STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BRIJ MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon notice to explain as to why this appeal be not admitted for hearing, the counsel for the parties have been heard and the judgment of the trial Court gone through by us minutely.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in nutshell was that sister of the complainant Chaman Lal was married to the accused Brij Mohan some 12 years ago. Out of the said wedlock one son and one daughter were born. The accused was addicted to liquor and he used to pay most of his earnings to his mother Raj Dulari, who was living separately. The deceased also suspected that the accused was having illicit relations with his brother's wife. They were demanding dowry from her and on that account she was tortured and that was the reason she was done away with.

(3.) THERE is no proof available on the file to connect the accused with the commission of crime and in a routine manner the opinion of the doctor was sought by the police before such a statement was recorded. Rather the police got the statement of the deceased attested from the doctor after it was recorded. The police could normally apply to the doctor at the very outset to ascertain as to whether she was in a position to make a statement or not and if the opinion was in the negative, the police could again seek the opinion of the doctor enabling themselves to see whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a statement or not. This exercise has not been done by the police and the fact remains that the deceased was not burnt by the accused who was on the shop when she got burnt. In no manner we are influenced to take a different view than the trial court that the deceased was not put on fire by the accused. Rather it appears to be a case of suicidal death. There is no evidence on the file to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. The learned trial court after sifting and valuing the prosecution evidence came to a judicial belief and conclusion that the accused was not at all connected with the commission of the crime. We do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Hence, leave to appeal is not granted and simultaneously the appeal stands dismissed.