MALKHAN & UMRAWALI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the prosecution version and its evidence in entirety, appellant-convicts Malkhan son of Tara Chand (husband) and his mother Umrawali (mother-in-law) of Lali (deceased) (for brevity "the appellants") have preferred the instant appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.2.1999 and order of sentence dated 17.2.1999, by virtue of which, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short "RI") for a period of seven years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of six month for the commission of an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC. They were also convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of three months u/s 498-A IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court of Addl. Sessions Judge.

(2.) The crux of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the present appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that the marriage of appellant Malkhan was solemnized with Lali (deceased), whereas the marriage of his brother Maman was performed with her (deceased) real sister Dhano on 22.6.1988 according to Hindu rites & ceremonies. The father of the deceased was stated to have given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage as per his capacity, but the appellants were not satisfied in this respect. After solemnization of the marriage, they had started harassing the deceased for bringing less dowry. Thereafter, Lali had returned to her parental home in the year 1992 and narrated her tale of woe to her father complainant Suraj Bhan son of Mangal (PW2) (for brevity "the complainant") & mother Santro (PW3) that the appellants were harassing her for bringing less dowry and demanded scooter & TV. She stayed there for one year. In the year 1993, appellant Malkhan and his relative Subedar Bhoop Singh came to the house and assured the complainant that no body would harass his daughter. The complainant agreed and sent his daughter Lali to her matrimonial home. She again returned after 25 days and complained that she was being harassed by the appellants. They repeated the demand of scooter and TV. Appellant Malkhan came to the house of complainant on the eve of Raksha Bandhan festival and asked Lali to accompany him to her matrimonial home. However, the complainant requested him not to take her as it would not look proper to send her on the eve of Raksha Bandhan festival. He became annoyed, asked them to send her later on and he will not come back to take her. Two days thereafter the complainant advised and sent his daughter to live in her matrimonial home. It was alleged that meanwhile, his 2nd daughter Dhano came to his (complainant) house and told him that the appellants were taunting and harassing Lali for bringing less dowry.

(3.) Sequelly, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 15.8.1993, Bhoop Singh, Subedar came and told the complainant that Lali has committed suicide by hanging. On receipt of this information, the complainant along with his cousin brother Jeet Singh went to village Nawada and noticed the dead body of the deceased lying in the Courtyard of the house of appellants. There was a scar on her neck. He reported the matter to the police.