BALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein and three others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A and 201 of the IPC before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat who after trial came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against A-1 Sukhbir and A-4 Krishna and acquitted them of the said charges, while it came to the conclusion that A-2 Baljeet, who is the appellant before us, was guilty of offences punishable under Section 304-B, IPC as also Section 498-A, IPC. The said Court found A-3 Ganga Dutt guilty of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The trial Court sentenced the first appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC to undergo 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- while it sentenced him to undergo 2 years RI for an offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC. It convicted the second appellant for an offence punishable under Section 201, IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 years RI. The sentences imposed on the first appellant. Baljeet Singh were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the said convicted accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which by its impugned judgment confirmed the said conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) It is against the said judgment of the High Court the two appellants filed the above criminal appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, A-3 Ganga Dutt died, hence, his appeal abated and the present appeal is confined to first appellant only.

(3.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : It is the case of the prosecution as stated by PW-4 Baldeva in his complaint lodged on 14-2-1987 as also in his evidence before the Court that his daughter Darshana was married to the appellant herein about 5 years before the filing of the said complaint and he had spent about Rs. 30,000/- in the said marriage. He also alleged that he had given clothes and utensils, apart from ornaments. It is stated by this witness that about one and half months after the marriage, Darshana told her mother that her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given, therefore, they were always taunting her in this regard. PW-4 also alleged that Dharshnas father-in-law and other members of her family including her husband used to beat her. The further case of the complainant is that a year after her marriage, the appellant herein demanded a scooter and about 4 months prior to the filing of the complaint, the appellant had demanded Rs. 10,000/- for securing employment for his brother, but PW-4 could not fulfil these demands. It is further stated that about 2 weeks after Dharshna went to her marital home, a cousin of Darshna, by name, Dilbagh (PW-7) had gone to the village of the appellant to enquire about the welfare of Darshana and he came to know that Darshna had died as a result of taking pills of insecticide. This witness had also come to know that the accused persons had disposed of Darshanas body without informing her parents and other members of the family. The written complaint in question was filed before the Superintendent of Police which was transferred for investigation to the jurisdictional Police on 14-2-1987. In the said written complaint date of death of Darshana was given as 6-2-1987. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201, IPC was filed against four accused persons before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat. At the time of framing of charges, the Court also included Section 304-B as an additional charge against the accused persons. After the trial, A-1, Sukhbir, the younger brother of the appellant and A-4 Krishna, sister of the appellant were acquitted of the charges while the appellant and his father were convicted as stated above and their appeal having been dismissed by the High Court, they approached this Court by way of above criminal appeal. After the death of the second appellant, the present appeal is confined to the appellant-Baljeet only.