JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who are the father-in-law and motherin-law of the deceased, one Shanti Devi, have been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and for a period of one year for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Sentences of fine for each of the offences had also been imposed. In appeal, the High Court, while affirming the conviction of the accused appellants, had, however, reduced the sentence so far as the offence under Section 304-B IPC is concerned from a period of ten years custody to a period of seven years custody. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) The FIR in the present case was lodged by one Kalu Ram, father of the deceased, who was working as a Clerk in Government Girls High School, Pataudi. According to the complainant, the marriage between his daughter Shanti Devi and accused Raj Kumar, son of the appellants, Jagdish Chand and Mishri Devi, was solemnised on 19.4.1988. Immediately after the marriage and despite giving of sufficient gifts by the complainant to the accused party, there were demands of further dowry including demands for a scooter and television. As the complainant was unable to fulfil the demands, the deceased was turned out from the matrimonial home whereafter she stayed with her parents. This had happened on several occasions. According to the complainant, on all such occasions, the deceased returned to her matrimonial home only to be turned out again. Finally, in the night intervening 6th and 7th December, 1994, death of Shanti Devi on account of burn injuries had occurred leading to institution of the FIR in question.

(3.) The evidence of PW-1, Dr. S.K. Gupta, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Shanti Devi on 8th December, 1994; the evidence of PW-6, the complainant Kalu Ram; the deposition of PW-7, Sarjit Singh, a co-employee of PW-6; and the evidence of PW-8, Sanjay, son of the complainant would be relevant to be noticed.