BIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents No. 2 to 6 had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'' for short) in FIR No. 686 dated 27.7.2012, registered at Police Station City Karnal. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Suman, daughter of the complainant, had got married to respondent No. 2 Jaibir about 10 years prior to the occurrence. Two children were born out of the said wedlock. Respondent No. 4 Parveen Kumar is the brother of respondent No. 2-Jaibir whereas respondent No. 6-Sumitra is the sister of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 6-Sumitra was married at Rohtak but was presently residing in her parental home as she was having some matrimonial litigation with her husband. Respondent No. 3-Dharam Singh deprived respondent No. 2-Jaibir of his share in the property and due to this reason, there remained a dispute in the family. On 26.7.2012, respondents No. 2 to 5 gave beatings to Suman and turned her out of the matrimonial home. As a result of this, Suman committed suicide by jumping in the canal.

(2.) After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against respondents No. 2 to 5. The Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 28.5.2013, ordered the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charges framed against them. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) The Trial Court, while ordering the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 5 held that it was proved on record that Suman had died on account of drowning. Prosecution examined PW-2 Subhash Chand, the alleged eye witness to the occurrence. The said witness deposed that on 26.7.2012, at about 1.00 P.M., he was going to Karnal on account of some work and he met his niece Suman crying on the bridge. On his enquiry, Suman told him that she had been given beatings by respondents No. 2 to 5 and had been thrown out of the matrimonial home. The said witness told Suman to return back home and assured her that he would talk to her in-laws. In the meantime, Suman jumped into the canal. Thereafter, the said witness informed the mother of Suman qua the incident. It has been noticed by the Trial Court that PW-2 had not deposed that the deceased had disclosed to him that respondent No. 3-Dharam Singh was not giving them share in the property and due to this reason, there used to be dispute in the family. Further, the witness deposed in his cross-examination that he was having a mobile phone. However, he did not inform the police or the parents of the deceased or her in-laws immediately on phone. Further, as per the witness, he had seen his niece at 1.00 P.M., while sitting on the bridge of the canal and had talked to her for about five minutes. However, the said witness made no effort to rescue the deceased. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly held that the behaviour of PW-2 was not natural. PW-2 was not a stranger to the deceased but was her uncle and in normal circumstances, it was expected that in case he was present at the spot, he would have made an effort to save the deceased or would have immediately informed the parents of the deceased or the police qua the occurrence. However, the statement of the said witness was recorded a day after the occurrence by the police. Complainant Bir Singh had appeared in the witness box as PW-1. It was noticed by the Trial Court that the said witness had admitted that his son-in-law along with the deceased were residing on the first floor of the house whereas the other accused were residing on the ground floor for the last 4-5 years. He also admitted that there was no litigation pending qua the property in any Court.