GURMUKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURMUKH Singh son of Jagir Singh, resident of Dera Lahorian, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, has been convicted for offences under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 7/6/1988 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and three years under the respective offences, by Shri B.L. Gulati, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred by the husband of the deceased.Briefly, the story of the prosecution is that Beer Kaur daughter of Sukka Singh was married to GURMUKH Singh son of Jagir Singh three years prior to the occurrence. Beer Kaur was fed up with the alleged demands of her husband GURMUKH Singh regarding more money and share in the land and she put ail end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her along with the two infant sons. It has also been alleged that a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 or Rs. 6,000.00 and two buffaloes as well were made available, but. GURMUKH Singh wanted a share in the agricultural and. The complainant father informed the police, as mentioned in the First Information Report Exhibit PF/1, that the dead body of Beer Kaur was lying at the premises of the accused and that two infants were lying dead in the civil Hospital, Shahabad. It was recorded at 5.00 P.M. on 10/12/1987 by Shri Dharam Singh, Head Constable, who had reached the Civil Hospital, Shahadad. The only important witnesses in this case are Sukha Singh, father of the deceased (P.W.3) and Tej Kaur, the mother (P.W.4). Sukha Singh is aged 70 years and is a cultivator of village Darsi, Tehsil Thanesar of District Kurukshetra. It has come in evidence that this Sukha Singh was sometime back an accused in a couple of cases under the Excise. Act Once he was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months as admitted by him in the evidence and aforesaid conviction was recorded in the year 1986. He has, however, denied that even now some cases under the Excise Act, such as for distilling of illicit liquor were pending against him. He has himself plainly admitted that he was never financially sound. He has at the most been a small land owner and it was not natural that the accused expected or demanded dowry. The complainant father has also admitted that accused GURMUKH Singh was separated from his own parents scarcely six months after the marriage. He has also admitted that recently on 19th April, 1988, about four weeks prior to his examination in the trial court, he has received a sum of Rs. 21,000.00 and three buffaloes and other articles from Jagir Singh, father of the accused.

(2.) IT is also an admitted fact that a couple of days prior to this occurrence, the marriage of two cousins of the accused was fixed in the village. The accused probably expected that let the wife be deputed to bring and arrange some more meat and liquor for merry-making, and quite probable that Beer Kaur, the wife, took hasty step of putting an end not only to her own life but also to that of two infants. IT was not an occasion for demand for dowry or the complainant father was capable of meeting any demand. In this case, the complainant had a male issue as welt and the contention that the accused has a desire that his wife should get her share in the land of her father transferred or mutated, is not convincing part of the story.P.W.5, Naranjan Singh, gold-smith of Shahabad, has deposed that on an earlier occasion, Beer Kaur, the wife, had a quarrel with her husband Gurmukh Singh and this witness who was expected to support and corroborate the version regarding the alleged demand of dowry, has not supported the complainant in the trial court on material points. A few relevant lines from his statement are reproduced as under: The father of the accused and also the parents of the deceased were in the hospital IT is in correct that after the marriage, accused had been pressing the deceased to gel her share of land entered in his name....I did not state that Beer Kaur had committed suicide along with her two children as she was tired of her husband, who demanded more and more dowry and land...IT is incorrect to suggest that I have been won over by the accused for making the false statement. Thus, it is a case where the evidence of the parents of the deceased has been found weak and that of P.W.5 - Niranjan Singh also goes against the complainant or say in other words, the prosecution. The conclusion is that it cannot be said that the case against the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and conviction is hereby set aside, and the accused-appellant is hereby acquitted.