RAJ KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARDEEP Kaur consumed Aluminium Phosphide, a pesticide, in her matrimonial home and died on 18th June, 2000 at about 5.00 p.m. in the area of village Bathoikalan. Hardeep Kaur was married with Didar Singh son of the Appellant two years and ten months before the date of occurrence. For the death of Hardeep Kaur, the present Appellant, along with her husband Mohinder Singh, son Didar Singh and three daughters namely, Sarabjit Kaur, Paramjit Kaur and Nirmal Kaur, was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala in a case FIR No. 468 dated 19.06.2000 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala under Section 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act').

(2.) THE trial Court, vide its judgment dated 3rd October, 2002, acquitted all the co -accused of the Appellant including husband of the deceased, but held the Appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Act. Vide a separate order of even date, the trial Court sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 4 of the Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) MR . Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has submitted that the prosecution evidence could not be dissected and once the co -accused of the Appellant have been acquitted, the Appellant cannot be convicted by the trial Court on the same evidence. He has further submitted that the trial Court has convicted the Appellant on the assumption that all mothers -in -law are normally responsible for the unnatural death of their daughters -in -law. Learned Counsel has stated that such a presumption is not permissible in law.