- (1.)This petition has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 25.10.2010 vide which respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charges framed against him. It is necessary to mentioned here that vide the above judgment, a co-accused of respondent No.2, namely, Gursharan Kaur , was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order dated 27.10.2010. It was alleged against both the accused that they in conspiracy with each other, had committed murder of Dalwinder Singh, husband of Gursharan Kaur.
(2.)Heard.
(3.)The process of law was started on a statement made by Harcharanjit Singh PW-12 brother of the deceased, whereupon FIR No. 205 was registered against both the accused on 15.8.2008 in Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. In his complaint Ex.PO, Harcharanjit Singh PW-12 alleged "that his brother Dalwinder Singh was married to Gursharan kaur, daughter of Gurmukh Singh, the accused on 28.2.2008. On the first day of her marriage, Gursharan Kaur disclosed to Dalwinder Singh that she had relations with one boy prior to her marriage and as such she did not want to live with him. She hardly remained at the matrimonial home for about five months and during that period she visited her parental house for about 2/3 times. Gursharan Kaur, the accused had been staying at her parental house from 7 th July, 2008. Prior to that his parents invited the parents of Gursharan kaur in connection with matter of her relations with a boy and tried to make Gursharan Kaur understand. In the said meeting, Jagtar Singh (Maternal uncle), Devender Singh (neighbourer) and other family members were also present. On 6.8.2008 a relative of Gursharan Kaur namely Harpal Singh, resident of Vishnu Nagar, Yamuna Nagar telephoned deceased Dalwinder Singh and asked him that he should come to Yamuna Nagar and further instructed him to come alone and not bring anyone along with him. On 10.8.2008 Dalwinder Singh came to Yamuna Nagar at his in-laws house. Dalwinder Singh disclosed to his friend Devender Singh on telephone that Harpal Singh, uncle (Fu ar) of Gursharan Kaur asked him to meet the said boy with whom his wife had relations. It is further alleged that on 15.8.2008 at about 7.00 A.M. Satnam Singh, resident of Patti, a mediator in the marriage of Gursharan Kaur, and Balwinder Singh came to their house and disclosed that condition of Dalwinder Singh was very serious and had been taken to Hospital and asked them to go to Yamuna Nagar. Hearing the news complainant and his other family members reached at the house of Gursharan kaur and found Dalwinder Singh lying dead." So suspicion was raised by the complainant Harcharanjit Singh PW-12 that his brother Dalwinder Singh was killed by his wife by giving him some poisonous substance. After receipt of above complaint, investigation was started, Gursharan Kaur was taken into custody and on interrogation, she disclosed her relations with respondent No.2 stating that both had conspired to kill Dalwinder Singh by giving him poison. Gursharan Kaur also made an extra judicial confession before Inder Singh. After recording her statement, the Investigating Officer arrested respondent No.2 in this case. Post mortem on the dead body of Dalwinder Singh was conducted by Dr. Abhinav PW-1 on 16.8.2008. After receipt of Forensic Science Laboratory Report, it was opined that death was due to consumption of Malathion Poisoning (an organo phosphorous pesticide). In the meantime, Investigating Officer Inspector Randhir Singh PW-17 went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan Ex.PT with correct marginal notes and took into possession a bag of the deceased containing pouches of tobacco tablets. Mobile phone of the deceased was also taken into possession. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Copies of the documents were supplied to both the accused as per norms. The case was committed to the competent Court for adjudication. The accused were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 18 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case.