Dismissed

Gursharan Kaur v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2009CRM-M/10103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court rejected a bail application on merits against an accused facing murder charges where evidence indicated death by organophosphorous pesticide and facts were within the knowledge of the accused. The court dismissed the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. permitted

What did the court decide?

Bail application was dismissed and petitioner was held guilty of murder.

Gursharan Kaur Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-10103 of 2009

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-10103 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: 20.4.2009

Gursharan Kaur

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 205 dated 15.8.2008 registered at Police Station Farakpur, under Sections 328, 302 & 34 IPC.

¶15

Case set out in the FIR is that the deceased was having strained relations with his wife Gursharan Kaur, petitioner. He had gone to visit his in-laws where his wife was staying. In the night, husband and wife stayed together and in the morning husband Dalvinder Singh was found dead. His viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner who has opined that cause of death is organophosphorous pesticide.

¶16

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cast onus upon the petitioner to explain as to how a living man turned into corpus. The explanation given in the petition that deceased was a tobacco addict

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-10103 of 2009 2

¶18

and used to consume other intoxicants, therefore, has died, cannot be accepted in view of organophosphorous pesticide found by the Chemical Examiner.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sanjay Mittal v. State of Haryana 2002(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 861 to state that organophosphorous being very pungent cannot be administered forcibly.

¶20

The deceased had died within the four walls of the house which was in the possession of petitioner.

¶21

It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 18 that it is for the husband to explain as to how the wife had died and had invoked Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act.

¶22

It has been also held by a Division Bench of this Court in

¶23

Rajinder Parshad v. State of Punjab 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 65 (P&H) that in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence where father and son having strained relations, had slept in the same room, son having found dead by strangulation in the morning, it was for the father to show what happened in the night as it was fact especially in his knowledge. Therefore, father was held guilty of murder.

¶24

Case of petitioner is not different.

¶25

No merits.

¶26

Dismissed.

¶27

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶28

April 20, 2009 “ DK ”

Gursharan Kaur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gursharan Kaur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvan Kumar Bhasin & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi Vs State of Punjab

Ram Pal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Daya Nand Swami Vs State of Hy.

Duli Chand Vs State of Haryana

Prem Chand Vs State of Punjab