COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is taken up suo motu by this Court in pursuance of the directions of my learned brother Mr. Justice J.S. Sekhon, who was Inspecting Judge of Ludhiana District. During the course of inspection of the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, the learned Inspecting Judge perused the file of Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1992 and felt that the trial Court had not applied its mind to certain circumstances and, therefore, it was desirable that the High Court should suo motu take notice of the matter on its revisional side.

(2.) ONE Jaspal Singh was prosecuted for an offence under Sections 302/210/498-A of the Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 178 dated 19.9.1991. Wife of the accused, Smt. Ranjit Kaur alias Rani, was found dead on 15.9.1991 with injuries. On the basis of the report given by brother of the deceased, a case was registered against the accused in Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and the investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge then charged the accused under Sections 302/201/498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE State did not file any appeal against the order of acquittal. As already stated, the Revision Petition was taken on file suo motu by this Court in pursuance of the Inspection Note of Mr. Justice J.S. Sekhon. The Inspecting Judge in his note has observed that the date of marriage of the deceased with the accused was not determined by the Sessions Judge in order to hold whether the provisions of Section 113-B of Evidence Act would be attracted and the learned Sessions Judge had not applied his mind whether it was a dowry death although evidence of PW5 and PW7 reveals that the husband and wife used to quarrel over dowry.