STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR ALIAS BILLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Saroj was married to the accused-respondent on 14/12/1985. During the night intervening 18th and 19/6/1986, she died. According to the prosecution case Om Prakash Public Witness -1 at about 5. 00 a. m. on 19/6/1986 was going to answer call of nature when he found the respondent along with two of his co-accused standing outside their house and talking rather nervously. He also noticed that dead body of Saroj was lying in front of their house. He went back to his house and informed his uncle Shiv Kumar, requesting him to guard the dead body and himself went to Satnali village to inform father of the deceased, Shri Luxmi Narain,public Witness -7. The father of deceased along with some other members of family came to the house of accused and found the dead body of Saroj lying in front of the house. Public Witness -7 Luxmi Narain went to the police station and made a written complaint Ext. PH, on the basis of which an entry was recorded in the daily diary. Inquest proceedings were held and dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Janak Raj Singhia, Public Witness -2. The respondent complained against the conducting of postmortem examination and unfairness of investigating agency to the higher authorities and demanded a second postmortem to be conducted by a board of doctors. That request was acceded to and a board of doctors headed by Dr. S. C. Aggarwal, Public Witness -3 conducted second postmortem examination.

(2.) After completion of investigation the respondent along with six other members of his family were sent up for trial for offences under Sections 302/34indain penal Code and 498-AIndain penal Code. The trial court on 30/7/1987 convicted the respondent for an Offence under Section 302indain penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to. pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 and in default to undergo six months further rigorous imprisonment. The respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 498-AIndain penal Code. All other co-accused of the respondent were acquitted of all the offences.

(3.) The respondent filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the High Court, which was allowed on 28/3/1989 and as a result the respondent was acquitted. By special leave the State has put in issue the order of acquittal of the respondent.