STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ANANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Punjab has filed this appeal challenging order of Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dated January 20, 1983, acquitting Anant Ram accused of charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) ANANT Ram accused married Smt. Veena on July 19, 1979. Out of the wedlock a male child was born. On April 4, 1982 Smt. Veena got burn injuries and on removal, to the hospital she died. Her condition was not fit to make statement and thus police could not record the same. After post mortem was conducted on the dead body, it was cremated in the presence of her father Ram Dittu. Subsequently Ram Dittu moved a complaint dated April 8, 1982 to Hon'ble the Prime Minister which was ultimately forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District and the case was registered on July 1, 1982. During investigation of the case statements of the father and brother of the deceased and some other witnesses were recorded which indicated mal-treatment of Smt. Veena by her husband Anant Rem, the accused, during the married life. Anant Ram accused was charged and tried for committing offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) SHRI S.K. Sharma, DAG appearing on behalf of the State, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Report 279 : AIR 1990 Supreme Court 209, has argued that initially a presumption should be drawn that Smt. Veena committed suicide on account of maltreatment meted out to her under section 113A of the Evidence Act, as amended. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above wherein it was held that the amended section 113A of the Evidence Act would have retrospective effect and would be applicable to the pending cases. However, we are of the opinion that the ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in hand-Section 113A of the Evidence Act was amended by Act No. 46 of 1983 which came into force on December, 25, 1983. The Sessions trial in the present case was concluded by judgment on January 20, 1983 i.e. much prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act. There was thus no question of taking into consideration the - amending provision by the Court while trying the accused. In case the trial was pending and the amendment had been made in the procedural law the trial Court was bound to take into consideration the amended provision as laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh's case (supra). However in appeal with the aid of the amended provision (Section 113A of the Evidence Act) no presumption can be drawn as is contended by the DAG that the deceased committed suicide on account of demand of dowry or maltreatment within short span of time from the marriage.