KANWALJIT SINGH ALIAS PAPPU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2001, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, he was held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 306 IPC. However, other co -accused namely Surinder Kaur, Amarpal Kaur, Manpreet Kaur and Amarjit Kaur were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR was registered on the basis of application filed by Gurpreet Singh to the SSP, Patiala. As per version of the complainant, his sister Gurbax Kaur was married with Kanwajit Singh on 28.01.1990 and her name was changed to Inderpreet Kaur. It is the case of the prosecution that sufficient dowry was given as per demand of the accused. A few days after the marriage, sister of the complainant came to Phagwara and told the complainant that her husband and his father, mother, sisters are greedy persons and used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Sister of the complainant was beaten and was kept without meals and all this was disclosed to the complainant. Accused demanded colour television and complainant and his father gave Rs.11,000/ -. Two other sisters of the complainant were married in Patiala with Harvinder Singh and Satinder Singh and his sister used to tell them about demands made by the accused as well as the beatings given to her. In March, 1992, accused harassed his sister and demanded Rs. 1 lac to expand the business and at that time Rs. 60,000/ - was paid to Kanwaljit Singh. At that time, accused told them to arrange Rs. 40,000/ -. On 24.04.1997, sister of the complainant telephoned her brother -in -law and the same was attended by his sister Rajni and it was told to her that she was beaten up and was not allowed to come out of the house and asked her to telephone at Phagwara. On the same day, some poisonous substance was administered to sister of the complainant and no relative was informed and after her death, brother -in -law of complainant informed them on telephone about the incident and complainant along with his parents came to Patiala. Sister of the complainant had injury marks on her neck, arms as well as hair were pulled, which showed that she has been killed after administering some poisonous substance. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accusedappellant and other co -accused.

(3.) IN support of its case, prosecution examined PW -1 Gurbhajan Singh, who is father of the deceased. He deposed as per prosecution version. PW -2 Dr.Deepak Walia mainly deposed regarding conducting of post -mortem examination on the dead body of Inderpreet Kaur on 25.04.1997. As per doctor, no mark of external injury was present. After receiving report of Chemical Examiner, he gave opinion that cause of death in this case was the result of poisoning by aluminium phosphide. PW -3 Gurpreet Singh, is the brother of the deceased and complainant. He deposed as per prosecution version. PW -4 Parminder Kaur, is the mother of the deceased. She also deposed as per prosecution version. PW -5 DSP (D) Bhupinder Jit Singh Virk, who conducted enquiry on the basis of complaint dated 29.05.1997 filed by PW -3 Gurpreet Singh and he proved his report Ex.PE . PW -6 Narinder Singh mainly deposed that on 24.04.1997, he had gone to the house of his sister. When he passed in front of house of Kanwaljit Singh, he heard noise as if someone was being beaten. Someone was crying and raising shrieks. It was noon time at about 1.30 P.M. He told this fact to his sister, who cautioned him not to interfere as that was the routine and internal matter of the accused. PW -7 Kulwinder Kaur, is sister of PW -6 Narinder Singh. She also supported the statement of PW -6. PW -8 Inspector Sat Pal Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding recording of FIR and preparation of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.