IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Crl. Rev. No. 478 of 2009
Date of Decision:- 3.3.2009
Sajjan Kumar Versus State of Haryana.
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it has
specifically been stated by Sukhbir Singh brother of the petitioner in his
statement on oath before the trial Court that he had received a telephone call
from Sunita deceased on the day she had died that her jeth and jethani were
harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. Learned counsel has
placed reliance on the statement of Sukhbir Singh, Annexure P-2. A perusal
of the said statement indicates that there appear to be certain improvements
which are apparent in cross-examination of the said witness indicating that
an attempt is being made to rope in all the family members.
Without expression of any opinion on merits, I am of the opinion
that trial Court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the application filed
under Section 319 Cr.P.C, keeping in view the principle laid down by the
Apex Court in Micheal Machado and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr, 2000(2) RCR 75.
No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed.
March 3, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge