BALBEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gruvinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Hemant Gajraj for the complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that according to Narayan Singh (PW-10) when the proceeding under Sec. 176 Crimial P.C. was carried out, Jogendra Singh (PW-3), father of the deceased, was very much present. Yet, Jogendra Singh did not allege any dowry demand being made by the appellant. In fact, in his cross - examination, Jogendra Singh (PW-3) has admitted the fact that he had the complaint prepared by a lawyer. Secondly, that in his complaint Jogendra Singh does not mention about a dowry demand being made soon before death. Even Amarjeet Singh (PW-4) does not make any mention about such a dowry demand being made in the statement recorded by the trial Court. It is only subsequently, when both these witnesses testified before the Court that they developed a story about a dowry demand being made two or three days prior to the death. Thus, it is an exaggeration amounting to contradiction. Hence, the element of "soon before death" is conspicuously missing in this case. Moreover, both Jogendra Singh (PW-3) and I.O. Sarita Singh (PW-9) have admitted to the fact that the appellant was having illicit relationship with the sister of the deceased i.e. with his Sali. Therefore, the possibility that the deceased may have been vexed over this issue and may have committed suicide cannot be ruled out. Hence, neither the offence under Sec. 498-A I.P.C., nor under Sec. 304-B I.P.C. is made out. Lastly, that the appellant has two small children and elderly parents to lookafter.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Gajraj has vehemently opposed the grant of bail.