State of Punjab v. Labh Singh and Ors

CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 1-103 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶1CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 Date of Decision: 31.05.2024 State of Punjab    …Appellant Vs. Labh Singh and others     ...Respondents

¶2CRR 2482 of 2002 Tejinder Singh   …Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others       …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present: Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Karanvir Hooda, Advocate Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner in CRR-2482-2002. Appeal qua respondents No. 1 and 2 namely Labh Singh and Gahwa Singh in CRA-D-161-DBA-2003 and revision qua respondents No. 2 and 3 in CRR-2482-2002 already abated vide order dated 22.05.2024. Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CRA-D-161-DBA-2003 and for respondent No.4 in CRR-2482-2002-Kuldip Kaur. *** CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 2-N&-&-HE/HA0AT 1 "&

¶1This judg)ent shall dispose off t!o (ases" i.e." CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 titled as 2-tate of !3n4a5 .s& ,a56 -$n76 and ot6e8s9 and CRR-2()2-2002 titled as 2Te4$nde8 -$n76 .s& -tate of !3n4a5 and ot6e8s91 !hereb1" State of Punjab  as !ell as Tejinder Singh" petitioner ha&e (hallenged the i)pugned judg)ent dated .7..7.2..2 passed b1 the *ourt of Additional Sessions 8udge 9Adho(: ;arid<ot" !hereb1" the respondents !ere a(/uitted of the (harge under Se(tions 4.,+3 and ,7-+A of  P*.

¶2The ; R =>.P14 in the present (ase !as registered on the basis of the state)ent )ade b1 %uldip daughter of Tejinder Singh and !ife of Labh Singh" respondent 0o. 1. The ; R =>. P14 along!ith poli(e pro(eedings ha&e been reprodu(ed belo!:+ "(Statement of Kuldip Kaur d/o Tejinder Singh Jat Sikh resident of Mohalla Sethian, Gali Hakima Wali Faridkot, age about 26 years. It is stated that I am residing in the house of my parents for the last about 1 ½ years and I have two daughters. I have been married for the last about six years. I was married with Labh Singh son of Bhagwant Singh Caste Jat Sikh r/o Chhateana, District Muktsar and now was residing in the house of my parents. Because I was distressed from my in1laws family and my husband Labh Singh, brother1in1law (Jeth) Gawa Singh, sister1in1law (Jathani) Kuldip Kaur used to harass me and said to bring more dowry from my parents, which my parents could not give. For this reason, on being harassed by my CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 3-husband, jeth and jethani, on 8.6.98, at about 7 p.m. I poured kerosene oil upon me and set on fire myself. At that time except my grandmother Mohinder kaur, no one was present in the house. On catching fire, I raised alarm for rescue and neighbourers gathered, who put earth upon me and extinguished the fire. My father had gone to the field who was brought and he got admitted me in the medical college/hospital Faidkot for my treatment. RO & AC RTI Kuldip Kaur Sd/1 Piare Lal EM Faridkot dated 9.6.98 at 3.10 a.m. today in Guru Gobind Singh Medical Hospital, Faridkot Police proceedings1 Today one medical ruqa No 1662 dated 8.6.98 received from the doctor of Guru Gobind Singh Medical College that Kuldip Kaur daughter of Tejinder Singh resident of Mohalla Sethian is admitted in the hospital due to catching fire in a burnt condition, upon which I the ASI alongwith HC Nachhatar Singh 1466 PHG Balwinger Singh, C. Naval Kishore 726 on Government Canter the driver of which is Paramjit Singh reached the hospital for recording statement of Kuldip Kaur and asked from the doctor in writing that Kuldip Kaur is able to give statement or not and due to serious condition of Kuldip Kaur, her dying declaration be got recorded from the magistrate, upon which after writing the request produced before SDM Sahib Faridkot who has deputed Shri Piare Lal Tehsildar 1cum Executive Magistrate, who on reaching hospital, recorded the aforesaid statement of Kuldip Kaur. Whatever she has got recorded, the Tehsildar1cum1Executive Magistrate recorded and after recording it was read over to her, who, after hearing and CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - (- admitting it correct, put her right thumb impression underneath her statement, which has been attested by Shri Piare Lal Executive Magistrate. From this statement offence under Section 498 A IPC is found, upon which this statement is sent to the police station for registration of case under the said offence against the aforesaid accused through C. Naval Kishore. On registration of the case, case number be intimated, Higher officer and P.C.R be intimated. I alongwith co1officials is busy for investigation at the spot. Special reports be issued Sd/1 Purjit Singh ASI, PS City Faridkot dated 9.6.99 GGSM Hospital, Faridkot, time 4 a.m. Today in the police station: On receipt of the aforesaid statement on registration of the case under the said offence against the said accused in the register, copy of the FIR along with original statement is being sent to the concerned ASI at the spot, through the arrival constable. Special reports are being sent to the higher officers through HC Jaljit Singh 700. Information is being given to the I/C PCR through wireless message. *louser of ; R &ide re/uest Sd?+ 0o. ,, dated .7..2.7- at .5.15 a.). 8alour Singh S ? S'@" P.S. *it1 ;arid<ot .7..2.7-.A

