Crl. A.No. 776-DBA of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. A.No. 776-DBA of 2002 Date of decision: 02.08.2011 State of Punjab ..... appellant. Versus Jodh Singh and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab for the appellant. -- HEMANT GUPTA , J.(ORAL) The State is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.01.2002 whereby the respondents herein have been acquitted of the charge for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage between respondent no.1 and Anita @ Neelu, deceased was solemnized in January 1995. On 11.01.1998 at about 2.30 PM Anita @ Neelu was found ablazed, which led to her death on 12.01.1998. To prove the allegations against the respondents with regard to the demand of dowry immediately before her death, the prosecution examined Kuldip Singh, father of the deceased as PW-3 and Subash Chander as PW-2. In defence, the accused examined J.D. Bhanot, Inspector, as DW-1 and Mr. Harish Pathania, Advocate, as DW-2, who identified Crl. A.No. 776-DBA of 2002 2 Kuldip Singh, Asha Rani and Karanvir Singh on 05.06.1998, the date they executed affidavits Ex.DA, DB and DC respectively. Yash Pal Sharma, Naib Tehsildar examined as DW-3, who had attested such affidavits. In the said affidavits, the accused have been exonerated of all the allegations. PW-2 Subash Chander has turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution case is based on the solitary testimony of Kuldip Singh, PW-3. The trial Court has considered his evidence and found that he has admitted his signatures on affidavit Ex.DA, but sought to explain that he has signed on blank papers. The learned trial Court disbelieved such explanation and found that Asha Rani and Karanvir Singh have not been examined. They are of the same village as that of Kuldeep Singh, which cast a doubt on the prosecution story. The statement of PW-3 Kuldip Singh has been taken into consideration and the trial Court returned a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the above, we do not find that there is any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the judgment of acquittal. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 02.08.2011 JUDGE dinesh