A.S.NEHRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.2.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which the respondents have been acquitted under Section 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that Mst. Jailo, who was married to Bhola Singh, died within two months from the marriage on the intervening night of 26/27.9.1987 by taking insecticide (cypermethrin) in consequence of consistent demand of dowry by the respondents. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined Jit Singh PW -1, Dr. Rajinder Kumar Garg, PW2, Kartar Singh son of Mithu Singh, PW -3, Jagir Singh, PW -4, Kartar Singh son of Bhajan Singh, PW -5, Karnail Singh, PW6 and S.I. Lacchman Singh PW -7 in support of its case. Affidavits Exs.PF, PG, PH of AMHC Makhan Singh, C. Joginder Singh, C. Raghbir Singh respectively as well as reports of the Chemical Examiner Exs. PC and PM were tendered into evidence.
(3.) AFTER the prosecution closed its evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein they denied the correctness of the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. They maintained that the deceased ended her life on account of the fact that her husband was not of her liking. In defence the accused examined Mst. Surjit Kaur, DW -1 and Babu Ram, DW -2. Jit Singh, PW -1., who is the father of the deceased and author of the First Information Report as well, deposed on oath that at the time of marriage Labh Singh, Bhola and Niranjan Singh had demanded Kara of gold for accused Bhola Singh, but he could not provide the same resulting into annoyance on their part and that all the accused including Gurdev Kaur had been demanding tape recorder and cash of Rs. 5,000/ - thereafter. Neither of the said facts which undoubtedly are the only material facts finds mention in so many words in the First Information Report Ex.PA. The admitted fact that there was a gap of five years between the betrothal and the marriage and there was no demand of dowry during this gap of five years, shows that there was no demand of dowry as alleged by Jit Singh, PW -1. Jit Singh, PW1, stated that four days prior to the occurrence he had gone to the house of in - laws of his daughter along with her as Bhola Singh had not come to take her back, but before he left for his return journey deceased told him that all the accused had been demanding from her tape recorder and cash of Rs. 5,000/ - on which he had told her that he was not in a position to meet the demand at that time, therefore, she should live there as such. It does not appeal that the deceased would tell about the demand only after her father had taken her to her in -laws house and not while she was at her parents house. The deceased could not tell about the demand of dowry in the presence of her mother -in -law Gurdev Kaur, who must be present in the house. Jit Singh, PW -1, is not a truthful witness. He stated that when he reached the Police Station he, asked the officials present there to record his statement, but he was told that senior officials had gone to Khiala in connection with some murder case, that his statement would be recorded only after the senior officials come back from Khiala. On this aspect of the case he was contradicted by A.S.I. Lachhman Singh, who after perusal of the Roznamcha stated that he had been present at the Police Station right since 9.00 a.m. till the arrival of the complainant at 2.45 p.m. It appears that Jit Singh, PW -1, made an abortive attempt to explain the delay in lodging the First Information Report. He has stated that he did not state before the police in Ex.PA that Gurdev Kaur was present in the house and it was she who had told him and others that the deceased had taken poison, but when con - fronted this fact was found mentioned in portion B to B of Ex.PA. Statement of Jit Singh, PW1, does not inspire confidence. Kartar Singh son of Nathu Singh stated that he had attended the marriage of the deceased and that at the time of Anand Karaj, Bhola Singh and Niranjan Singh demanded golden kara from Jit Singh and that the accused were raising raula that they were not being given golden Kara and hence they were annoyed. He further stated that he and Jangir Singh pacified them and told them that they would arrange for their demand of golden Kara later on. This witness has stated in his cross - examination that he did not know if his statement was recorded by the police. He has also stated that by had accompanied Jit Singh, PW -1, Maghar Singh, Kartar Singh etc. to the Police Station where Jit Singh got recorded the report, but his evidence on this point is contradictory with the statement of At Singh, PW -1, who has stated that he had gone to the Police Station alone. This witness stated that he did not state before the police that about one month prior he had gone to village Kaurwala where Jit Singh, PW -1, had met him and told him that everything was O.K. He was confronted with his statement Ex.DA where the said fact was found mentioned though with qualifying words "Par Gusse Rehande Han." Even otherwise the story produced by this witness about his pacifying said persons does not commensurate with the version given by. Jit Singh, PW. Therefore, the statement of this witness is to be discarded.;