SONA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who had convicted the appellant Sona wife of Banwari Lal and Virender son of Banwari Lal for offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The trial Court had sentenced the appellants as under:

(2.) Both the appellants were nominated as accused in case FIR No.90 dated 09.05.1994 registered at Police Station Pataudi under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC.

(3.) The appellant Virender was married with Birmati, daughter of complainant Surat Singh. Appellant Sona is mother-in-law of Birmati. Surat Singh met the police party headed by Puran Mal SI/SHO, Police Station Pataudi. The police party was present near Octroi Post on Bilaspur Road. Surat Singh stated in his statement that he was having seven children, out of which three were daughters and four were sons. The youngest daughter Birmati, about three years ago was married with Virender son of Banwari Lal caste Ahir, according to Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, television, cooler, steel almirah, palang, fan, sewing machine, sofa, dressing table, two watches, two gold earrings, necklace, mangal sutar made of silver, six pairs of gold rings and 5100/- in cash were given in the form of dowry. At the time of marriage, bridegroom was demanding a scooter but the demand could not be fulfilled as the complainant had a large family to support. The accused had a grievance that scooter was not given in the marriage, therefore, they used to maltreat Birmati and give her beating. Birmati was residing with the complainant for about 10 months. Two months before the occurrence on the asking of elder brother of Virejder, Birmati was sent to her matrimonial home. It was stated that Sona also taunted son of the complainant and asked him either to give scooter or to take back Birmati. It is stated in the complaint that Prabha daughter of Jaswant Singh told the complainant that Sona mother-in-law and husband Virender had given beating to Birmati and had burnt her after pouring kerosene oil. Complainant along with his relatives was going to lodge the report when police party met him. He stated that since the scooter was not given at the time of marriage, his daughter Birmati has been killed by the accused appellants. The matter was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Thereafter, appellant were charged for offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC. It was stated in the charge under Section 304-B that on 9th May, 1994 in the area of village Bhokarka, Birmati died within seven years of her marriage, as her marriage had taken place three years prior to 9th May, 1994 and the accused had subjected her to cruelty and harassment and had also demanded scooter in the dowry. Therefore, they were liable to be punished for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Both the accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.