JUDGEMENT
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J. -
(1.)CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and the order of sentence dated 19.12.2002 whereby appellant Jagtar Singh was held guilty for the
offences punishable under Section 306, 498 -A and 201, IPC and ordered to
undergo the following sentences:
Sections Sentences (R.I.) Fine In default 306, IPC Five years Rs.2000/ - Two months 498 -A, IPC Two years Rs.2000/ - Two months 201, IPC Two years Rs.2000/ - Two months Before recording the facts of the case, it is deemed necessary to give relationship of the appellant and the witnesses. The marriage of Jagtar Singh (appellant) was solemnized with Anu Rani (deceased) about 8 to 9 years prior to her death, i.e. 31st August, 2000. Complainant Surinder Kaur (PW -3) is mother while Rimple (PW -4) is brother of Anu Rani (since deceased) whereas Gian Chand (PW -5) is the co -villager of Surinder Kuar (PW -3) and Rimple (PW -4). The brief facts of the case are that complainant Surinder Kaur @ Bholi (PW -3) suffered her statement (Ex.PC) before the then ASI Chaggar Singh (PW -6) on 31st August, 2000 at about 6:00 PM that 7/8 years back, marriage of Anu Rani (since deceased) was solemnized with Jagtar Singh (appellant). Out of the said wedlock, two sons were born. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry articles were given to Anu Rani. After a few days of the marriage, appellant Jagtar Singh started, demanding dowry and he often gave beatings to Anu Rani for the same. The family members of complainant Surinder Kaur advised the appellant not to harass and give beatings to Anu Rani, since the dowry articles within their reach were already given in the marriage. About 15 days before the date of occurrence, Surinder Kaur had given a washing machine to Anu Rani and still the appellant demanded more dowry including Rs.1,50,000/ - in cash. When the demands were not fulfilled, Anu Rani was turned out of the house after given beatings. On the date of occurrence, the complainant come to know that her daughter was admitted in a private hospital. She along with her family members went to the hospital but could not find her daughter. She even visited several other places to trace out her daughter but failed in her attempt. Ultimately she went to the village of the appellant and came to know that her daughter had been taken to cremation ground for last rites. After reaching the cremation ground, she saw that the body of her daughter was completely burnt and the fire was still there. She further alleged that she had suspicion that Jagtar Singh and his brother, Paramjit singh, had administered her poison and after finishing her life, they cremated her. She prayed for the legal action against Jagtar Singh and his brother, Paramjit Singh. On the basis of the said statement, FIR (Ex.PC/2) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 201, IPC, at Police Station, Kartarpur, District Jalandhar. The police took into possession the last remains (ashes and burnt bones) of Anu Rani from the cremation ground and sent the same for chemical analysis. During the course of investigation, Lashkar Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Kashmir Singh, Gurdev Kaur and Sukhjit Kaur were arrested for committing the offence punishable under Section 201, IPC, while the appellant and his brother Paramjit Singh were arrested for committing the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498 -A and 201, IPC.
(2.)AFTER completion of the investigation, charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before learned Area Judicial Magistrate. After supplying the copies of charge -sheet, as enshrined under Section
207, Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Court of Session since the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, was exclusively triable by the
latter Court.
Finding a prima facie case against the appellant and his brother Paramjit Singh, they were charge -sheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 498 -A and 201, IPC, while Lashkar Singh, Bakhshish Singh,
Kashmir Singh, Gurdev kaur and Sukhjit Kaur were charge -sheeted for the
offence punishable under Section 201, IPC, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
(3.)IN order to substantiate its allegation, the prosecution examined the following witnesses.
PW -1 Head Constable Tarlochan Singh. He had tendered in evidence his affidavit (Ex.PA). PW -2 Constable Mukhtiar Singh. He had also tendered in evidence his affidavit (Ex.PB). PW -3 Surinder Kaur. She is the complainant and mother of Anu Rani (since deceased) and she reiterated the version as she had narrated to the police vide her statement, Ex.PC. PW -4 Rimple. He is brother of Anu Rani (since deceased) and has fully supported the prosecution version. He had deposed in detail the sequence of events whereby the marriage of his sister was performed with appellant Jagtar Singh and thereafter how she was harassed and beaten by the appellant on account of demand of dowry. PW -5 Gian Chand. He is co -villager of Surinder Kaur (PW -3) and he also supported the deposition of PW -3 and PW -4. PW -6 Sub -Inspector Chaggar Singh. He is the Investigating Officer and has deposed in detail about the investigation conducted by him. PW -7 Vijay Hans. According to prosecution, the co -accused of the appellant, namely, Paramjit Singh, Lashkar Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Gurdev Kaur and Sukhjit Kaur had suffered extra -judicial confession before him (PW -7). He did not support the prosecution case and gave a clean chit to the accused persons. In the lengthy cross -examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor, nothing favourable to prosecution could be brought on record. PW -8 Dalip Singh, Draftsman. He had prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PE).