JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Singh, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby accused respondent Nos.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302 & 34 IPC.

2. Vide order dated 14.08.2024, the Lower Court record was called for. The same was received on 30.09.2024.

3. The prosecution case was that on 07.09.2020, complainant-Mohinder Singh (PW-1) got recorded his statement with SI Raghbir Singh stating therein that he was resident of village Bhadas and was an agriculturist by profession. He had one son and three daughters. His eldest daughter, namely Swaranjit Kaur, aged 35 years, was earlier married to Jasvir Singh son of Balvir Singh, resident of village Peerowal, Gurdaspur. However, she got a divorce in the year 2014. Thereafter, she was married to Pushpinder Singh-respondent No.2. On 07.09.2020, Mandeep Kaur, another daughter of the complainant, informed him that Swaranjit Kaur had been killed by Pushpinder Singh by pressing her neck. Upon receiving this information, the complainant along with his wife-Gurmeet Kaur visited the house of his daughter Swaranjit Kaur, where he came to know that her in-laws had taken her to NRI Hospital, Begowal. When the complainant and his wife reached the said hospital, they found that the dead body of their daughter was lying in an Alto car and Pushpinder Singh (son-in-law of complainant) was standing nearby along with his parents (Jarnal Singh and Parvesh Kaur). As per complainant, his daughter Swaranjit Kaur had been killed by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law by strangulating her.

4. Based on the aforesaid statement, FIR No. 104 dated 07.09.2020, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, was registered at Police Station, Begowal, District Kapurthala. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted, where-after cognizance was taken. Thereafter, charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, namely, PW1 Mohinder Singh-complainant, PW2 Gurmit Kaur, PW3 Manbaj Singh, PW4 Ajit Singh, PW5 HC Gurbinder Singh, PW6 HC Rajinder Singh, PW7 HC Baljit Kaur, PW8 Dr. Kamaljit Kaur, PW9 ASI Beant Singh, PW10 Sawinderjit Singh, PW-11 Mohit Singh, PW-12 C. Arshdeep Singh, PW-13 SI Raghbir Singh, PW-14 Baljinder Singh Saini, PW-15 DSP Preet Inder Singh and PW-16 Mandeep Kaur. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused (respondent Nos.2 to 5) were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to them. However, they denied the same and pleaded false implication in the case. In defence, the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 examined DW1 Vajinder Parik, DW-2 Satinderpal Singh, DW-3 Manpreet Kaur, DW-4 Dr. Sumesh Kumar Handa, DW-5 Sanjeev Rai and DW-6 R.S. Bawa. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused (respondent Nos.2 to 5), as noticed above.

6. The grounds considered by the learned Trial Court for acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 5 are as under:-

i) As per the prosecution, there were three main/material witnesses of the case, namely PW-1 Mohinder Singh, PW-2 Gurmit Kaur and PW-16 Mandeep Kaur, who were father, mother and sister of the deceased. But, none of them was the eye witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution was not based on direct evidence and rather, it was a case of circumstantial evidence.

ii) The deposition made by PW-1 Mohinder Singh pointed towards major improvements in the case than the one pleaded by the prosecution. The evidence was not only inconsistent with the alleged case of the prosecution, but was also not supported from any angle by any witness. PW-1 Mohinder Singh, during his crossexamination, failed to give any satisfactory answer with regard to the improvements m