STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has felt aggrieved at the acquittal of the respondent by the High Court on appeal being preferred to it by him against the judgment of the Sessions Judge by which he was found guilty, along with two others, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 498-A. Though the High Court had acquitted all the three convicts, notice was issued by this Court only against the respondent.

(2.) Shri K. C. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has contended that the case against the respondent stands established by the judicial confession as well as the extra-judicial confession deposed by PWs 2, 4 and 5. The prosecution case also stands corrborated, according to the learned counsel, by the injuries which were found on the person of the deceased. It has been urged that a charge was framed under Section 304-B, and as the death of Vidya was within seven years of her marriage and the same having nexus with demand for dowry, it has to be presumed, in view of what has been stated in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, that the respondent had caused dowry death.

(3.) Shri H. S. Rai, Senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has first submitted that the trial Court having not convicted the respondents under Section 304-B and there having been no appeal by the State against this acquittal even to the High Court, the case of the respondent qua commission of offence under this section is not open to be examined. On our stating, during the course of hearing of the appeal, that we would be justified in doing so inasmuch as there having been a charge under this section, the respondent was put to notice as regards this offence also. Shri Raj addressed us on the merits of the case under this section as well. We heard him on the merit of the acquittal too as ordered by the High Court.