ROMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal is raised an important question of law with regard to the applicability of the presumption arising in S.113-A of the Evidence Act to a crime which was committed prior to its insertion in the said Act. But before the point is examined in detail, the facts need be elaborated.

(2.) Romesh Kumar, resident of Batala, the sole appellant, was married to Parveen Kumari of Ajnala in the year 1981. As the prosecution case goes, they lived cordially for 2/3 months but then a consistent treatment of harassment and cruelty was meted out to her. Not only was the appellant accused of such misconduct but his father Sardari Lal, his mother Harbans Kaur and sister Subhash Kumari were said to be co-participants. About three months prior to the occurrence which took place on 9-5-1983, Parveen Kumari was administered a beating by the appellant and his co-participators for statedly the dowry brought by her bereft of a fridge, scooter and television set had dashed their expectations and in the meantime on the occasion of a son born to her, proper presents had not been made to her in-law's family. She sought shelter in her parental house at Ajnala but her brother Mahesh Pal P.W.1, accompanied by some members of the public, restored her back under the roof of her husband at Batala but then he had to pay for it. He gave Rs.5,000/- to the appellant promising him some more suggesting to him that he should use the money in his business and give up gambling and drinking. As is apparent from the case set up by both sides, the appellant runs a confectionery shop selling bread and butter etc. In the joint house at Batala, his brother Lajpat Rai and his family occupied the first floor. In one portion of the ground floor lived the appellant with his wife and in the other his parents and sister. All the three families had separate kitchens.

(3.) On 9-5-1983 at 10.10 A.M. Parveen Kumari was burnt to death. The burns were 100%. According to the complainant party, she was put to death but, according to the prosecution, she had committed suicide. The defence, on the other hand, suggested that she had died on account of the accidental bursting of the kerosene stove while she was heating milk for her infant child. A message was sent to her brother Mahesh Pal which he received sometimes in the evening. He reached Batala at 8 P.M. the same day accompanied by a few of his relatives. He made an application at 10 P.M. to the police for registration of the case. However, beforehand, Lajpat Rai, the brother of the appellant, reported to the police at 7.45 P.M. that the death was accidental.