¶4After re(ording of the ; R" the in&estigation in the present (ase for)all1 (o))en(ed. After usual in&estigation" the final report   under   Se(tion   1B4   *r.P.*.   !as   presented   against   the respondents before the *ourt of Area Magistrate. Sin(e" the offen(e !as triable b1 the *ourt of Sessions" the (ase !as (o))itted to the CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 5-Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Vide order and charge sheet dated

03.11.1998, charge under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 IPC was ordered to be framed against the respondents/accused.

¶4During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 Piare Lal, Tehsildar. As per him, on 09.06.1998, on receipt of the application Ex.P1, he was deputed by SDM, Faridkot to record the statement of Kuldip Kaur, who had suffered burn injuries. He went to Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, where the doctor had already opined on the application of the police Ex.P3 that the patient was fit to make the statement. He got himself satisfied that Kuldip Kaur was in a fit condition to make the statement and recorded her statement Ex.P2. She thumb marked on the same and the statement was recorded at 3.10 a.m. on 09.06.1998. Throughout the period, he recorded   the   statement,   she   was   in   her   full   senses.   In   his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know as to whether the Executive Magistrate can right any such statement or not. He had not given any separate note that he was satisfied that she was in fully senses to make the statement. He admitted that he had not mentioned a separate note that she remained in her senses during the making of the statement. He had not taken separate opinion from the doctor. PW2 Raj Rani Clerk proved the bed head ticket of Kuldip Kaur Ex.P4. The prosecution further examined PW3 Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, G.G.S. Medical college, Faridkot, who had conducted the MLR of Kuldip Kaur on CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 6- .1... p.). on 12..2.177-. The patient !as a((o)panied b1 her father Tejinder Singh. She !as ad)itted at 1..15 p.). on .-..2.177- and the MLR !as done as per the orders fro) the *8M on 12..2.177-. 'e found the follo!ing injuries on her person and stated as under:+ "1) There were superficial as well as deep burns present on whole of body except head axillae, part of race, right shoulder joint lateral part of right arm and fingers of both hands. White creame onitment was present here and there. Superficial slought was fallen off at places. Approximate percentage of burns was 90%. The patient was kept under observation for surgeon's opinion and the probable duration was within one to two weeks. I have brought the original medico1legal register today in the court. Ex.P5 is the certified carbon copy of the MLR, which bears my signatures and is correct as per original. Ex.P5/1 is the pictorial diagrams showing the burns".

¶5PC4 #r. %.%. Aggar!al also (ondu(ted post)orte) e>a)ination at .-.15 a.). on 1-..2.177- on the dead bod1 of %uldip %aur and found the follo!ing injur1:+ "There were superficial as well as deep burns present on whole of body except head part of face, right shoulder joint axillae lateral part of right arm, fingers of both hands and public region. Superficial slough was fallen CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 7-off   at   place.   Pulse   was   present   over   burnt   areas. Approximate percentage of burns was 90%".

¶6In his opinion, the cause of death in this case was septicemia as a result of 90% burns which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In his cross-examination, he further stated that Kuldip Kaur was brought to emergency department at 10.15 p.m. on 08.06.1998 by her father Tejinder Singh, who also signed the MLR. He further stated that there was so many excess of septicemia.

¶7The prosecution further examined PW4 Kussam Lata, who tendered into evidence a certified copy of the order dated

05.06.1998 passed by the Court of CJM, Faridkot in an application under Section 195 Cr.P.C. submitted by Kuldip Kaur and the same was exhibited as Ex.P10. Gurbachan Singh, Draftsman, prepared scaled map Ex.P12. SI Jalour Singh, PW6 had recorded the formal FIR Ex.P13. PW7 Inspector  Mohinder Singh had sent the rukka in the present case.

