir singh and kulwant kaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') were acquitted of the charges under sections 306/304b/34 ipc.2. the factual matrix of the case is that, balbir singh a resident of village ghanauli, police station kuraloi, has three daughters. bhupinder kaur (since deceased) eldest daughter was from his first wife. on 12-5-1991, he had married his daughter with harbans singh son of ujanagar singh. after four months of the marriage, harbans singh expired, thereafter, she was re-married with raghbir singh accused (younger brother of harbans singh). kulwant kaur, mother of the accused, was not happy with this marriage. raghbir singh accused was also not willing to keep her as his wife. balbir singh and his brother-in-law swaran singh son of nikka ram visited bhupinder kaur twice or thrice. they were informed that the accused were not happy with her marriage and they were alleging that bhupinder kaur was not doing any domestic work and that she be taken to her parental house. on 26-6-1992, nirmal singh son of karan singh, resident of village kakron, who was employed at ropar informed surjit kaur wife of the complainant at village ghanauli that bhupinder kaur had fallen ill and is admitted in pgi. on receiving this information, they went to pgi but she had expired by that time. they came to know that bhupinder kaur had died by consuming some poisonous substance and that the accused had been maltreating her.3. on the aforesaid statement ex. pd of balbir singh complainant before si joga singh, fir ex. pd/2 was registered by amhc manjit singh. then si joga singh went to the pgi and prepared inquest report ex. pe. on 28-6-1992, dr. m.p. singh, medical officer, general hospital, sector 16, chandigarh conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of bhupinder kaur and he found that there was no mark external injury on her body. on receipt of the report of the chemical examination, it was detected that there was aluminum phosphide pesticide in the contents of stomach, small intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and blood. on completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court.4. finding a prima facie case, both the accused were charged under sections 306/ 304b read with section 34 ipc, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.5. in order to secure conviction of the accused, the prosecution examined dr. m. p. singh (pw1), balbir singh (pw2), santosh singh (pw3), swaran singh (pw4), si joga singh (pw5), surjit kaur (pw6) and sudesh kumar (pw7).6. when examined under section 313 cr. p.c. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in this case. accused raghbir singh further explained as under:the case is false. we are innocent. after the death of my brother harbans singh, bhupinder kaur went to her parental house. as her mother was step mother, she refused to take her in their house and when bhupinder kaur came back from her parental house, she was not well. on our asking she did not disclose anything. when we came to know that she took some poisonous substance due to the conduct of her step mother we took bhupinder kaur to pgi, chandigarh to save her life. she was not married with me. after the marriage of bhupinder kaur with my brother they both were living at bombay and only after the death of my brother she came to our village only two months before her death. we never demanded any dowry. we never maltreated her. we have been falsely implicated in this case.7. in defence, the accused examined sardara singh (dw1), kartar singh (dw2) and harinder singh (dw3).8. while observing that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. hence, this appeal.9. we have heard mr. u.s. dhaliwal, learned deputy advocate general, punjab for the appellant, mr. baljinder singh, learned counsel for the respondents and scanned the records of this case with their able assistance.10. though, balbir singh complainant while appearing in the witness box as pw-2 made a version that the accused were demanding gold kara, motor cycle and a sum of rs. 20,000/- in cash, and he had no capacity to meet the said demand, yet at the time when he got recorded the fir before the police on 27-6-1992, did not disclose such facts but stated only that whenever he visited her daughter's house, the accused disclosed only that his daughter was not doing any domestic work, but he had told them to persuade her by treating her in polite manner. the witness was contradicted with his earlier version, but he had nothing to say for making the aforesaid improved statement. santosh singh (pw3) did not support the prosecution case. swaran singh (pw4) and surjit kaur (pw5) also admitted that they did not record about the demand of dowry by the accused in their earlier statements. now the improvements in the case made by the witness over their earlier version, when they appeared in the witness box rightly led the trial court to disbelieve them. as regards the cruelty, there was no evidence worth the name to establish that bhupinder kaur (deceased) was in any way maltreated by the accused and she committed suicide under pressure. there is also no evidence that the accused ever abetted commission of suicide by bhupinder kaur. the mere fact, as mentioned in the fir ex. pd/2 that the accused were not happy that bhupinder kaur was not working in the house, is not sufficient to hold that the accused were guilty of cruelty. as a matter of fact, apprehending that the prosecution may not succeed over the story as set up by it in the fir, the prosecution witnesses made fervent unsuccessful endeavour to improve the original version to introduce the allegations of demand of dowry with a view to bring the prosecution case within four corners of presumption provided under section 113-a and 113-b of indian penal code so that the accused could be convicted under section 304b of the code. but, they could not succeed in their efforts.11. having scrutinized the trial court judgment, we are of the view that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective and no such illegality or perversity has been pointed out or indicated warranting our interference in the impugned judgment.12. resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.13. consequently, the criminal revision no. 743 of 1996 preferred by the petitioner complainant balbir singh is also dismissed.