JUDGMENT
Virender Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment
of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda dated September 17,
1992, vide which Joginder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh
respondent stands acquitted of the charge under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing
the murder of his wife Chhinder Kaur on October 18,
1990.
2. Brief diary of the prosecution case is that
Chhinder Kaur deceased, daughter of Gurbachan Singh
(PW-2) was married to Joginder Singh respondent three
years prior to her death. No child was born out of the
wed-lock. Joginder. Singh had allegedly started
maltreating and beating her as he was not satisfied
with the dowry given at the time of marriage and also
because she did not bear a child. She was turned out
or her matrimonial home and started living with her
father. However, due to the intervention of the
Panchayat, she again started living with the
respondent.
3. Gurdip Singh (PW3), brother of Chhinder Kaur
had allegedly gone to the house of the respondent a day
prior to Diwali (i.e. on 17-10-1990) alongwith
certain Diwali gifts and had stayed at the house of the
respondent overnight. The respondent and Chhinder Kaur
had some altercation before going to bed. In the
morning Gurdip Singh heard cries of his sister, went to
the place where she was sleeping and saw that the
respondent was siting on the chest of his sister and
was strangulating her with a string. He allegedly made
an attempt to intervene but was pushed by the
respondent. The respondent filed away from the spot.
Gurdip Singh made an attempt to save his sister but she
was already dead. Gurdip Singh then went to Talwandi
Sabo, which is at a distance of 16-17 miles from the
place of occurrence and informed his father.
Thereafter they came to Bhatinda at the house of the
respondent, saw the dead body and then went to the
concerned police station and lodged the First
Information Report against the respondent.
4. Originally, the case was registered under
Section 304-B IPC but the challan against the
respondent was presented under Section 302 IPC. He was
charged under Section 302 IPC and on a consideration of
the entire evidence, the learned trial Judge acquitted
him of the charge. Hence this appeal by the State of
Punjab.
5. We have heard Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of Punjab and Mr.
A.P.S. Deol, learned counsel for the respondent. With
the assistance of both the learned counsel, the
evidence recorded by the trial Court and the other
relevant documents have been perused by us minutely.
6. Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General
has vehemently argued that the case of the prosecution
is proved to the hill and that the acquittal of the
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302
IPC is bad. Advancing his arguments, Mr. Gill submitted
that there is no reason to disbelieve Gurdip Singh
(PW3), the real brother of the deceased, who had
witnessed the respondent sitting on her chest and
strangulating it with a string. Simultaneously, it has
also been argued by Mr. Gill that in case the
prosecution story is not believed for the purpose of
bringing home the guilt to the respondent within the
four corners of Section 302 IPC, he should have been
convicted under Section 304-B IPC on the basis of the
cogent evidence on the file which shows that Chhinder
Kaur was being harassed and maltreated on account of
bringing less dowry and that she had died an unnatural
death at the house of the respondent within seven years
of her marriage. Mr. Gill thus prays that acquittal of
the respondent is bad and he may be convicted under
Section 304-B IPC if not under Section 302 IPC.
7. On the other hand, APS Deol, learned counsel
for the respondent has strenuously argued that the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish that it
was a case of strangulation in any manner to prove the
charge under Section 302 IPC against the respondent.
According to Mr. Deol, the statement of Gurdip Singh
(PW-3) is most unreliable on the face of it and
possibly he had not witnessed the respondent killing
his sister, as alleged. Advancing his arguments on
this count, Mr. Deol has submitted that the medical
evidence on the record is also not corroborating the
version given by Gurdip Singh (PW-3) because according
to his statement two turns around the neck wee made by
the respondent with the string and that the sides were
then pulled, whereas according to Dr. Charanjit Garg,
the Autopsy Surgeon (PW-1), he found only one reddish
brownish groove above the thyroid cartilage on the
right side of the neck and a similar groove on the left
side of the neck at the level of angle of mandible. As
such, according to Mr. Deol, the learned trial Court has
rightly disbelieved the prosecution story on this
count. He has further submitted that the evidence of
Dr. Charanjit Garg (PW-1) is enough to uproot the
prosecution story in its totality because the statement
of this witness makes it crystal clear that Chhinder
Kaur died because of asphyxia on account of hanging and
not because of strangulation.
8. To meet the second submission of learned
counsel for the appellant, Mr. Deol has submitted that
there is no cogent evidence worth the name adduced by
the prosecution to prove any specific demand of dowry
within three years of marriage. In this context, Mr.
Deol has taken us through the statement of Gurbachan
Singh (PW-2), the father and Gurdip Singh (PW-3), the
brother of the deceased, in which they have not stated
even a word about any specific demand of dowry from the
side of the respondent. Mr. Deol at the same time has
read out the statement of Sohan Singh son of Kartar
Singh (PW-5), who is read brother of the deceased’s
mother (Mama) and has stated in his cross-examination
that he had not mentioned anything regarding the demand
of dowry in his statement before the police and that he
had only told the police about the strained relations
between the deceased and the respondent. He, in fact,
is a common relative of both the sides and had brought
about the marriage between the deceased and the
respondent (as Bachola). Mr. Deol, picking up the
thread from this evidence, has submitted that in fact
Chhinder Kaur was not bearing a child for a continuous
period of three years after her marriage and that she
used to get aborted after the conception, which brought
a lot of depression on her and consequently she
committed suicide by hanging herself and as such, there
is no inherent infirmity in the appreciation of
evidence by the trial Court for acquitting the
respondent of the charge framed against him and that
the present appeal merits dismissal.
9. Since it is an appeal against acquittal, we
are alive to the proposition laid down by the Apex
Court that the Appellate Court should not interfere in
an appeal against acquittal as long as the view taken
by the trial Court is most unreasonable and perverse.
Although the Appellate Court is fully competent to
re-appreciate the materials on record and in coming to
its conclusion, at the same time, it is also expected
from the Appellate Court to bear in mind the reasons
advanced by the trial Court while acquitting the
accused. No doubt, the acquittals shake the confidence
of the people in the system but much worse is the
wrongful conviction of an innocent person.
10. We have minutely scanned the entire evidence
on record and are of the view that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case against the
respondent on any count. Gurdip Singh (PW-3), the
so-called eye witness of the occurrence has rendered
himself most unreliable. If his evidence is
appreciated in the light of the medical evidence, it
leaves no room of doubt that he was not present on the
night a day prior to Diwali at the house of the
respondent. The charge under Section 302 IPC is, thus,
not proved to the hilt.
11. So far as the second contention of Mr. Gill
regarding involvement of the respondent in the offence
under Section 304-B IPC is concerned (though no charge
framed by the trial Court on this count), after
minutely scanning the statement of the two star
witnesses, viz. Gurbachan Singh (PW-2) and Gurdip
Singh (PW-3), we are of the considered view that they
are of no help to the prosecution. These two
witnesses, being father and brother of the deceased, do
not talk of even a word about any specific demand from
the side of the respondent during the period of three
years of the marriage of Chhinder Kaur. There is a
general allegation of demand for dowry, which in the
circumstances of the present case, cannot be given any
weightage. Rather the case of the prosecution as
projected by these two witnesses is that Chhinder Kaur
was being maltreated on account of the fact that she
was unable to bear a child. It rather strengthens the
defence of the respondent. The prosecution has not
been able to prove even the basic ingredients of
Section 304-B IPC.
12. There is no compelling and substantial
reason for this Court to come to a conclusion different
from the trial Court in this case and we are of the
view that the impugned judgment of learned Sessions
Judge recording acquittal of the appellant is
indicative of the cogent reasons based on proper
appreciation of the entire evidence.
13. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
