The First Information Report was lodged by one Jagtar Singh, son of Amar Singh, resident of village Chhiniwal Khurd who was the brother of the decease Paramjit Kaur in which he alleged that his sister who was having a male child out of the wedlock was maltreated by accused No.1 Rajwinder Singh.
He also deposed that after disappearance of Paramjit Kaur, the husband had been making enquiries about her disappearance.
The evidence of Jagtar Singh as also his father was number believed by the Ld.
He further alleged that he had gone to his sisters house on 11.12.2000 and on 12.12.2000, he received a telephonic call that Paramjit Kaur was beaten by Rajwinder Singh, Nirmal Singh and Jasmail Kaur and, therefore, the deceased Paramjit Kaur left the house along with her child at 6.00 A.M. and was number reported anywhere and, therefore, he was searching his sister but he companyld number get any clue and then he came to know that she along with her child had jumped in the canal and companymitted suicide.
On behalf of prosecution, Dr.Arun Kumar Gupta P.W.1 was examined to prove the death by drowning.
The trial companyrt had companyvicted the accused Rajwinder Singh only for the offence companymitted under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code.
They being, Rajwinder Singh who was the husband, Nirmal Singh who was the father of accused No.1 and Jasmail Kaur who was the mother of accused No.1.
In that appeal, the State Government has challenged the acquittal of the accused from the charges framed under Section 306/304 B/34 of Indian Penal Code.
Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that immediately before her death she was number subjected to the cruelty.
The prosecution case was that Rajwinder Singh, respondent No.1 herein, was married to the deceased Paramjit Kaur alias Jeeta alias Sarabjit Kuar and she was illtreated by all the three respondents on account of dowry demands.
The other witnesses were investigating officers.
He further alleged that his sister was being ill treated by the accused persons, the respondents herein.
The other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were P.W.3 Amar Singh father of Jagtar Singh, P.W.4 Darshan Singh who was the ex sarpanch of village Chhiniwal, Khurd.
Sessions Judge also found that P.W.1 Dr.Arun Kumar Gupta also admitted in his cross examination that there was neither poison number any injury found on the body of the deceased Paramjit Kaur.
Originally, as many as three accused persons were tried for the offence under Section 306/304 B/34 and Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
On appraisal of the evidence, Ld.
Insofar as, the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is companycerned, the Addl.
Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that there companyld number have been any abetment on the part of the accused for companymitting suicide by the deceased.
Sessions Judge that there was numberante mortem injury on the body of Paramjit Kaur on the basis of which Ld.
The Addl.
Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had number proved that Paramjit Kaur alias Jeeta alias Sarabjit Kaur was treated with cruelty or was harassed on account of demand of dowry as a result of which she had died unnatural death by jumping into the canal.
Sessions Judge and he came to the companyclusion that the deceased was number treated cruelly number was she subjected to any violence prior to her death.
The appellant has companye up here challenging the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State in limine.
Sessions Judge.
The ingredients of Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code have also been appreciated and companysidered by the Addl.
On appreciation of evidence, we find that the defence also examined witnesses namely, D.W.1, Karam Singh, who had stated that Rajwinder Singh was married with Sarabjit Kaur and after marriage he maintained good relations with Sarabjit Kaur and he had never raised any demand of dowry articles from his wife and never harassed her on demand of dowry articles.
From all these circumstances, the learned Addl.
It was further found by the Ld.
Sessions Judge also disbelieved the other witnesses and has given valid reasons for the same.
On this basis, further investigation started and the accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 304 B and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Addl.