¶8The prosecution further examined PW8 Darshan Singh Grewal, S.D.M. Faridkot, who had deputed Piare Lal, Executive Magistrate to record the statement of Kuldip Kaur, who had suffered burn injuries in the present case. PW9 Tejinder Singh is the star witness of the prosecution. As per him, his daughter Kuldip Kaur was married to Labh Singh in the year 1992. She gave birth to two daughters. At the time of marriage, adequate dowry was given by CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 8-him to his daughter. She remained happy there for about 2/3 years. After the birth of two daughters, they started harassing his daughter by demanding more dowry. The accused were demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- initially but he was not in a position to fulfill their demands. Due to non fulfillment of their demand, the accused had turned his daughter out of their house. Thereafter, his daughter filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court at Faridkot. Even, a Panchayat was taken to the house of the accused but in vain. His daughter had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in which, the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month was fixed for his daughter and her daughters. One of the daughter of Kuldip Kaur, since deceased, was living in the house of accused. On the third day of awarding the maintenance by the Court, his daughter started living in sadness and on the third day at about 06.00 p.m., she set herself ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil on herself. She was feeling that she had been turned out by her in-law for ever.  Mohinder Kaur was alone present at the time of the incident. She had set herself ablaze for the reason that doors of her in-laws' house had been closed for her for ever. In his cross-examination, he stated that his daughter had told/express before him that gates of her in-laws' house had been closed for her for ever. Major Singh was not his brother. Major Singh was a mediator of the marriage of his son. He admitted that in the writing Ex.DA, his signatures are there. However, he did not admit the contents of the writing Ex.DA. He did not disclose the facts as CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 9-mentioned in the writing Ex.DA to the medical officer who recorded the entry at his instance. He further admitted that application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was given on 28.11.1997 when she was residing at Faridkot after coming out from the house of the accused. He admitted that Tejinder Singh, Jagtar Singh and Santokh Singh Pws were neighbourers of his fields and he had cordial relations with them.

¶9The prosecution further examined PW10 Tara Singh, who was the neighbour of Tejinder Singh. He stated that Kuldip Kaur was married at about 07/08 years ago with Labh Singh accused. After 3 ½  years of marriage, she gave birth to her second daughter and then the relations between the accused and Kuldip Kaur, since deceased, became strained. There were visible difference between them. The accused   had been demanding money from her. After the accused demanded money, then Kuldip Kaur came to her parental house, where she stayed for 1 ½ years and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against all the three accused for grant of maintenance. The maintenance was fixed by the Court at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month and she lost her heart, on the third day of fixing maintenance by the Court. She committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on herself.

¶10The prosecution further examined PW11 Jagtar Singh, who was also neighbour of Tejinder Singh. He also supported  the statement of PW10 Tara Singh. The prosecution further examined CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 10-PW12 Dr. Anita, who declared Kuldip Kaur fit to make statement at about 1.00 a.m. on 09.06.98 and her statement was recorded by Piare Lal. The prosecution further examined Dr. Manjit Singh, SMO, GGS, Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, who declared the patient fit to make statement at 01.00 a.m. on 09.06.1998 and also proved the bed head ticket of Kuldip Kaur. Kuldip Kaur died at 05.32 p.m. on

17.06.1998 and he informed the police in this regard. The prosecution further examined PW14 Inspector Gurcharan Singh, who was the Investigating Officer in this case initially. He had prepared the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Still further, the prosecution examined PW15 ASI Surjit Singh, who was also associated with the process of investigation initially. In his cross-examination, he stated that he received the rukka from the doctor in the evening, but he could not say about the exact time. He reached the hospital within 10/15 minutes on receipt of rukka. He got the opinion of the doctor about fitness after about 3/4 hours. He gave application to doctor about the fitness of the patient before going to SDM. He had recorded the statements of Tejinder Singh and Tara Singh initially.

¶11After the conclusion of the evidence, the statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Labh Singh, respondent No. 1 stated that he had been falsely involved and raised following defence:- "I am Innocent. Ghawa Singh and his wife Kaldip Kaur were separated in mess and cultivation from me. There CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 11-was no demand of any dowry or articles and harassment on my part. Kuldip Kaur deceased was married since more than seven years before her death. Kuldip Kaur deceased used to reside for more than 1 ½ years with her grand mother at Faridkot, before her death. She filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against me in the year 1997. Tejinder Singh, her father and Major Singh her uncle i.e. of the deceased, had taken her to G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot for treatment, where they both made statement before the doctor that Kuldip Kaur had received burn injuries accidentally and there is no fault of any body and they don't want to proceed against any body and they don't want to proceed against any body for her burns. Both Tejinder Singh and Major Singh had signed their statement before the doctor. Later on, they concocted  a false stor1. %uldip %aur did not )a<e an1 state)ent before the Tehsildar. The )arriage (ard in fi(tious  one. I have been falsely implicated in this case by making all relations as false witnesses". The sa)e stand !as ta<en b1 other (o+a((used" na)el1" $ha!a Singh and %uldip %aur.

