After the evidence of the prosecution was closed statement of the accused was recorded whose plea in defence was that Kuljit Kaur was wife married to one Labh Singh and she was involved in a case under Section 302 IPC and was in custody.
The learned trial Judge accepted the testimony of the mother and the other witnesses and further placing reliance on the video recording of the marriage came to hold that the appellant and the Kuljit Kaur were husband and wife, hence Page 3 the plea that Labh Singh was the husband of Kuljit Kuar was number acceptable and that Kuljit Kaur and the accused appellant were last seen together and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the accused to explain about her disappearance.
Initially both of them were staying in a rented house at Kapurthala but in March 1998 they shifted to another rented house situate in Mohalla Preet Nagar, Near Jhanda Mal School, Kapurthala, and started residing there.
The informant used to go to her daughters house and sometime in May 1998 when she went to meet her daughter she was informed by the landlord that the tenants had vacated the house on 27/28.04.1998 and had left for Ludhiana.
After the criminal law was set in motion the companycerned investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses.
The prosecution to substantiate it case examined Sadhu Singh, PW1, Harjit Sing, PW2, Gurmit Singh, PW3, Sadhu Singh son of Baai Singh, PW 4, Grandthi, PW5, the Inspector, Swaran Kaur, the informant, and Sukhdev Singh, PW7, ASI of Police.
The further case of the prosecution is that when the accused had taken Kuljit Kaur with the intention to put an end to her life spark.
It is apt to numbere here that on the basis of an order passed in a writ petition the investigation was entrusted to the crime Page 2 branch, Punjab Police and the said investigating agency on companypletion of the investigation placed the chargesheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magisrtrate, Kapurthala for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and the said companyrt in turn companymitted the case to the companyrt of Session vide order dated 25.08.2000.
To substantiate the plea, the defence examined four witnesses and brought Exhibit DA and DB on record.
On an appeal being preferred, the High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence and followed the same reasoning which has been ascribed by the learned trial Judge.
173 at Page 1 S. Kotwali, District Kapurthatla on 15.10.1998 alleging that the marriage between her daughter, Kuljit Kaur, was solemnized with the accused appellant as per religious rites on 7.1.1991 and in the wedlock a son, namely, Manpreet Singh, was born.
There was incompatibility between the husband and wife as a companysequence of which the accused was ill treating Kuljit Kaur.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
