MITHU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment/order dated 11.9.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, convicting the appellant Mithu Ram under section 304-B IPC. Mithu Ram was sentenced to undergo R.I for 7 years under section 304-B IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Paramjit Kaur was married with the appellant Mithu Ram. After the marriage, she resided with him for about six months. Thereafter Mithu Ram demanded Rs. 10,000/- from Paramjit Kaur for starting his own business, but she refused to pay. The appellant left Paramjit Kaur at her parents house at Bathinda. She resided there for about 4-5 months. Parkash Chand, father of Paramjit Kaur went to the house of Mithu Ram and requested him to rehabilitate his daughter Paramjit Kaur but Mithu Ram refused. Thereafter Paramjit Kaur filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Bathinda. The matter was compromised with the help of respectables. The appellant took Paramjit Kaur to his house with the assurance that he would not harass her in any manner. Paramjit Kaur lived happily for about 4/5 months with the appellant at Chhintanwala. Mithu Ram again started demanding money from Paramjit Kaur for the consideration of his house. Prakash Chand, father of Paramjit Kaur sent his wife Dwarki Devi who purchased the material for the construction of the house for Rs. 1200/-. It is further case of the prosecution that Daulat Ram alongwith another person came to the house of Parkash Chand and informed him that Paramjit Kaur had fallen from the roof and has received injuries and she was admitted at Nabha. Parkash Chand alongwith him wife Dwarki Devi came to Chhintanwala and reached at about 5 p.m. On their way from the railway station to Chhintanwala, they came to know from some passer-by that Paramjit Kaur had been cremated. On the next day, Parkash Chand alongwith his wife went to the Police Station to lodge the report, but the police did not lodged the report. He went to the police station for 2-3 days but police did not take any action. Then Parkash Chand went to the office of Deputy Commissioner Patiala alongwith some other persons and moved an application. He also sent complaints to various higher authorities. On 24.8.1987 he went to the police station and made statement on the basis of which FIR Exh. PE was lodged.

(3.) ON commitment, this case was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. From the perusal of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, a prima-facie case under section 304-B IPC was made out against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.