MURTI Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRIMATI Murti appellant - 1 is the wife of Om Parkash appellant - 3, Partap Singh appellant-2 is their son; Dharambir, Lilu Ram and Phattu Ram are maternal uncle, uncle and grant father respectively of Partap Singh appellant. Accused - 1 to 4 were charged for offence under Section 304 B, IPC and they, alongwith accused 5 and 6 were also charged for offence under Section 201, IPC. At the time of recording statements of the accused under Section 313. Cr.P.C. Sh. Chhabra, learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide order dated 9.3.1990 found that there was no incriminating evidence which could be put to Lilu Ram and Phattu. He, therefore, acquitted them of the charges. On trial, the learned Judge found the prosecution case against Dharambir as doubtful and also acquitted him. The Court, however found the remaining three accused appellants, namely Smt. Murti Partap Singh and Om Parkash guilty and vide its judgement and order dated 17.4.90 and 19.4.90 convicted and sentenced each of them to RI for seven years under the former charge and RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default further RI for one month, under the latter charge. The sentences were made to run concurrently. Feeling dissatisfied, Smt. Murti, Partap Singh and Om Parkash have preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE charge relates to the death of Smt. Rajbala wife of Partap Singh appellant and destroying of her dead body. The prosecution version briefly narrated, is to the effect that Smt. Rajbala was married to Partap Singh appellant on 1.3.1988. Muklawa ceremony was also performed at the time of marriage. After staying at her in laws house for about 3/4 days, she returned to her parent, house. She informed her brother Balwant Singh that her in laws were not happy over the dowry and they used to taunt her about the same. After spending about a month with them, she returned to her matrimonial home. She lived for about two months at her in laws' place. She again visited her parents. This time, she complained that the appellants Smt. Murti Partap Singh and Dharambir (since acquitted) made a demand for a sewing machine and a radio set in dowry and also that they used to hurt abuses on her. She returned to her in laws after staying for about a month with her parents. Her brother Balwant Singh visited her matrimonial home r/5 days thereafter. He requested the appellants not to harass Smt Rajbala and made a promise to given other articles. However, the appellants did not feel satisfied. On her next visit to her in laws, Smt. Rajbala was given a sewing machine and a radio set, as presents. On the ocassion at Holi in March 1989 Smt. Rajbala visited her parent's place. This time, she complained to them that her in laws had been making demand of a fridge. After spending about 4/5 days, She returned to her in laws' house. Balwant Singh gave a promise that he would make present of a fridge after harvesting season. About 2 days before the occurrence she visited her Bhua's house in Sikandarpur in connection with a marriage. Her brother Balwant Singh had also attended that marriage. In presence of Bhagmal PW and her Bhua, named Bharpai she told that as she had not been given the fridge, the accused had given her a threat of death. She was given beating and abuses were hurled on her. A day after the marriage Bhagmal and Balwant Singh visited her in laws' village Barsi. They promised that they would give the fridge to them after the harvesting season. They asked for their permission to take Rajbala to her parents. The accused however, told them that she could not be sent as the harvesting season was approaching and would be sent thereafter.

(3.) SI Dharam Pal took over the investigation. From the cremation ground, he collected some bones and ashes regarding which Memo Ex. PE was prepared. He also took into possession some metal bangles vide Memo Ex PH, as also some broken pieces of glass bangles vide Memo Ex. PF.