Crl. Revision No. 2387 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2387 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 18, 2010 Daljit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Rupinder Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. SS Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. GN Malik, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.5. GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision petition has been preferred by Daljit Kumar- petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 2.2.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which he acquitted Rupinder Kumar, Baljinder Kumar @ Babbu, Shubh Lata and Roshan Lal- respondents/accused of the offence under Section 306 IPC. The deceased Madhu, sister of the complainant, was married to Rupinder Kumar/accused on 17.10.2004 and they were having a female child. They had been living with the other accused in the same house. After some days of the marriage, the accused started torturing the deceased for having brought insufficient dowry and on that ground she used to be maltreated by them. A demand of Rs. 50,000/- was also made by the accused from her for purchasing articles for the shop. Her mother had Crl. Revision No. 2387 of 2009 2 agreed to meet the demand to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- On 19.7.2006, the complainant received a telephonic call from the side of the deceased, who, while weeping, told him that she was being maltreated by the accused. On 21.7.2006, he was informed on the telephone that Madhu had set herself on fire. On receipt of that message, he went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased lying there. On the same day, he made statement Ex. PA before Iqbal Singh ASI, who after making his endorsement Ex. PA/1, sent the same to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded against all the accused. The investigating Officer came to the spot and prepared the inquest report Ex. PD in respect of the dead body. One stove, one nip with kerosene in it, one half burnt mattress, one pillow and a burnt cot were found lying on the spot and those were taken into possession vide Ex. PB. The dead body was sent to the hospital, where post-mortem examination was performed. Ante- mortem burn injuries were found on the dead body, which were stated to be the cause of death. In the course of the investigation, the accused were arrested and after completion thereof, challan was presented before the court. The charge was framed against the accused under Section 306 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove their guilt, the prosecution examined Daljit Kumar/complainant (PW-1), Dr. S.S. Sandhu (PW-2), HC Ashok Kumar (PW-3), ASI Jaspal Singh (PW-4) and SI Garib Dass (PW-5). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in Crl. Revision No. 2387 of 2009 3 the prosecution evidence against them were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their innocence. It was stated by Rupinder Kumar that the deceased was not happy with the marriage and they had been living separately from the other accused. Before committing the suicide, she left behind a suicide note. He himself had given the information to the police regarding the death of the deceased. The accused were called upon to enter on their defence and they examined Hardip Singh (PW-3), Ram Sarup (DW-2) Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-3) and Shilpa Rani (DW-4). After hearing the Additional PP for the State, counsel for the accused and going thorough the evidence, so produced, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, vide aforesaid judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused, relied upon the suicide note, which was never proved by any trustworthy evidence. The possibility of that suicide note having been planted by the accused cannot be ruled out. It weighed with the trial Court that non examination of the relatives of the deceased was fatal to the prosecution case. Both the parents of the deceased were illiterate persons and could not have deposed about all the facts. The prosecution case was duly proved by the complainant and the trial court has committed illegality while not convicting the accused on the basis of that statement, though it stands proved on record that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the conviction of the accused can be based even on the solitary statement of a Crl. Revision No. 2387 of 2009 4 witness, provided the same is found to be trustworthy and reliable. The prosecution relied on the solitary statement of Daljit Singh (PW-1), so far as the abetment of suicide by the deceased is concerned. Though the counsel for the petitioner has tried to refer to the circumstantial evidence also, yet there is no such circumstance proved before the trial court on the basis of which the commission of the offence under Section 306 IPC can be inferred. He also tried to allege that the accused never made any effort to remove the deceased to the hospital after she received the burn injuries, which itself shows their a pathetic attitude towards the deceased and that they abetted the commission of suicide by her. As per the post-mortem report, only few minutes elapsed between the burn injuries and the death and, as such, non taking of the deceased to the hospital after she received the burn injuries, cannot be said to be a circumstance which may point out towards their guilt. So far as the abetting of commission of suicide is concerned, the complainant received a telephone from the side of the deceased on 19.6.2006. It was informed by her that she was being maltreated by the accused. It was never disclosed as to what type of maltreatment was being given and that the said mal treatment created such circumstances which compelled her to commit suicide. On the basis of the evidence produced before the trial court, correct findings were recorded by the trial court and there is no ground for recording finding to the contrary. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. August 18, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE