HARDEEP KAUR Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal lays challenge to judgment dated 24.05.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby Manjit Kaur -respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 IPC, charged against her.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case are that on 10.05.2011, on receipt of a telephonic information that Gurpreet Singh son of Krishan Singh has been admitted in Civil Hospital, Malerkotla on account of having consumed some poisonous medicine, HC Amrik Singh reached the Civil Hospital, Malerkotla and sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured. The doctor informed the police that the victim has been referred to Rajinder Hospital. Later, information was received that Gurpreet Singh has died on 11.05.2011, Hardeep Kaur wife of Gurpreet Singh got recorded her statement on the allegations that she was married to Gurpreet Singh on 14.10.2003 and has two daughters out of her wedlock. Six months after her marriage, her mother -in -law started harassing her. She used to pass remarks that 'she (complainant) had not brought adequate dowry.' Her husband's younger brother Sukhjit Singh alias Gaggu and her father -in -law Krishan Singh had already died before her marriage. Her mother -in -law used to quarrel with her and for that reason, she had gone to her parental place on several occasions, but was brought back to the matrimonial home after compromise with the intervention of respectables of the village. Her mother -in -law used to harass her husband and says 'why he was keeping his wife and he should get rid of her.' Gurpreet Singh had lot of love and affection for his daughters. On 10.05.2011, at about 4.00 pm, Gurpreet Singh feeling fed up with his mother, consumed some poisonous medicine and uttered 'he being fed up with the behaviour of his mother was ending his life.'

(3.) AFTER evidence of the prosecution was closed, statement of the accused was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, she denied all the incriminating circumstances put to her and pleaded her innocence and false implication. She raised the plea that her son had love and affection for her and the deceased and her (accused's) daughter executed a power of attorney in her favour. There was a dispute between her son and his wife. She examined Mohammad Shakeel (DW1), Visakha Singh(DW2), Saudagar Ali, Registration Clerk (DW3) and Sandeep Kaur (DW4), in her defence evidence.