STATE Vs. PARAMJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has filed the present leave to appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 07.06.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, arising out of an FIR lodged u/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC (Subsequently charge u/s. 302 IPC was added). The acquittal of the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased by the learned trial court has led to the filing of the present leave to appeal. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, is that a call was received at Police Station, Rohini on 18.03.2008 at 8:06 pm stating "meri ladki ko sasural walon ne maar diya hai" which was reduced into writing vide DD no. 42A. Thereafter, DD no. 42A was handed over to SI Krishan Kant who along with Ct. Narender Kumar went to the place of incident i.e. F-25/144, Sector-3, Rohini. Navpreet Kaur (deceased) was declared brought dead in Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital. SI Krishan Kant informed Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate as the deceased had died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances. Statement of the father of the deceased (PW-1) was recorded on the basis of which an FIR bearing no. 160/08 u/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered. Subsequently, based on the post mortem report Ex. PW-1/A, that mentioned the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck produced by strangulation, an alternate charge u/s. 302/34 IPC was framed against the Respondents.

(2.) In order to bring home the guilt of the Respondents, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses.

(3.) Learned counsel for State, Ms. Rajdipa Behura submits that the trial court has erred in ignoring the vital pieces of evidence that have emerged during the course of trial. Counsel further submits that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it is based on presumptions, conjectures and surmises.