SUCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 31 dated 12.3.2010 under Sections 304 -B/498 -A/120 -B IPC, Police Station Julkan District Patiala.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that Petitioner is a retired Naik from the Army and is having half killa of agricultural land. He has further argued that husband of the deceased is earning his livelihood from the half killa of land owned by the Petitioner, therefore, there is no question of demand of car. He has further argued that father of the deceased is also a small farmer and is not in a position to give car as alleged in the FIR. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while placing on record photostat copy of statement of Sukha Singh complainant/father of the deceased, has vehemently argued that Sukha Singh has stated on oath that marriage was solemnized on 9.12.2004 and Gurpreet Kaur deceased was blessed with two sons. He has further stated on oath that earlier mother -in -law and father -in -law of the deceased kept deceased with love and affection and did not raise any demand of dowry. Learned Counsel has pointed out that Sukha Singh complainant has stated on oath that demand of car was made for the first time only one year prior to the death, which itself seems to be improbable. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner while taking me to the definition of 'Dowry' in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act states that dowry must be fixed and demanded on or before the marriage to be paid either before the marriage or at the time of marriage or thereafter anytime. Since no demand of dowry was made as defined under the definition of dowry, therefore, it is not a case of dowry death. He has further stated that Gurpreet Kaur deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison and deceased and her husband were living separately although in the same house.