MEHAR DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No.1 Mehar Dass is the unfortunate husband who has faced trial under Ss. 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code because of the fact that his wife Shrimati Pataso died by consuming poison and committed suicide on 17/03/1989. The remaining two appellants Puran Mal and Shanti are parents of Mehar Dass. All the three jointly were charged for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the aforesaid suicide committed by Shrimati Pataso. An FIR was registered on 17/03/1989 at Police Station Pilukhera at the instance of Ramphal son of Ram Karan.

(2.) As per the prosecution version Mehar Dass appellant, who was serving in Army was married with Pataso in February, 1982. After the marriage, deceased Shrimati Pataso lived with her husband and her parents-in-law in her matrimonial home. Even according to the case put up by the prosecution, the husband of the deceased and his parents were satisfied with the dowry items given at the time of marriage but subsequently they started harassing her by raising more demand of dowry. Mehar Dass came on leave from Army on 16/03/1989 and went to the house of his parents-in-law i.e. the parents of Shrimati Pataso to bring Pataso to his house. He asked Ramphal brother of Pataso and Shrimati Darkan mother of Pataso to send her along with him. Accordingly, Pataso accompanied her husband to her matrimonial home. On the next day i.e. 17/03/1989 Rajbir younger brother of Mehar Dass came to the village of Pataso and informed that she had consumed some poisonous tablet and was being taken to hospital at Jind. Pataso died because of the consumption of the aforesaid poisonous substance.

(3.) The prosecution led evidence and produced PW-7 Ramphal son of Ram Karan, who is the real brother of deceased Pataso; PW-8 Shrimati Darkan mother of the deceased, PW-9 Shri S. K. Shukla, Assistant Chemical Examiner and PW-10 SI Mam Chand, who was Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, learned Sessions Judge, Jind found all the accused guilty of the commission of the offences under Ss. 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted them and sentenced them to undergo RI for five years each under S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further ordered to undergo RI for one year under S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellants have now challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind through the present appeal.