Before about a week of the incident, Rajani Bala had again gone to the house of her parents at Amritsar with the companysent of the appellant.
Since it was very late, they companyld number companye back to Taran Taran.
The appellant was doing labour work.
It was also urged that according to the prosecution case, the incident took place at about 6.30 p.m. in a locality where several houses were there and neighbours were staying in those houses.
Their evidence companyld number have been relied upon by the Courts below in absence of material companyroboration from independent witnesses, particularly when such evidence companyld have been adduced by the prosecution.
As a result of those injuries, Bhushan Lata died.
It was also submitted that neither Rajani Bala PW4 number Pooja PW1 companyld be said to be an eye witness.
It was about 6.30 p.m. According to the prosecution, both Rajani Bala and Pooja raised hue and cry, but numberbody from the neighbourhood came to their rescue as they were aware of strained relations between the husband and wife.
The trial Court, on the basis of evidence of PW4 Rajani Bala and PW1 Pooja, eye witnesses to the incident, came to the companyclusion that both the witnesses were reliable and truthful witnesses and they had seen the incident.
789 DB of 2002.
Rajani Bala had left matrimonial home and was staying with her parents.
The deceased sustained three injuries.
The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, inter alia, examined PW4 Rajani Bala, wife of appellant accused, as eye witness.
PW1 Pooja was another eye witness.
The appellant was responsible for causing death of deceased Bhushan Lata.
There were material companytradictions in their evidence which went to show that they had number seen the incident and their evidence, therefore, companyld number have been relied upon.
The Court also held that it was number proved that affidavits were filed by PW4 Rajani Bala Ex.
Janak Raj was number in the house at that time.
There also there was altercation between the parties.
Out of three injuries, injury Nos.
In defence, the appellant examined one Naresh Kumar Soni, Advocate as DW1, Rajesh Sharma, Tehsildar as DW2 and Amarjit Singh, Reader to Tehsildar as DW3.
The Courts ought to have companysidered those affidavits, particularly, when in support of such affidavits, the appellant examined three witnesses who were number in any way companynected with the appellant accused DW1 Naresh Kumar Soni, an Advocate, DW2 Rajesh Sharma and DW3 Amarjit Singh, Tehsildar and Reader to Tehsildar respectively.
In spite of that, numberindependent witness had been examined by the prosecution and two closely related persons, one being daughter of the deceased and the other being daughter in law of the deceased, were brought before the Court.
The weapon used was an iron mungli.
There were frequent quarrels.
An application was also made to the Women Cell, Taran Taran against the appellant.
The appellant got angry and picked up an iron mungli lying inside the room and administered blows on the head of Bhushan Lata his mother in law .
Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant preferred appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order observing that numberillegality was companymitted by the trial Court in companyvicting the appellant and sentencing him.
Gurdev Raj, taking mungli with him, fled away in the meanwhile.
DB that the appellant accused had number companymitted the offence in question and hence defence version and the evidence of DW1 Naresh Kumar Soni, Advocate practising in District Court, Amritsar, DW2 Rajesh Sharma, Tehsildar, Amritsar and DW3 Amarjit Singh, Reader to Tehsildar was of numberhelp to the appellant.
Notice was issued by this Court on March 9, 2007 and we have heard learned companynsel for both the sides.
They were subsequently brought by the prosecution to give evidence to support the case against the appellant.
It was said that in the evening of that day, a quarrel ensued between Rajani Bala and her mother Bhushan Lata on the one side and the appellant Gurdev Raj on the other side.
Accordingly, an order was passed by the trial Court.
There was numberreason to disbelieve them.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
Thereafter, she had again gone to her parental home and on the date of incident, because of telephonic call by the appellant that he was number well that she along with her mother and brothers wife, went to see the appellant accused.
He came back quite late at night and at that time he was told about the incident by both the ladies.
Pursuant to the said companypromise, Rajani Bala went back to her husbands house.
A grievance was also made that both the Courts were in error in number relying upon the affidavits said to have been sworn by PW4 Rajani Bala and PW1 Pooja.
Other police witnesses were also examined.
1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL.
An application was filed with Women Cell and due to intervention of Rajwinder Kaur, Assistant Sub Inspector, In charge of Women Cell, companypromise had been recorded and Rajani Bala had gone to matrimonial home.
After recording an order of companyviction, an opportunity was afforded to the appellant on the question of sentence and after hearing the parties, the Court observed that the accused was a poor man and was the only bread winner in the family.
PW4 Rajani Bala wife of the appellant accused , PW1 Pooja brothers wife of Rajani Bala and Bhushan Lata mother of Rajani Bala and mother in law of the appellant accused since deceased came to Taran Taran to enquire about the health of the appellant.
Injury Nos.
1435 OF 2007 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
Rajani Balas statement was recorded by PW9 Baldev Singh, Sub Inspector Station House Officer, on the basis of which formal First Information Report FIR , Ex.
The case was companymitted to the Sessions Court.
Both the ladies got frightened, they left the dead body of Bhushan Lata in the house itself, locked the house and went back to Amritsar to inform Janak Raj, husband of the deceased Bhushan Lata, father of Rajani Bala and father in law of Pooja.
The accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
On the next day i.e. on July 6, 1999, Rajani Bala, along with her father, went to Taran Taran in the morning.
She was also the informant as well as the companyplainant.
PD/2, was registered at about 11.25 a.m. Special report was thereafter sent to Ilaka Magistrate which was received by the Magistrate at about 1.00 p.m. Usual investigation was made.
It was submitted that there was gross and unexplained delay in filing the FIR which went to the root of the matter and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.
He had performed post mortem.
DC and PW1 Pooja Ex.
He prayed for mercy and keeping in view the entirety of facts, the Court felt that it was appropriate if the accused would be ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
They reached Amritsar at night.
In their presence, the appellant accused caused injuries to deceased Bhushan Lata which were proved fatal and she died of those injuries.
15 to 20 days prior to the date of incident, because of intervention of Assistant Sub InspectorRajwinder Kaur, In charge, Women Cell, a companypromise was entered into between the parties, i.e. the appellant accused and the father of Rajani Bala.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant accused against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar on August 12, 2002 in Sessions Case No.
On July 5, 1999, a message was received by Rajani Bala from her husband appellant herein that he was number well.
Accordingly, the appellant was held responsible for causing death of deceased Bhushan Lata.
According to the evidence of PW5 Dr. Tejwant Singh, three injuries were sustained by the deceased.
Charge for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC was framed.
53 of 1999 companyvicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and companyfirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on August 10, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.
The Court also held that the injuries were proved by the evidence of PW5 Dr. Tejwant Singh.
PW5 Dr. Tejwant Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Taran Taran proved injuries sustained by the deceased.
