Court on its own motion vs Jaspal Singh

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

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.

One Jaspal Singh was prosecuted for an offence under Sections 302/210/498A 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 302/201/498A of the Indian Penal Code.

In order to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked certain documents. On consideration of the record, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

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 113B 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.

I have gone through the judgment and also the evidence on the record.

To attract Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code the death should have been caused otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of the marriage and it should also be shown that before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband. Therefore, the necessary ingredients to apply Sections 304B are :

(i) that the marriage should have been taken place within seven years prior to the death;

(ii) that there must be evidence that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment with any demand for dowry.

There is no specific evidence as to when the marriage took place. PW5 Dogar Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, stated that the marriage between his sister and the accused took place about 7 or 8 years back. He is not specific when the marriage took place. It is for the prosecution to prove that the marriage took place within seven years prior to the death of the deceased. There is no evidence as to the actual date of marriage. Further according to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, his marriage with the deceased took place about more than eight years prior to the death of his wife. Thus, the prosecution has not placed any specific evidence on the record as to the date of marriage between the deceased and the accused. Therefore, the first requirement of Section 304B was not satisfied.

Further, in order to attract the second requirement of Section 304B, it was necessary to prove that there was a demand for dowry before her death. PW 5 Dogar Singh, who is brother of the deceased, in his crossexamination has categorically admitted as follows :

"I had been visiting my sister earlier. I found their relations normal during those days".

This very statement of PW5 shows that the relations between the deceased and the accused were normal and that there was no demand for dowry prior to the death of the deceased. On a consideration of the evidence on the record, I have come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 304B of the Act are not attracted in the present case. Therefore, I am of the view that the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.