¶12After  the  state)ents   under  Se(tion  414  *r.P.*.  the respondents?a((used  e>a)ined #C1 #r. %an!al  Mohinder #e& Singh" !ho had attended the de(eased on .-..2.177-. She !as entered on e)ergen(1 e)ergen(1 @P# Register and Major Singh )ade entr1 =>.#A. The patient !as usuall1 e>a)ined b1 hi). 'er

3.P. !as 11.?B. and the pulse !as -, per )inute regular.  MLR !as to be )ade b1 ;orensi( #epart)ent" for !hi(h" the (all !as sent to CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 12-Dr. Sandhu. He admitted that he did not mention in the information sent to the police vide Ex.PA, the names of all the persons, who brought the patient.

¶13Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the petitioner in CRR 2482 of 2022 vehemently argued that the trial Court had not correctly appreciated the evidence in the present case. In the present case, the dying declaration, which was recorded by PW1 Piare Lal, Executive Magistrate, Kuldip Kaur, since deceased, had levelled serious allegations against the respondents/accused and there was no  ground  to disbelieve her statement.   Further the statement of PW9 Tejinder Singh clearly showed that soon before her death, Kuldip Kaur, since deceased was subjected to cruelty, in connection with demand of dowry and she died an unnatural death within 07 years of her marriage. Thus, the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A and 304 Part B were complete in the present case. Still further, the maintenance was granted to her by order dated

05.06.1998 and she committed suicide in the house of her father on

08.06.1998. Labh Singh, her husband was not ready to rehabilitate her. Thus, the ample evidence was led to prove the cruelty on the part of the respondents.

¶14On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 Kuldip Kaur submitted that she was sister-in-law (Jethani) of Kuldip Kaur, since deceased. Even she never demanded any dowry and could not have been a beneficiary of dowry in any CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 13- )anner. =&en" as per the ad)itted (ase of the prose(ution" there !as no de)and of do!r1 at the ti)e of )arriage and for the last .4 1ears" she !as ne&er subje(ted to (ruelt1 b1 an1one. =&en" she !as sta1ing !ith her parents sin(e last 1G 1ears and there !as no /uestion of harass)ent b1 the respondents. Still further" the d1ing de(laration !as re(orded b1 an =>e(uti&e Magistrate and despite a&ailabilit1 of a 8udi(ial Magistrate" he !as not (alled b1 the poli(e to re(ord the state)ent of %uldip %aur" sin(e de(eased. This fa(t also sho!s that the in&estigation !as tainted and d1ing de(laration !as not reliable.

¶15Ce ha&e heard the learned (ounsel for the parties and perused the re(ord.

¶12n   fa(t"   Se(tion   4.,+3   defines   Hdo!r1   deathA   and pro&ides for punish)ent for do!r1 de)ands and it reads as under:+ "304−B. Dowry death. —(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub− section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 1(- seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." Section 304B (1) defines 'dowry death' of a woman. It provides that 'dowry death' is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Sub− clause (2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death. Accordingly, in Major Singh v. State of Punjab,

(2015) 5 SCC 201, a three−Judge Bench of this Court held as follows: "10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304−B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:

(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance';

(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;

(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and

(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death." 1B. %eeping in &ie! the aforesaid definition" !e ha&e to e>a)ine !hether the ingredients of Se(tion 4.,+3  P* !ere fulfilled in the present (ase. Ce also ha&e to e>a)ine !hether %uldip %aur" CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 15-since deceased, was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, "soon before her death". In the present case, it is admitted case of the prosecution that Kuldip Kaur was married to Labh Singh about 06 years ago. Tejinder Singh PW9 is the prime witness of the prosecution. He no where stated in his deposition that there was demand of dowry at the time of marriage of Kuldip Kaur, his daughter. He rather stated that she remained happy in her matrimonial home for a period of about 02/03 years, after her marriage. He further stated   that   after   03   years,   the   respondents/accused   had   started demanding money from her. Even PW10 Tejinder Singh also stated that   after   3½   years   of   marriage,   the   relation   between   the respondents/accused   and   Kuldip   Kaur,   since   deceased,   became strained. PW9 Tejinder Singh and PW10 Tara Singh  clearly stated that Kuldip Kaur had moved an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and she was granted the maintenance at the rate of 700/- per month w.e.f. 05.06.1998. On the third day of awarding the maintenance by the Court, Kuldip Kaur started living in sadness and on the third day, at about 06.00 p.m., she had set herself ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil on herself, in her parental home. She had set herself ablaze for the reasons that the doors of her in-laws' home had been closed for her for ever. PW9 Tejinder Singh also admitted that his daughter had expressed before him that the gates of her in-laws house had been closed for her for ever. Thus, it is apparent that the main reason for committing the suicide by Kuldip CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 16-Kaur was her depression as she felt that the doors of her in-laws' had been closed for her for ever as the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been decided in her favour, three days prior to the offence. From the statements of PW9 Tejinder Singh and PW10 Tara Singh, it is also apparent that 1 ½ years prior to the commission of suicide, Kuldip Kaur was stayed with her parents in her parental home. Thus, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondents in any manner. Even otherwise, from the evidence of the prosecution itself, it is apparent that there was no demand of dowry and Kuldip Kaur had committed suicide as she was under an impression that the doors of the house of her in-laws' had been closed for her for ever. Even otherwise, it is highly unbelievable that a lady would be harassed in connection with demand of dowry after 06 years of her marriage, when she was not harassed for dowry in her initial 03/04 years of her marriage.

