http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GIAN KAUR AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/03/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J.      The State  has filed  t his appeal against the judgment of the  Punjab &  Haryana High  Court in Criminal Appeal No. 13/87. The High Court acquitted both the respondents for the offence punishable  under Section  302 read  with Section 34 IPC.      Both the  respondents alongwith  two others  were tried for  causing   death  of  Rita,  Respondents  -  Gian  Kaur, Balvinder kaur,  Darshan lal  and Balbir were the mother-in- law, sister-in-law,  father-in-law and  husband respectively of Rita (deceased).      The proesecution  case was that they were not satisfied with the  dowry given  to her  by her parents at the time of her marriage  and that had often led to quarrels between the accused  and   Rita  and   her  parents.  According  to  the prosecution, on  21.6.86 at  about 6.00  p.m., Gian Kaur and Balvinder Kaur sprinkled kerosene on her and thereafter Gian kaur set  her on  fire by  throwing a lighted match stick on her. It was further alleged that the mother-in-law wanted to get her  son re-married  and for that reason also she wanted to kill her.      The  only   evidence  which   was  relied   on  by  the prosecution and  on the  basis  of  which  the  trial  court convicted  Gian  Kaur  and  Balvinder  kaur  was  the  dying declaration recorded by ASI-Darshan Singh - PW 5.      The High Court disbelieved the dying declaration on the ground that  even thought  according to the medical evidence Rita had  100% burns  over her  body. The  High Court relied upon the  deposition of  Doctor Aneja, who had performed the post-mortem and who has categorically stated that there were 100% burns  over her  body and both  the thumbs of Rita were burnt. In view of such inconsistent evidence, the High Court was right  in giving benefit of doubt to the respondents. It cannot be said in this case that the High Court has taken an unreasonable view.      This appeal  is, therefore,  dismissed, Bail  bonds are ordered to be cancelled.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2