RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the prosecution is that accused Rameshwar Dass was married to deceased Sushma Rani on 11.3.1986 i.e. two and a half year prior to the date of the incident, which took place on 5.6.1988. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the deceased and on her failure to do so, used to insult and beat her. She complained to her father about 15 days prior to the date of the incident. On 4.6.1988, Sat Pal, PW-1 brother of the deceased, visited the house of his sister and on the next day, he alongwith his brother-in-law Raj Kumar, PW-2 visited the house of the accused and found the accused quarrelling with the deceased on demand of Rs. 40,000/-. At 9.00 A.M. Sat Pal and Raj Kumar went away and when the returned 3/4 hours later, they found the house locked from outside and they came to know that Sushma deceased had consumed something and had been taken away to the hospital. On reaching the hospital, they came to know that she had died. FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Sat Pal and after investigation, the accused was arrested on 12.6.1988 and was sent up for trial.

(2.) SHRI Balbir Singh, PW-3 stated that the deceased was brought in the emergency ward with the history of intake of poison and he had sent message Ex. PC to the SHO regarding the death of Sushma. Dr. S.K. Gupta, PW-4 conducted the post mortem on 6.6.1988 at 9.00 A.M. and according to him, the cause of death was aluminium phosphide poison. PW-6 Anup Krishan, Branch Manager of State Bank of Patiala stated that a demand draft for Rs. 25,000/- was issued in favour of Des Raj (father of the deceased) payable at Mansa. PW-7 G.S. Mann, Manager of State Bank of Patiala, GNDTP Bathinda deposed that the above draft was encashed by this branch and a draft for Rs. 5000/- was encashed by Rameshwar Dass.

(3.) THE trial Court held that the prosecution case was proved. The trial Court relied on Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) rejecting the version of the accused that it would bve a case of suicide and also the evidence of the defence witness DW-1 Joginder Singh Bedi.