SHANTI Vs. INDU BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is delay of 18 days in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 18 days in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned.

(2.) The present application has been filed under Section 378 (4) and (5) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 19.11.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present application are that the applicant/complainant filed a private complaint on 1.2.2012 alleging therein that she was widow and was having three children i.e. two daugthers and one son. One daugther was married, whereas, the other was unmarried. Marriage of her son, namely, Ram Mehar was fixed with one Indu Bala (accused No.1) during lifetime of her husband-Hawa Singh, who died on 16.9.2010. After the death of her husband, mutation of inheritence was sanctioned in her favour and and in favour of her children. The marriage of her son was solemnized with accused No.1-Indu Bala on 25.3.2011. After the marriage, accused No.1-Indu Bala started to live separately as her behaviour was not good with the complainant and her children. After sometime, accused-Indu Bala started putting pressure upon the complainant to transfer the property in her name. For that purpose, she along with her husband came to the house of the complainant three/four times but complainant refused to do the same. On 14.10.2011, the accused -Indu Bala came to the house of the complainant along with her brother Jitender but he went after leaving her. On 17.10.2011, there was a quarrel between complainant and accused No.2 regarding land in dispute. In the night, accused-Indu Bala and her husband Ram Mehar went to their room for sleeping. Indu Bala gave poison in milk to her husband-Ram Mehar and he started crying. Complainant found her son injured and she got him admitted in the hospital. At the time of admission, the Doctor told the complainant that poison had been given to her son. Ultimately, at about 2.00 pm, the son of the complainant was declared dead.

(3.) After filing of the complaint, the complainant led preliminary evidence and accused were summoned under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC by learned Area Magistrate. After appearance of the accused, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 19.2.2015. Ultimately vide jdugment dated 7.3.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, accused-Indu Bala and Sukhbir were acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by aforesaid said judgment of acquittal dated 7.3.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, the present application for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal has been filed by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence as the complainant and other witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The statements of the witnesses finds corroboration with the medical evidence led in the shape of recording statement of Dr. R. Kumar (PW-2). Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly held that there was delay of about three and a half months in filing of the complaint, which was utilized by the complainant, whereas, the complainant was under depression as she lost her son and there was sufficient reason for not filing the complaint within reasonable time. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the judgment of acquittal dated 7.3.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Learned trial Court has acquitted the accused by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the accused had no role in causing death of deceased-Ram Mehar. There was no evidence of any conspiracy between the accused or any common intention to administer poison to deceased-Ram Mehar and no offence under Sections 302/34 IPC or Section 306/34 IPC was made out against the accused. The accused were acquitted of the charges by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.