GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by thpetitionersagainst an order dated 6-11-1992 whereby the learned ASJ framed chargesagainst them under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.

(2.) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for thepetitioners as well as the State and have also gone through the record andcharges actually framed against the petitioners. The FIR is based on thestatement of Pardhan Singh Gullar, brother of the deceased Paramjit Kaur.He told the police that Paramjit Kaur was married to Ajit Singh on 28-2-92.DOLI was initially taken to Arnritsar. Thereafter she stayed at NangloiSayed. During her stay at Amritsar, the husband and in-laws used to abuseher and said many bad things about them. When she came to stay at Delhiwith her husband, then her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, BalwantSingh and brother-in-law Gurdeep Singh used to say that their demands befulfilled which were like giving money to set up a factory or money to construct a house along with furnishing. Time and again she used to be blamedand beaten up of which she made complaints to her mother Man Kaur.Whenever she came to their house, they always used to explain to her thatnow her house was the other one and she should try and live there somehow.15 days prior to the occurrence when her husband was not in Delhi, hermother-in-law and father-in-law beat her up and threw her out of the matrimonial home whereupon she came to her parental house at Lajpat Nagar.3-4 days thereafter when the husband Ajit Singh came to Delhi, he rangthem up saying that they should leave her to her in-laws and threatened thatthey and Paramjit should bow before them and apologize. The deceasedrefused saying that she had committed no sin. In spite of that when theymade her understand, she became ready to apologize. In this way longstory of torture of deceased Paramjit Kaur is given by the brother PardhanSingh. The mother has also corroborated that statement. She even mentions that her son had returned from Nangloi after leaving her on 10-9-1987and in the evening the husband Ajit Singh informed her son on telephone,MERI BETI PARAMJIT KAUR KA KAM PURA HO GAYA HAL

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Grover drew my attentionto statement of some other witnesses, according to whom, the deceased nevermade any complaint to them. From their statements, it is not possible tointer at this stage that there is no evidence against the petitioners on accountof which the charge under Sections 498A and 304B could not be framedagainst them. At this stage, the Court is only to see whether there is someevidence which implicates the petitioners and not that there is other evidencewhich expulpates them. This petition, therefore, has no merit and the sameis hereby dismisssed.