Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HANS RAJ versus STATE OF PUNJAB.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hans Raj v. State of Punjab. - CRM-24868-m-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2608 (25 April 2006)

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21975-M of 2006 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.24868-M of 2006.

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21975-M of 2006 Mukhtiar Singh and another V. State of Punjab.

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24868-M of 2006.

Hans Raj V. State of Punjab.

Before Hon'ble Mr.Justice Baldev Singh.

Present: Mr.H.S. Saggu, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr.Gur Partap Singh Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

-.-

Baldev Singh, J.

This order would dispose of two petitions, mentioned above, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case First Information Report No.57 dated 23.3.2006 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur.

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21975-M of 2006 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.24868-M of 2006.

The case was registered on the statement of Hare Ram Singh son of Bant Singh resident of Village Bamal. He had alleged that his son Jagtar Singh was married with Kulwinder Kaur daughter of Mukhtiar Singh resident of Lakshmi Bagh, Dhuri, for the last about ten years. Jagtar Singh was earlier employed in the Army, but he had recently retired. He did not have good relations with his wife Kulwinder Kaur and his in-laws.

They used to quarrel with him. On 12.3.2006, there was a quarrel between Jagtar Singh and Kulwinder Kaur. Kulwinder Kaur called her parents from Dhuri to Village Bamal. Her father Mukhtiar Singh, uncle Hardev Singh, brother Hans Raj and mother Ajmer Kaur came. They all quarreled with Jagtar Singh and took Kulwinder Kaur and her children with them to Dhuri. Due to this, Jagtar Singh used to remain depressed. Then, on 22.3.2006 at about 8.30 P.M, Jagtar Singh was sitting with the complainant and one Jagtar Singh son of Sukhdev Singh. He grieved that due to the conduct of his wife Kulwinder Kaur and his in-laws, it was better to die than living. They consoled Jagtar Singh saying that he should not worry because there are many ups and downs in relationships. Jagtar Singh went to his house. The complainant and Jagtar Singh then slept in the house. In the morning of 23.3.2006, the complainant found Jagtar Singh lying dead on his cot. Post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Jagtar Singh. His viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner.

Poison i.e organo phosphorus, a group of insecticides, was Criminal Miscellaneous No.21975-M of 2006 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.24868-M of 2006.

detected.

Hans Raj (petitioner) is brother of Kulwinder Kaur while Mukhitar Singh and Ajmer Kaur (petitioners) are parents of Kulwinder Kaur. Relations of the deceased with his wife Kulwinder Kaur were not cordial. Therefore, there used to remain quarrel between them. Their ten years old marriage was not happy. Copy of medico-legal report dated 26.11.2002 reveals that there were 50 % burn injuries on the body of Kulwinder Kaur. Jagtar Singh (deceased) and Kulwinder Kaur quarreled. Kulwinder Kaur had given an application to Women Cell, Sangrur. Then there was a compromise. Jagtar Singh (deceased) gave writing dated 21.8.2004 that he will not beat his wife unnecessarily. On 12.3.2006, when Kulwinder Kaur was taken by her parents to Dhuri, she was admitted in Civil Hospital, Dhuri. She was admitted on 12.3.2006 and was discharged from there on 17.3.2006. She was, in fact,beaten by the deceased and she had called her parents from Dhuri, who had taken her with them. The question is whether there was any abetment on the part of the petitioners and whether they created such an atmosphere due to which the deceased was compelled to commit suicide by swallowing poisonous substance.

The First Information Report discloses an usual story of quarrel between husband and wife. The petitioners had come to the house of the deceased on 12.3.2006. Nothing happened for ten days. Then, on the night of 22.3.2006, the deceased was found dead. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners is that Criminal Miscellaneous No.21975-M of 2006 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.24868-M of 2006.

from the bare reading of the First Information Report, the offence of abetment to suicide is not made out.

In these circumstances, these petitions are allowed and interim anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners. They shall join the investigation if called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and in the event of arrest in this case the Investigating Officer would release them on bail on their furnishing bonds to his satisfaction.

May 04, 2006. ( BALDEV SINGH )

ak JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.