DOD RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts :-

(2.) THE prosecution in support of its case placed reliance primarily on the evidence of Rajbala (PW 1), Hari Singh (PW 3), Nand Lal (PW 4) and SI Mohinder Singh (PW 5).

(3.) THE trial Court in its judgment relied on the evidence of Hari Singh (PW 3), Rajbala (PW 1) and Nand Lal (PW 4) to hold that a demand for dowry had been made from Hari Singh on five different occasions and on each occasion, it was primarily Ram Pershad and Dod Ram, who had demanded the dowry. The Court also concluded that as the sum of Rs. 21,000/- had not been paid by Hari Singh as promised by him in consideration of the marriage of Ram Pershad with Saroj, she had been maltreated by her husband and for arriving at this conclusion relied primarily on the evidence of Rajbala, Saroj's sister, who stood married to Dharamvir accused, Ram Pershald's brother. The Court accordingly held that from the evidence of Rajbala, the maltreatment meted out not only to Saroj but also to Rajbala (PW 1) at the hands of Man Kaur, Ram Rati and Dod Ram, stood proved beyond doubt. The Court also rejected the defence version that Saroj had died on account of natural causes. The defence witnesses to prove this story were held to be untrustworthy. The Court accordingly held that in the light of provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as well the presumption raised under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, it was to be held that the accused other than Dharamvir had committed an offence under Section 304-B of the Code and having held as above, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. Dharamvir was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.