CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

2

Kaur. My daughter Kuljit Kaur had passed B.A.B.P.Ed last year.

About 4½ months back, my daughter Kuljit Kaur was married to

Jagtinder Singh alias Pappu son of Ajit Singh, caste Jat, resident of

Khanpur Chowk, Pathankot, according to religious rites and customs.

At the time of her marriage, I had given dowry more than my financial

capacity and just after their marriage, my son-in-law Jagtinder Singh

and his sister Narinder Kaur started demanding more dowry from my

daughter. About two months back my daughter Kuljit Kaur told us on

telephone that, my husband Jagtinder Singh and my ‘Nanand’

(husband’s sister) Narinder Kaur are demanding a motor cycle ‘Hero

Honda’ and other dowry articles and daily taunt me, you should

arrange motor cycle and other dowry articles from them. Next day, I

alongwith mediator Kashmir Singh resident of Peeran Abadi Ladho

Chanck (New colony) went to the in-laws’ house of my daughter at

village Khanpur. I and Kashmir Singh mediator tried our best to make

Jagtinder Singh and his sister Narinder Kaur to understand that I am

a poor man, I cannot give more dowry, but they did not pay attention

to our request and remained struck to their demand of motor cycle.

When they did not pay any attention to our request then I and Kashmir

Singh brought our daughter to our house. Then after 15 days I and

Kashmir Singh after taking with us Kuljit Kaur went to her In-laws’

house at Khanpur and requested our son-in-law and his sister

Narinder Kaur that I am a poor man, I will arrange for a motor cycle

and will give it to you, and after requesting them left my daughter in

her in laws’ house. About 4/5 days back, my son-in-law came to our

house at village Dhira and told us that, I have executed an agreement

for the purchase of a plot near Khanpur Chowk, you should give me

Rs. One Lac for its purchase. I again said to him I am a poor person, I

can not give so much amount, but will help you as per my capacity.

Today, I alongwith Balbir Singh son of Chaju Ram caste Mehra,

resident of village Dhira Jattan went to see my daughter Kuljit Kaur

and reached in her-in-laws house at Khanpur Chowk, Pathankot, at

about 8' o, clock. When I alongwith Balbir Singh went up stairs, the

door of the room was closed and I heard the shrieks. When I opened

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

3

the door and entered in the room, at that time Narinder Kaur had

caught hold both the legs of my daughter Kuljit Kaur and my son-in-

law Jagtinder Singh had put a rope on her neck, on the bed, and was

pulling it in the backward direction and on seeing us entering in the

room, they after opening the inner door of the room ran away through

the door of the adjoining room. I touched my daughter Kuljit Kaur

and found her dead. My son-in-law Jagtinder Singh and his sister

Narinder Kaur with their common intention have killed my daughter

by putting a rope on her nack and by pressing her neck with it. After

leaving Balbir Singh to guard the deed body, I was going to lodge the

report that you have met me. Action be taken against the above said

accused.

Attested. Ajit Singh aforesaid

Sd/- Varinder Singh, SI SHO Sd/- In English

P.S. Sadar Pathankot, 12.2.2001. ”

3. After recording of the statement (Exhibit PF) by SI Varinder

Singh, PW-10, the FIR (Exhibit PF/2) was recorded by the police.

Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, along with other police officials,

reached the spot and also prepared the inquest report (Exhibit PE) and the

dead body was sent for post-mortem examination by the doctors of the Civil

Hospital, Pathankot. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Bhupinder

Singh Kanwar along with two other doctors and the post-mortem report

(Exhibit PC) was prepared. After post-mortem examination, the

investigation was conducted by the police and the statements of various

witnesses, acquainted with the facts of the case, were also recorded and the

final report of investigation was presented before the Area Magistrate. Since

the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed

and after taking into consideration the challan and the accompanying

documents, charge under Section 304-B IPC was ordered to be framed

against both the respondents. In alternative, charge under Section 302 read

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

4

with Section 34 IPC was also framed against both the respondents, to which

they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution relied upon 10 witnesses,

whereas the defence also examined two witnesses in the present case.

5. The prosecution examined HC Kuldip Kumar as PW-1 and

C. Salwinder Singh as PW-2, whose testimonies were formal in nature. The

prosecution further examined Dr. Bhupinder Singh Kanwar as PW-3, who

was part of the Board of Doctors, which had conducted the post-mortem on

the dead body of Kuljit Kaur and as per him, the following injuries were

found on the body of deceased:-

“Ligature mark was noticed in the neck. It was oblique

and bluish-brown in colour, approximately half inch in width.

