JIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution case is as under:-

(2.) The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses in all, the primary ones being PW'-I Dr. Anil Dhawan of Civil Hospital, Dasuya, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Surinder Kaur, aged about 45 years, and had found no external injury on it but on the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner, opined that she had died of poisoning; P.W.-4 Dr. Navin Dogra of Swami Premanand Hospital, Mukerian, who stated that Surinder Kaur had been brought to the hospital by the daughter and son at 6.30 P.M. on June 3, 1999 and that she had died at about 11.00 P.M. and that the dying declaration, which was the basis of the F.I.R. had been recorded after he had declared her fit to make a statement; P.W.-6 Rulda Singh, Surinder Kaur's brother, who stated that his sister had been married to Darshan Singh about 30 years earlier and that after her marriage, Jit Kaur had started misbehaving with her and that on receiving information that she had been poisoned, he had gone to the hospital where Surinder Kaur had, before her death, told him about what had transpired; P.W.-7 Jasbir Singh, another brother of Surinder Kaur, who corroborated the version given by Rulda Singh and finally P.W.-8 A.S.I. Rani Nath, the main Investigating Officer, who deposed to the circumstances leading to be recording of the dying declaration as also to the various steps taken during the court of the investigation.

(3.) The prosecution case was then put to the accused and her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She denied the allegations levelled against her and further stated that Surinder Kaur herself had consumed poison despite the efforts of her children to stop her from doing so. She also examined three witnesses, namely. Gurdip Kaur (DW-1), Simarjit Kaur (DW-2) and Darshan Singh (DW-3) in defence. Gurdip Kaur (DW-1) stated that her mother had committed suicide after a quarrel with the accused and that no poison had been forcibly administered to her. Simarjit Kaur (DW- 2), a resident of the village, deposed that no dying declaration had been made by the deceased as alleged by the prosecution. Likewise, Darshan Singh (DW-3), Surinder Kaur's husband, stated that on receiving information about the incident, he had gone to the hospital at Mukerian at about 7.00 P.M. and had found that Surinder Kaur was not in a position to make any statement and as a matter of fact, the whole story had been initiated at the instance of Rulda Singh (P.W.-6) as there was some misunderstanding between him and Rulda Singh. The trial Court, however, held that the dying declaration recorded by A.S.I. Ram Nath (P.W.-8) at about 8.30 P.M. had been correctly and validly recorded and could be relied upon. In this connection. the Court highlighted that though Surinder Kaur was in a critical condition yet from the evidence of Dr. Navin Dogra (P.W.-4), it was clear that she had been fit to make a statement. The capacity of the deceased to make a statement was also taken from the evidence of Rulda Singh (P.W.-6) and Jasbir Singh (P.W.-7), the brothers of the deceased, who had stated that when they had reached the hospital, she had told them that she had been administered poison by the accused. The trial Court repelled the evidence of the defence witnesses as being unworthy of credence and having held as above, convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo impersonment for life.