SAROJ RANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, I shall dispose of these two appeals preferred by the husband and other in-laws of deceased Geeta against their conviction by the learned trial court. All the appellants were convicted under Section 498a read with Section 34 of IPC while appellant Manoj was in addition convicted under Section 304b of IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these two appeals are that Geeta deceased was married to appellant Manoj on 20th May 1997. Initially, she lived with her husband at 3772/20 Regar Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi along with other family members of her husband. However, about a week or two, before the incident, she and her husband had shifted to 16-A, Chitra Gupta Road, Pahar ganj, New Delhi, a Government accommodation allotted to her father-in-law. She succumbed to burn injuries on 3rd October 1997. Thus, the total span of her married life and biologicable after marriage was hardly four and a half months.

(3.) PW-6, brother of deceased, Dinesh Kumar, had made a written complaint ex. PW4/c to SDM on the very day of incident wherein he alleged that her sister geeta was being harassed on account of bringing less dowry by her mother-in-law saroj Rani, father-in-law Lajpat Rai and husband Manoj. They had a complaint that she had not brought Colour TV, fridge and gold chain. He alleged that there used to be daily quarrels in the family of his sister on account of bringing less dowry. Her mother-in-law used to ask for silk saree and a heavy gold chain. About 15 days prior the incident of death, he and his wife had visited the matrimonial house of deceased Geeta while coming back from the hospital and they met mother-in-law of Geeta sitting outside the house and his wife had a talk with Geeta. Geeta told her that she was being threatened of desertion and of being killed. Geeta wanted that she should be taken along. Her mother-in-law told that her son had been getting proposals from rich families for to Rs. 20 lac and Geeta's parents had not given anything. Even a week before the incident, geeta and Manoj had gone to Malakhpur (resident of parents of Geeta ). After that geeta had talked with him on phone and told them that she was being harassed. Appellant Manoj had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her parents at Malakpur and her parents had given Rs. 20,000/- after taking the same on loan. He alleged that mother-in-law and father-in-law and husband of Geeta were all responsible for her death. On next day, statements of father and mother of deceased were recorded by SDM and both of them also made allegations about dowry harassment by husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. However, they added two more names i. e. two Dewars of Geeta and in the statements to SDM they stated that a week before the incident, Geeta was brought to their house by her two Dewars namely sumit and Navin and they had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from them on behalf of husband and parents-in-law of Geeta and Rs. 20,000/- was given to them and Geeta was sent back on the same day.