HANS RAJ & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal emanates from judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.8.2001, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_601_LAWS(P&H)9_2014_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that Manjit Kumari daughter of Om Parkash was married to accused Raj Kumar three years before the occurrence. Rani and her husband Hans Raj also resided with Raj Kumar in the same house in village Aladinpur. On 19.5.1994 complainant Om Parkash came to know that his daughter Manjit Kumari had suffered burn injuries and was admitted in a hospital at Jalandhar in serious condition. When he reached the hospital, he was told that a Magistrate had already recorded statement of his daughter and left. He met Manjit Kumari, who told him that on night of 18.5.1994 at about 9.00 P.M., Hans Raj tried to outrage her modesty in absence of her husband Raj Kumar. She resisted attempts to outrage her modesty. She also disclosed to her father that her in-laws had been taunting her for bringing less dowry. Complainant told the police that he had earlier visited village Aladinpur alongwith some respectable persons of his village. However, in-laws of Manjit Kumari kept on harassing her. On the date of incident he wanted his daughter to be re-examined by the Magistrate but her condition deteriorated, due to which statement could not be recorded. She died after some time.

(3.) Statement of complainant is on record as Ex.PW2/A. On the basis of this report, FIR was registered and investigation ensued. Police prepared an inquest report, rough site plan, recovery memo regarding articles recovered from the house and completed other formalities. It also got a postmortem report Ex.PA. After completing investigation police presented challan in the competent court. Case was thereafter committed to the court of Sessions at Jalandhar. Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 306, 354 & 511 IPC vide order dated 1.6.1995 against Hans Raj. Thereafter, additional accused namely, Raj Kumar and Rani were summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. Charges were also framed against them vide order dated 4.12.1996. Vide another order dated 11.8.2000, the court accepted application filed by prosecution for amendment of charge and accused were alternatively charged under section 304-B IPC. Prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused made statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. and also examined three witnesses in defence. Trial court, however, found the accused guilty and sentenced them as indicated in the opening para of this judgment.