LAWS(SC)-1998-1-84

RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 08, 1998
RAM KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court confirming that of the Sessions Court. The appellants are convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. The first appellant is the husband and the second appellant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, Raj Dulari. The deceased was married to the first appellant on June 20, 1984. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants had demanded dowry ever since the marriage and demanding articles like T. V., sofa set and other articles of furnitures etc. Whenever the deceased visited her parents she used to tell her relations that the appellants were ill-treating and harassing her on demand of dowry.

(2.) The sister of the deceased, by name Bimla was married to the first appellant's brother on the same day of the marriage of the deceased. The 'muklawa' ceremony of younger sister took place about one and a half month prior to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution is that on 7th April 1988, three persons came to the house of PW 7 and told that Raj Dulari, the deceased was having severe pain in the stomach and that they should go to see her. On getting this information, she went along with her husband to the appellants' house but none of them was found. They found that her daughter, Raj Dulari was also not in the house. They found that their second daughter, Bimla was locked up in a room on the first floor. She told them that the appellants had given beating to Raj Dulari during the day and when she tried to intervene, she was detained in the locked room. Then the dead body of Raj Dulari was found lying near a well outside the house. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.

(3.) The Court of Session considered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the charges were proved. On appeal, the High Court affirmed that judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued before us that the following circumstances disprove the case of the prosecution.