¶18In fact, while discussing the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of  Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2006 AIR (Supreme Court) 680 and 2006(1) SCC 463  as follows:-

19. In the case of unnatural death of a married woman as in a case of this nature, the husband could be prosecuted under Section 302, Section 304-B and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The distinction as regards commission   of   an   offence   under   one   or   the   other provisions   as   mentioned   hereinbefore   came   up   for CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 1:- consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in -at<$8 -$n76 = O8s& <& -tate of !3n4a5 and anot6e81 2001 (() RCR (C8$>$na?) 3'' (-C)%@(2001) ) -CC 633A1 wherein it was held : "Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 3041B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 3041B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death." The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 1)- emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is vide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death"."

¶20Yet again in Hira Lal and Others v. State (Govt. of NCT ) Delhi, 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 830 (SC): [(2003) 8 SCC 80], this Curt observed that "The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 3041B IPC and Section 1131B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration

(a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods "soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession". The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 19-to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death   in   question.   There   must   be   existence   of   a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become   stale   enough   not   to   disturb   the   mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence".

¶19Still further in the present case, the occurrence had taken place at 07.00 p.m. on 08.06.1998 and as per the testimony of PW3 Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, Kuldip Kaur, since deceased, brought to the hospital at about 10.15 p.m. on 08.06.1998. Still further, as per the said doctor, the patient was conscious, even though she had suffered burn injuries. Even, her statement was recorded at 05.10 a.m. on

09.06.1998. Even, she was admitted in Medical College and Hospital at Faridkot and the police had ample time to call a Judicial Magistrate to get her statement/dying declaration recorded. In fact, there is no legal   bar   regarding   recording   of   the   dying   declaration   by   the Executive Magistrate, however, when the Judicial Magistrate was easily available, the Investigating Officer should have move an application for appointment of the Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement. Moreover, in the present case, it is apparent that the complainant had twisted the whole facts and had set up the new facts. Still further, we have also gone through the findings recorded by the CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 20-trial *ourt and !e are of the (onsidered opinion that &ie! ta<en b1 the trial *ourt !as a probable and proper &ie! and !e do not find an1 ne(essit1 of o&erturning the judg)ent passed b1 the trial *ourt.

2.. t has been held b1 the 'onFble Supre)e *ourt in the )atter of  2B6asBa88ao and ot6e8s .s& -tate of *a6a8as6t8a91 201) AIR (-3C8e>e Co38t) 2222D 201) (') RCR (C8$>$na?) 22) as follo!s:+ "14. As the trial court and High Court, having appreciated the evidence on record, has come to diametrically opposite 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 1 "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 CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 21-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." 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 CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 22-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."

¶21Still further in  C8$>$na? ACCea? No(s&) (10-(11E201' @Ra<$ -6a8>a .s -tate (Go<e8n>ent of N&C&T& of De?6$) and anot6e8A" de(ided on 11..B.2.22" 'onFble the Supre)e *ourt has held as under:+ "Before venturing into the merits of the case, we would like to reiterate the scope of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') while deciding an appeal by the High Court, as the position of law is rather settled. We would like to quote the relevant portion of a recent judgment of this Court in Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 495) as follows: "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering CRA-D-161-DBA of 2003 and connected case         - 23-acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."

¶22In view of the above discussion,  impugned judgment dated 09.09.2002 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Faridkot, is ordered to be upheld.  The appeal and revision are accordingly dismissed.

¶23All   pending   applications,   if   any,   are   disposed   off, accordingly.

¶24Trial Court record be sent back to the trial Court.

¶25All concerned may be intimated. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)

31.05.2024                JUDGE amit rana