MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 31/10/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby respondents No.2 and 3 had been acquitted of the charges under Sec. 306 of IPC in which both of them were prosecuted by the respondent-State. The appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant before this Court assailing the impugned order of acquittal dtd. 31/10/2013.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on the basis of statement of appellant/complainant, FIR No.222 dtd. 11/11/2009 was registered on the allegations that the appellant/complainant had two elder sisters who were married. His elder sister namely, Sukhwinder Kaur (since deceased) aged 21 years was married to Kulwinder Singh (respondent No.2) about eight months prior to the occurrence. However, soonafter the marriage, a dispute arose between his sister Sukhwinder Kaur and Kulwinder Singh on account of the alleged illicit relations of Kulwinder Singh with his sister-in-law, Hardeep Kaur i.e. co-accused/ respondent No.3. His sister could not tolerate the same and despite her best efforts, his brother-in-law Kulwinder Singh did not mend his ways. The situation kept worsening day-by-day. On the eve of Diwali, his sister came to Village Kulewal and after the festival of Diwali, his sister was sent back to her matrimonial home. On 31/10/2009, brother-in-law of his sister came to him and informed that his sister Sukhwinder Kaur left home in the morning and she was not traceable. They proceeded in search of his sister. Kulwinder Singh gave a telephonic call at 11:20 AM that he should reach at Bridge Neelon. On reaching the bridge canal, he met Kulwinder Singh and his sister Sukhwinder Kaur. Kulwinder Singh caught hold her, however, she being annoyed with Kulwinder Singh ran towards bridge canal after getting herself freed from Kulwinder Singh, she jumped into the canal. His brother-in-law Kulwinder Singh also jumped in the canal to save her but he could not trace her in the water. It was alleged that his sister had jumped into the canal being harassed by her husband Kulwinder Singh as he was having illicit relations with jethani (Hardeep Kaur) of his sister. He informed his relatives telephonically and in the meanwhile Kulwinder Singh ran away from the spot. Prayer was made to take the legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and on completion of the investigation, challan was presented against both the accused persons. Learned trial Court framed the charges and appreciated the evidence led by both the sides. On hearing the arguments raised by both the sides and appreciating the evidence produced, learned trial Court found the prosecution having been failed in proving the case against the respondents-accused and thus, acquitted them of the charges framed against them, vide impugned order dtd. 31/10/2013. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the appellant/complainant filed the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has miserably failed in appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution. He has submitted that on completion of the investigation, the allegations made in the FIR were duly substantiated and the challan was presented against both the accused. He has submitted that the prosecution examined five witnesses wherein Bagga Singh was examined as PW-1. He submits that appellant-Mohan Singh who was the eye-witness of the occurrence was examined by the prosecution as PW-3. He duly supported the case of the prosecution and his deposition could not be shattered by the defence during his crossexamination. He has submitted that Bagga Singh was examined as PW-1 who again supported the case of the prosecution. Besides this, ASI Jaswinder Singh was examined as PW-2 who proved the investigation conducted. He has further submitted that the accused was the husband of the deceased and during his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, he simply denied the case of the prosecution and gave no plausible explanation for death of his wife. He has submitted that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence produced in support of the fact that respondent-Kulwinder Singh had illicit relations with his sister-inlaw and it was on account of the same, his sister was instigated to commit suicide. He has submitted that respondent-Kulwinder Singh was the husband of the deceased and his illicit relations with Hardeep Kaur amounted to the abetment as enshrined under Sec. 107 IPC and thus, his sister was compelled to commit suicide. He has submitted that the trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution and the law settled and thus, the impugned order acquitting the accused is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the same deserves to be set aside by convicting both the accused for the charges they were prosecuted before the trial Court.