Gursharan Kaur vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C. Seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 205 dated 15.8.2008 registered at Police Station Farakpur, under Sections 328, 302 & 34 IPC.

Case set out in the FIR is that the deceased was having strained relations with his wife Gursharan Kaur, petitioner. He had gone to visit his in-laws where his wife was staying. In the night, husband and wife stayed together and in the morning husband Dalvinder Singh was found dead. His viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner who has opined that cause of death is organophosphorous pesticide.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cast onus upon the petitioner to explain as to how a living man turned into corpus. The explanation given in the petition that deceased was a tobacco addict and used to consume other intoxicants, therefore, has died, cannot be accepted in view of organophosphorous pesticide found by the Chemical Examiner.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sanjay Mittal v. State of Haryana, 2002 (3) AI CLR 861 to state that organophosphorous being very pungent cannot be administered forcibly.

The deceased had died within the four walls of the house which was in the possession of petitioner.

It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989(1) RCR 18 that it is for the husband to explain as to how the wife had died and had invoked Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act.

It has been also held by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajinder Parshad v. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) RCR 64 (P&H) that in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence where father and son having strained relations, had slept in the same room, son having found dead by strangulation in the morning, it was for the father to show what happened in the night as it was fact especially in his knowledge. Therefore, father was held guilty of murder.

Case of petitioner is not different.

No merits.

Dismissed.