Criminal Appeal No. 350-SB of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 350-SB of 2000 Date of decision : 6.8.2008 Surinder Kumar .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. G.A.S. Mann, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. B.S.Sra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. S. D. ANAND, J. The present is a peculiar case in which the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge draws sustenance from the testimony of none else or other than (PW-1 Sunita Kumari, PW-2 Rakesh Kumar and PW-5 Hero) own children of appellant Surinder Kumar. The prosecution presentation is otherwise also supported by the testimony of Bhag Singh PW-3, who is real brother of deceased. The prosecution allegation, as upheld at the trial, is that deceased (Paramjit Kaur wife of appellant) committed suicide as she was fed up with the day-to-day belabouring and bickering on the matrimonial front because the appellant would, every now and then, demand money for purchasing liquor and drugs and would belabour Criminal Appeal No. 350-SB of 2000 -2- her when she would plead inability to meet the demand. Even on 17.5.1999 i.e. the date of impugned occurrence, PW-1 Sunita Kumari witnessed an altercation between her parents. The alteraction lasted about one hour. It was immediately thereafter that Paramjit Kaur consumed poison and died. The medical segment confirmed death by poison, PW-1 Sunita Kumari, PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, PW-3 Bhag Singh and PW-5 Hero are daughter, son, brother-in-law (wife's brother) and son respectively of appellant Surinder Kumar. PW-4 ASI Bakhtawar Singh had investigated this Case. PW-6 Dr. Ashok Chanan had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur and opined, on the basis of Chemical Examiner report (Ex. PG), that “the cause of death in this case was aluminum phosphide leading to asphysxia which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature”. The appellant pleaded innocence and averred false implication in the case. The further plea, in the course of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is that PWs have deposed falsely under threat by his brother-in-law (wife's brother). DW-1 Lakhbir Singh is husband of PW-1 Sunita and daughter of DW-2 Wazir Singh is married to a son of the appellant. Both of them entered the witness box to depose that they never witnessed any quarrel between the appellant and his deceased wife. DW-1 did otherwise state that the appellant used to consume liquor off and on. DW-2 Wazir Singh had no idea about whether the appellant used to consume liquor or not. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant Criminal Appeal No. 350-SB of 2000 -3- as Amicus Curiae, argues that the appellant was framed in this case on account of the uneasy relationship between him and PW-3 Bhag Singh. In support of advocated plea, learned counsel invited my attention to a similar averment made in the course of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. I do not buy the argument. The reasons therefor are as under:- The present is a peculiar case in which all children of the appellant entered the witness box to nail him. While undertaking adjudicatory exercise, the Court would like to prefer relying upon the testimony of such like witnesses particularly when there is noting on record to prove that there is nothing on record to prove that there was anything mala-fide on their part which could have actuated them to depose falsely against their own father. PW-1 Sunita Kumari, PW-2 Rakesh Kumar and PW-5 Hero, who was adjudged by the learned Trial Judge as competent child witnesses gave a graphic version of the manner in which appellant used to belabour the deceased on account of latter's incapacity/disinclination to provide funds to the former for the purchase of liquor/drugs. The trio stood test of cross-examination very well in spite of the fact that they were subjected to a fairly lengthy cross-examination. I find nothing unnatural in their testimony. The defence plea that PWs have deposed under threat by their maternal uncle PW-3 Bhag Singh is unsubstantiated. Infact this aspect was not even put to PW-3 Bhag Singh in cross- examination. Even while dealing with a litigation, which is in Criminal Appeal No. 350-SB of 2000 -4- pursuant to the system otherwise, the human aspect cannot be given a go by. As in the case of children of the appellant, there has to be solid reason on account of which PE-3 Bhag Singh could have 'relished' uneasy relationship between appellant and his deceased wife as a brother he would be expected to be happy if things works smoothly at the matrimonial house of his sister. There is no allegation that PW-3 Bhag Singh had anything to gain by getting the appellant out of his way. The fact that he conceded having refrained from report the uneasy relationship between the appellant and his wife is neither here nor there. A brother would not be expected to go to the police on the virtual drop of a hat. The appellant and his deceased wife had grown up children. The deceased had an independent income by doing embroidery job. Thus, there is noting unnatural in refrain on the part of PW-3 Bhag Singh for having brought the police into picture. The finding, and also the reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Judge in support thereof is in order. No other point is argued. In the light of the afore-mentioned discussion, the appeal is held to be devoid of force. The impugned finding of conviction is affirmed. Dismissed. August 06, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE