SONU DAYMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which charge under Section 304-B IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no specific allegation against the petitioner regarding demand of dowry and rather the allegations were general in nature. He drew the attention of this Court towards the loan sanction letter (Annexure P-6) to contend that the petitioner had purchased the car after raising a loan from the HDFC Bank, Narnaul, and he had been paying the installments regularly. He has further contended that as per the allegations, the petitioner and his other family members had been harassing the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry, but no such incident was ever reported to the police. Moreover, there is no independent corroboration to the allegations made by the complainant. In fact, the petitioner had never demanded any dowry either at the time of marriage or subsequent thereto. Had there been a demand for dowry at any time, the complainant, who is a police officer, would not have kept quiet.