ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 06.01.2007 and order dated 08.01.2007, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 2005 dated 19.08.2005. Appellants Anil Kumar and Bala Devi were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, Rs. IPC '), both read with Section 34 IPC. In the alternative, they were also charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) under Section 498-A IPC, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Umed Singh had lodged the report Ex.P1 on 15.04.2005 to the effect that he had two sons and one daughter, namely Sunil, aged 23 years. She was married with Anil on 09.07.2000. According to him, he had given sufficient dowry. However, the in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with the dowry. They used to demand more dowry. His daughter made a telephone call on 21.03.2005 and called him. He sent his son Ravinder to village Ghasola. Ravinder came back and told that they were demanding Rs. 50,000/-. On 15.04.2005, he was informed that his daughter had hanged herself. He and his son Ravinder as well as respectable persons of village Ghasola went there. His daughter was lying on the bed. His daughter was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. She was killed by her in-laws. The police visited the spot and prepared the inquest report. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) It would be necessary at this stage to take note of the fact that during the examination of PW.1 Umed Singh on 28.11.2005, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Rambir to face trial with two co-accused. The application was dismissed on 01.12.2005. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and four more PWs on 19.05.2006, including complainant Umed Singh as PW.8, despite his examination-in-chief having been concluded on 28.11.2005 as PW.1. When Umed Singh was re-examined as PW.8 on 19.05.2006, he did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned trial court passed the following order on 19.05.2006 :-