Criminal Revision No.459 of 2015 (O&M)

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.459 of 2015(O&M)

Date of Decision: February 12, 2015

Kulwant Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab & Ors.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.(Oral)

Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the

order dated 14.1.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application under Section 319, Cr.P.C.,

filed by the petitioner for summoning of Gurmail Singh

(respondent No.2) and Satminder Kaur (respondent No.3)

(parents-in-law) of Sandeep Kaur (since deceased), was

dismissed.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, Kulwant

Singh (PW1) had specifically deposed with regard to the

complicity of respondent Nos.2 and 3 with their son Puneet Pal

Singh for causing the dowry death of Sandeep Kaur; even

Pushpinder Singh (PW8), a cousin of Sandeep Kaur (since

deceased), had also deposed with regard to the miseries faced by

Sandeep Kaur. He further submits that the viscera report received

SEEMA RANI

2015.02.13 18:33

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

Criminal Revision No.459 of 2015 (O&M)

[2]

from the Chemical Examiner would reveal that there was poison in

the viscera of the deceased. It is also well proved on record that

Sandeep Kaur had died due to hanging. These two facts would

reveal that Sandeep Kaur was initially administered the poison and

thereafter more than one person had hanged her, therefore, it be

presumed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had also participated in the

hanging of Sandeep Kaur (since deceased).

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

with his able assistance gone through the material available on

record.

The present case was registered on the statement of the

informant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1), on 02.12.2012. He alleged that

Puneet Pal Singh (husband), Gurmail Singh (father-in-law) and

Satminder Kaur (mother-in-law) were usually harassing Sandeep

Kaur on account of demand of dowry. An amount of Rs.10,00,000/-

(Rupees Ten Lacs) by way of cheque was paid to Puneet Pal Singh

three or four months prior to death of Sandeep Kaur. After

investigation, the charge-sheet was presented for prosecution of

Puneet Pal Singh (husband). After framing of the charges, the

informant, Kulwant Singh, appeared as PW-1. On the basis of his

deposition, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C., was

presented for summoning of respondent Nos.2 and 3 but the same

was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2013. Dissatisfied with the

said order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a

SEEMA RANI

2015.02.13 18:33

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

Criminal Revision No.459 of 2015 (O&M)

[3]

criminal revision petition and the same was permitted to be

withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application

on the basis of fresh evidence. After dismissal of the application

by Court of Session on 8.8.2013 and before 28.11.2014 when this

Court permitted the petitioner to approach learned trial court

once again, the deposition of Puspinder Singh (PW-8) was

recorded by learned trial court on 9.9.2014. During his deposition

Pushpinder Singh proved his statement Ex.PW8/A recorded under

Section 175, Cr.P.C., during the course of inquest proceedings.

The said statement was already exhibited as Ex.P-1 by SI Sohan Lal

(PW-2). The deposition of Kulwant Singh (PW-1) attached with this

paper book as Annexure P-2 has been perused by this Court.

There is not an iota of word in the said deposition that respondent

Nos.2 and 3 maltreated or harassed Sandeep Kaur (since

deceased) for or on account of demand of dowry. The whole