OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 607 and 620 of 2000, in which the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment dated 23.5.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat dismissing the appeal filed before him to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat under Section 498-A IPC.

(2.) THE case against the petitioners was the outcome of matrimonial discord which arose between Santosh Kumari and Satish Kumar after the solemnisation of their marriage on 21.10.1985. According to F.I.R. No. 695 dated 20.6.1992 that was registered in Police Station City Sonepat at the behest of Santosh Kumari, at the time of her engagement, her partens had given sufficient articles valued at Rs. 20,000/- to her husband and other members of his family. At the time of her marriage, various articles listed in the complaint were handed over to the accused and in all about Rs. 1,50,000/- were spent thereon. Despite this, the persons mentioned in the complaint were not satisfied with the articles of dowry handed over to them, with the result that her husband Satish Kumar, mother-in-law Satya, brother-in-law Sunil Kumar, father-in-law Ram Lal, his sister Ishwar Devi and Om Parkash, brother-in-law of Ram Lal had been pressing her to bring more dowry. Satish Kumar-husband had demanded Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of goods for his shop which amount was given to him. Inspite of that, the petitioners were not satisfied and had been giving beating her off and on. After the birth of the children, the petitioners turned her out of the matrimonial home so that her parents could be forced to spend money on the unbringing of the children. On the birth of each of her children her parents had spent Rs. 20,000/- but this had not satisfied her in-laws. Om Parkash, the brother-in-law of her father-in-law used other methods to torture her and she bore the atrocities attributed them to her lock (luch ?). On 1.12.1991 the petitioners had tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her but she was able to save herself by running away. The neighbours had pacified her and assured that her in-laws would behave properly in future. Despite this assurance there was no change in their attitude and on 3.3.1992 her husband gave ger severe beating and asked her to bring Rs. 45,000/- for the purpose of taking Agency and they could give only Rs. 25,000/-. On account of the beating, she started bleeding and was about to leave for Delhi Police Station but was dissuaded by the members of the locality from doing so. The attitude of the in-laws did not change and on 21.5.1992 she was turned out from the house after being told that she should not return to the matrimonial home otherwise she and her children would be done to death. She was also told that if she wanted to settle with Satish Kumar then her parents should purchase a separate house for her. The Ishtridhan was kept by them. On the basis of this complaint, formal FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 120-B IPC was registered.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioners filed an appeal and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat on reappraisal of the evidence on record dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.