Sudhir Kumar Vs. State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2010
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, J.M. Panchal
It is for the defence to dispel the presumption u/s 113-B – It is true that four of the five accused have been acquitted and some of them on benefit of doubt – But primary evidence is against the husband – A reading of the evidence shows that it was the husband who had, just a few days before the incident, threatened his wife with dire consequences if his demand for dowry was not fulfilled – He was seen again beating his wife and threatening that if the demands were not satisfied the deceased would pay dearly for it – It is true that in a case where the prosecution evidence has been discarded with respect to four of the five accused, the presumption u/s 113-B could to some extent be said to be dispelled, but in the instant case, on an over view the primary role and the weight of the evidence has been on the husband-accused- Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1327 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 7.4.2003 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 55-SB of 1990.
A. Sharan, Bimal Roy Jad, Vikram Rathore, Anurag Sharma, Sharmila Upadhyay for the Appellant.
Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.