HAR NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for suspension of sentence and for releasing the appellants on bail. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Har Narain Singh and Pooran Singh who are the husband and father-in-law of the deceased Sadhna contended that the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been satisfied in this case. He submitted that while it is a fact that the deceased Sadhna, committed suicide on 16.07.2006 shortly after her marriage on 6.5.2006, it has not been established in evidence that the appellants were cruel or had harassed the deceased Sadhna in connection with the demand of dowry. He submitted that the entire prosecution case is founded on the allegation that there was a demand for a motor cycle which had not been fulfilled by the parents of the deceased Sadhna. He submitted that as per the defence evidence and in particular DW-1 Naresh Babu who is the brother of appellant Har Narain, the appellant Har Narain already possessed a motor cycle prior to his marriage. He also referred to the testimony of PW-3 Sanghrattan, who is the co-brother-in-law of the complainant/Sadhna's father. In his testimony, PW-3 has stated that it is correct that Har Narain possessed a motor cycle prior to the marriage. Learned counsel also submitted that there was no specific allegation with regard to cruelty or harassment on the part of the appellants. He submitted that unless and until there was clear evidence of cruelty and harassment, mere demand for dowry, even if it is assumed that there was a demand for motor cycle, would not be sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 304B IPC.

(2.) THE learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court has convicted the appellants merley on the basis of the presumption without looking into the testimony of the defence witness, which, according to the learned counsel, clearly rebutted the presumption, if any such presumption could be raised. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant Har Narain, who had already spent about three years in custody and Pooran Singh, who had spent about two years in custody, though he was on bail for one year during the course of the trial, ought to be released on bail after their sentences are suspended.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the sentences in respect of appellant ought to he suspended and they be released on bail. We have taken this view upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per PW-3 himself, the appellant Har Narain already had a motor cycle prior to his marriage. Apart from this, we have also noticed that PW-1 and PW-2 have not, in the first instance, stated all the particulars in their examination-in-chief and it is only upon the learned Addl. PP cross- examining the said witnesses that they had come out with the statements which suggest cruelty and harassment.