STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHAM LAL GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present judgment, we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 489-DBA of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 161-SB of 2001, Criminal Revision No. 1245 and 1251 of 2001.

(2.) ARUN Garg, his father Sham Lal Garg and mother Smt. Shimla Garg were tried in Sessions Case No. 29 of 13.8.1999 by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, who, vide judgment dated 22.1.2001, acquitted Sham Lal Garg and Smt. Shimla Garg and convicted Arun Garg under Sections 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution, as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses, are that the marriage between Seema daughter of Ramesh Chander Bansal PW1 and appellant Arun Garg took place on 25.2.1996. From the wedlock, a son and a daughter were born to the couple. According to Ramesh Chander Bansal complainant, at the time of the marriage, he had given sufficient dowry and cash amount of Rs. 2 lacs. Inspite of this, within a few days, the deceased had informed him that her husband and parents-in-law were not satisfied with the dowry given to her at the time of marriage and used to taunt her on having brought insufficient dowry. On 10.4.1996, the deceased had apprised her father on telephone about the demand made by her husband and parents-in-law for Rs. 40,000/-. Thereupon, Ramesh Chander Bansal along with Parkash Chand and Sohan Lal, who were responsible for arranging the marriage, had visited the house of the accused. During this visit, Arun Garg and Smt. Shimla Garg had told Ramesh Chander Bansal that he had given less dowry at the time of marriage and should provide dowry articles worth Rs. 40,000/-. Upon asking of Parkash Chand and Sohan Lal, the complainant is stated to have purchased articles worth Rs. 20,000/- and handed over the same to the accused. The complainant further stated before the police that the accused did not allow Seema to see her parents nor had they allowed her to visit the house of her parents since February, 1997. On the eve of Teej festival, when the complainant and his wife had gone to see Seema, they have been told by Seema that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Neena who had visited the house of her parents in those days were maltreating her and demanding more cash. Again the complainant along with Parkash Chand, Sohan Lal and one Hazur Singh resident of Model Gram, Ludhiana had gone to the house of the accused and on this occasion, the accused and Neena were advised not to harass Seema for more dowry. The harassment did not stop. The accused continued maltreating Seema. On 26.3.1999, Seema had telephoned her father and informed him that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Neena were planning to kill her. On account of his inability to obtain leave from his office, the complainant could not visit the deceased immediately and on 28.3.1999, on receiving the information that either the accused and Neena had administered some poisonous substance to Seema or Seema had consumed poison or her own accord, the complainant and his wife reached Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and found Seema lying admitted in the hospital. She was unconscious and her condition was serious.