High up in the neck, between chin and larynx running upwards

and backwards, to the nape of neck, except for 4 cms in the

back of neck on right side and 2 cms on the left side in

continuation. Base was pale and parchment like and hard. On

dissection, ecchymosis was present on the edge of ligature

mark. Subcutaneous tissue was white hard and glistening under

the mark. On the right side, cartoid sheath was torn and blood

was present around it. Face was pale in colour. Eyes mildly

congested. No mark of dribbling of saliva from the angle of

mouth was noticed. No other external injury was noticed on the

body. Pleurea and lung congested. Larynx congested and

petechial haemorrhage was present. Viscera was sent for

chemical analysis. Bladder was normal. Uterus was pregnant

with 10 to 12 weeks pregnancy. All other organs were normal

but congested.

In our opinion, the cause of death in this case was

due to injury no. 1 i.e. on ligature the neck, leading to

vasovagal shock and death in the ordinary coursed of nature.

This injury was ante mortem in nature.”

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

5

6. He further identified his signatures on the post-mortem report

(Exhibit PC) and also submitted that he had duly signed the inquest report

(Exhibit PE). In his cross-examination, he stated that he had started the post-

mortem examination immediately on receipt of the necessary papers.

7. The prosecution further examined PW-4 Narinder Si ngh

Dhillon, who claimed that his house had adjoined the house of Jagtinder

Singh, respondent No. 1. Both the respondents used to demand dowry from

the deceased and as such there used to be a dispute between the two. Kuljit

Kaur, the deceased, used to say that her father was poor and was not in a

position to give more dowry as he had already given the dowry at the time of

wedding as per his financial status. On 12

th

February, 2001 at about 8:15

a.m., he had heard the cries of Ajit Singh from the house of the accused,

shouting that his daughter had been killed by the accused due to demand of

dowry and he rushed to the spot and saw the dead body of Kuljit Kaur lying

on the bed. He had not seen any rope on the bed near the body. His statement

was recorded by the police on 26

th

February, 2001, i.e. about 14 days after

the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his village falls in

District Hoshiarpur. He owned agricultural land and cultivated it in village

Nainowal. He was also a registered voter of that village. He further admitted

that he had not seen the police officials doing any writing work in the house

of the accused. He had returned his house after ten minutes. The prosecution

further examined Rajesh Kumar, Draftsman as PW-6, who had prepared the

scaled site plan (Exhibit PG). The statements of PW-7 Kashmir Singh and

PW-8 Gulzar Singh, Constable, were formal in nature. The prosecution

further examined Balbir Singh as PW-9. The prosecution also examined the

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

6

complainant, Ajit Singh, as PW5, who reiterated the avements made in the

FIR and fully supported the prosecution case. He admitted that there is only

one staircase leading to the first floor of the house. He pleaded ignorance if

Narender Pal Kaur, respondent No.2 was married in Village Talwandi Lal

Singh. He admitted that Jagtinder Singh, respondent No.1, belongs to

Village Sohian, District Amritsar and owned landed property there. He

further admitted that Kuljit Kaur, deceased, was BA.B.P.Ed, whereas

respondent No.1, her husband, told his qualification as 10+2 passed. He

heard the shrieks of his daughter while going upstairs; however, they did not

chase both the respondents, as they were taking care of their daughter at that

juncture.

8. The prosecution further examined Balbir Singh as PW-9, who

had gone along with Ajit Singh, PW-5. He also supported the case of the

prosecution. He stated that on seeing them, both the respondents/accused

had run away from the spot along with the rope. When they saw the body of

Kuljit Kaur, she was already dead. There were some broken pieces of

bangles on the bed and the bed-sheet was folded from one side. In his cross-

examination, he admitted that respondent No.1 was aged about 40/45 years

of age and he had performed a second marriage with Kuljit Kaur (since

deceased), aged about 23/24 years.

9. The prosecution further examined Varinder Singh

Inspector/SHO as PW-10, who conducted the investigation in the present

case. He had prepared the final report and the challan was presented by

SI/SHO Kuldeep Singh. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was

no mention about the piece of rope and broken pieces of bangles lying on the

bed near the dead body. There was no mention in the inquest report about

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

7

taking into possession the rope and the bangles. He admitted that the

statement of Balbir Singh was not part of the inquest report, but was lying

separately in the file. He did not draw the plan of the size of the dead body

in column No.24 of the inquest report. He further admitted that he had not

shown the presence of the accused in the rough site plan.

10. After the prosecution evidence concluded, the statements of the

accused/respondents, were recorded. It was pleaded in defence that on the

date of occurrence, respondent No.1 was present in his village in District

Amritsar, where he used to cultivate his land. The deceased was BA.B.P.Ed,

whereas respondent No.1 was only matriculate, and it was his second

marriage. The deceased was not happy with her marriage as she was kept in

dark by her parents at the time of marriage and she was intended to marry

someone else. The deceased tried to commit suicide twice in her parents’

house and only 3/4 days ago, she was sent in the house where his ailing

sister was residing. He never demanded any money nor harassed her. Even

respondent No.2 had raised the following defence in her statement under

Section 313 CrPC:-

“After the death of my husband and two young sons I started

living at my parent's house in Amritsar District. I am heart patient

and had heart attack and for this purpose I was getting treatment at

Pathankot where deceased was living. Deceased was living in the first

floor whereas I was staying in the ground floor. In the morning at

about 8.30 A.M. I went to the room of the deceased that she has not

woken up so far and I saw her hanging with the fan hook. I informed

father of the deceased as well as the police of P.S. Sadar Pathankot.

The mother of the deceased informed on telephone to me that the

father of deceased has gone to his duty and man has been sent to

bring him. In the meanwhile police also reached in the room where

deceased was hanging herself dead. On chair beneath the fan hook

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

8

was also present there which was taken into passion by the police.

Police Thanedar himself cut the rope and got down the dead body

from the hook of the fan. Parents of the deceased later on to save

themselves concocted this case. Deceased was not happy with the

marriage of my brother who was only matriculate whereas deceased

was BP.Ed and so she wants to marry some where else and her

parents forcibly married her with my brother whose first wife had also

died. On this deceased tried two times to commit suicide at the house

of her parents and only 3/ 4 days prior father of the deceased left her

at Pathankot where she hanged herself.”

11. In their defence, the respondents examined DW-1 Jasbir Singh,

co-villager of the respondents, who stated that the relations between

respondent No.1 and his wife were strained, as the deceased was highly

qualified, whereas respondent No.1 was not educated and was unemployed.

Her father had wrongly told her that respondent No.1 was highly qualified

and was a government employee. She was not able to reconcile the said fact

and had refused to go to her in-laws’ house. Ultimately, she committed

suicide. The defence also examined DW2, Dr. H.S. Dhillon, Medical Officer,

Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, who stated that he had gone through the post-

mortem report, Exhibit PC of Kuljit Kaur (since deceased). The time

between the death and the postmortem was more than 12 hours and less than

24 hours. The type of ligature mark on the neck of the deceased in the post-

mortem report was consistent with hanging, because this type of ligature

mark, its upward obliquity and the sparing of ligature mark on the nape of

the neck, is usually seen in hanging. There were no signs of violence on the

dead body of the deceased and this happens in suicide cases usually. The

ecchymosis and parchment of skin beneath the ligature mark indicated that the

body had remained suspended for some time.

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

9

12. After both the sides had concluded their respective evidence,

the trial court, vide its impugned judgment, held that the prosecution had

miserably failed to prove the charge under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC and

still respondent No.1 was held guilty for a lesser offence i.e. under Section

498-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years with

a fine of Rs. 8,000/-.

13. Assailing the said judgment, the present appeal has been

preferred before this Court.

14. Learned State Counsel has vehemently argued that the

prosecution had examined PW-5 Ajit Singh, who was duly supported by the

statement of PW-9 Balbir Singh and from a cumulative reading of both these

statements, it was apparent that the deceased was harassed and maltreated by

the respondents in connection with the demand for dowry. Even Kuljit Kaur

(since deceased) had been informing her parents and other relatives in this

regard. Learned State counsel further contended that on the date of

occurrence, the father, along with Balbir Singh, had visited the house of his

daughter and saw that respondent No.1 had put a rope around her neck and

by pulling the same, he had murdered Kuljit Kaur, whereas respondent No.2

had caught hold of both her legs. Learned counsel further contended that

even the medical evidence clearly suggested that both the respondents had

killed the deceased and the impugned judgment is based on misappreciation

of evidence.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents

referred to various findings recorded by the trial Court and sought for

upholding the same. Learned counsel submitted that the witnesses of the

prosecution had falsely deposed that Kuljit Kaur (since deceased) was

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

10

murdered by the respondents, whereas in reality, she had committed suicide

and by exercising his political influence, the complainant managed to get a

false FIR registered against the respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment

is liable to be upheld by this Court.

16. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused

the case file minutely.

17. The respondents had been primarily charged for committing the

murder of Kuljit Kaur and accordingly they were charge-sheeted for

committing the offence under Section 302 IPC. To substantiate the charge,

the prosecution had mainly relied on the testimonies of PW-5 Ajit Singh and

PW-9 Balir Singh. The star witness of the prosecution, i.e. Ajit Singh stated

that he had given sufficient dowry in the wedding of his daughter. After

marriage, both the respondents started harassing and maltreating the

deceased. Even Kuljit Kaur (since deceased) had informed her father two

months prior to the occurrence about the harassment meted out to her by the

respondents. Ultimately, he, along with the mediator, visited the respondents

and told both the respondents that his financial condition was not good and

she should not be harassed. About 4/5 days prior to the occurrence,

respondent No.1 visited them and once again demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac

for purchase of land. On this, PW-5 Ajit Singh again pleaded his inability to

meet the financial demand raised by respondent No.1. On 12.02.2001 at

about 8.00 AM, when he, along with PW-9 Balbir Singh, visited the house of

her daughter, he found that respondent No.2 had caught hold of the legs of

his daughter, whereas, respondent No.1 had put the rope around the neck and

on seeing them, both fled through the adjoining room. However, the trial

Court is right in observing that admittedly there was only one staircase

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

11

leading to the first floor of the house and there was only one door of the

house. Admittedly, when he had reached at the spot, Kuljit Kaur (since

deceased) had already died. Surprisingly, none of the witness had made any

effort to caught hold of the accused nor raised any noise, which could attract

other villagers at the spot. Moreover, PW-5 had also admitted that his

daughter Kuljit Kaur (since deceased) was BA.B.P.Ed, whereas Jagtinder

Singh was less qualified.

18. Similarly, PW-4 Narinder Singh Dhillon, no doubt, supported

the case of the prosecution, but his testimony also does not inspire

confidence. He owned agricultural land and also cultivated the same in

village Nainowal, District Hoshiarpur and he was also a registered voter of

that village. He had no reason to visit village Khanpur and even he claimed

himself to be an eyewitness, but his statement was recorded by the police

after 14 days of the occurrence. Even in the statement, there was no

explanation for the delay in recording his statement. Apart from that, he

stated that immediately prior to the occurrence, Ajit Singh had requested him

to persuade the accused not to harass his daughter. However, PW- 5 Ajit

Singh never stated that PW-4 Narinder Singh Dhillon was ever requested by

him to prevail upon the accused and to intervene in their domestic affairs.

19. Similarly, the trial court recorded detailed reasons for discarding

the testimony of PW-9 Balbir Singh. Even, the trial Court rightly observed

that the unnatural conduct of PW-9 Balbir Singh and PW-5 Ajit Singh for

not chasing both the accused at the time of occurrence and not even raising

the hue and cry clearly militates against the genuineness of the prosecution

case. Even detailed findings have been recorded with regard to the

recoveries made from the spot, which make the prosecution case to be highly

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

12

improbable. Even PW-5 Ajit Singh stated that one rope was lying on the bed,

whereas PW-9 Balbir Singh stated that both the accused had fled away along

with the rope. On the other hand, PW-4-Narinder Singh Dhillon had never

seen any such rope at the place of occurrence. Even PW-10 Varinder Singh,

Inspector/SHO had not shown the recovery of any such article in the

recovery memo or during the inquest report. Still further, even the medical

evidence also indicated that death of Kuljit Kaur had taken place in the

midnight and not on the early morning of 12

th

Februrary, 2001. Further, the

medical evidence clearly suggested that PW-5 Ajit Singh and PW-9 Balbir

Singh may not have even witnessed the occurrence and the ocular account

does not seem to be truthful.

20. Furthermore, the trial court discussed the statements of PW-3

Dr. Bhupender Singh Kanwar, who was part of the medical board, which

conducted the post-mortem examination and DW-2, Dr. HS Dhillon, who

appeared as a defence witness. In fact, this court also agreed that the type of

ligature mark on the neck of the deceased in normal course was consistent

with the theory of hanging, as this type of ligature mark its upward obliquity

and sparing of ligature mark on the nape of the neck is generally witnessed

in hanging. Apart from that, it is the admitted case of the prosecution also

that there were no marks of struggle at the spot nor any marks of violence

were visible on the dead body of Kuljit Kaur (since deceased). Rather, the

medical evidence was clearly suggestive of suicidal hanging. Further, the

ecchymosis   and   parchment of skin beneath the ligature mark were

suggestive of the fact that the dead body might have remained suspended for

some time

. Consequently, this Court is in consonance with the detailed

finding recorded by the trial court that in the present case, the possibility of

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

13

homicidal stimulation may not be there and it appears to be a case of suicidal

death. Thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court, while acquitting the

accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC, are ordered to be upheld.

21. Apart from that, the trial court rightly held that from the

testimonies of PW-5 Ajit Singh, and PW-9 Balbir Singh, it was evident that

Ajit Singh, father of the deceased, was a Class-IV employee in Education

Department, having 3 children. Even due to his poor financial condition, he

could not get his daughter married in a good family. It is also an admitted fact

that responder No.1 was aged about 40/45 years of age, having land in his

name and was also a matriculate. Even his first wife had left him and it was

his second marriage. On the other hand, Kuljit Kaur (since deceased) was

BA.B.P.Ed and was aged about 26 years. Thus, it is apparent that the family

of PW-5 Ajit Singh (complainant) was well aware of the good financial status

of respondent No.1 and it is unbelievable that respondent No.1 had raised

demand of a Hero Honda motorcycle or an amount of Rs.1 lac for purchase

of a plot, as respondent No.1 was already aware of the poor financial

condition of the family of the deceased. Thus, it is apparent that the

prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment

in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death and the

respondents had been rightly acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B

IPC.

22. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

“Bhaskarrao and others Vs. State of Maharashtra”, 2018 AIR (Supreme

Court) 2222; 2018 (5) RCR (Criminal) 228 as follows:-

“14. As the trial court and High Court, having appreciated the

evidence   on   record,   has   come   to   diametrically   opposite

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

14

conclusions,   mandating   herein   to   observe   certain   witness

statements which may have an important bearing in this case.

In the processes of appreciating the evidence at the appellate

stage, we need to keep in mind the views of this court as

expressed in Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987(2)

RCR (Criminal) 35 : 1987 CriLJ 974 -

"The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons

given   by   the   learned   Sessions   Judge   for   discarding  the

testimony   of   PW2   and   PW6   were   either   unreasonable   or

perverse.   What   the   High   Court   has   done   is   to   make   an

independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set

aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such

reappreciation,   the   High   Court   was   inclined   to   reach   a

conclusion  different  from  the  one  recorded  by   the  learned

Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the

mere   fact   that   the   Appellate   Court   is   inclined   on   a

reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at

variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed

by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient

ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the

Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of

acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference

is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach

made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in

the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion

recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been

possibly   arrived   at   by   any   court   acting   reasonably  and

judiciously and is,  therefore, liable to be characterized as

perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the

evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a

view which is plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally

interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion

that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of

the evidence is erroneous."

CRA-D-643-DBA-2004 (O&M)

15

15.  In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1997(3)

RCR (Criminal) 62 : 1996 CriLJ 2867, this Court observed:

"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a

view  other  than the  one  taken by the  trial  Court can  be

legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of

the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to

interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the

conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing

with   the   evidence   was   patently   illegal   or   the   conclusions

arrived   at   by   it   were   wholly   untenable.   While   sitting   in

judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required

to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the

trial   Court   are   palpably   wrong,   manifestly   erroneous   or

demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the

above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be

disturbed."

23.  Keeping in view the above referred discussion and the law laid

down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that the

impugned judgment by the learned trial Court is based on sound reasons and

there does not seem to be any illegality or perversity in the impugned

judgment.  Accordingly, the present appeal  is ordered to be dismissed, being

devoid   of   any   merits.   Pending   application(s),   if   any,   shall   also   stand

disposed off, accordingly.

(N.S. SHEKHAWAT)

JUDGE

(SUKHVINDER KAUR)

JUDGE

28.10.2025

mks

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO

Whether Reportable: YES / NO