LAKHBIR SINGH Vs. RANBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 16.02.2013 and order of sentence dated 18.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby respondents No.1 to 4 have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short), although, they have been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC. The appellant- Lakhbir Singh, who is the complainant in the case, in his statement made before SI Dalbir Singh on 25.11.2011 alleged that his daughter Harpreet Kaur (deceased) aged 25 years was married to Ranbir Singh-respondent No.1 son of Jagir Singh-respondent No.2, BY Anand Karaj ceremony of marriage on 18.02.2011. The appellant had given dowry, as per his capacity. His daughter was a post graduate (M.A English). Earlier whenever Ranbir Singh-respondent No.1, Jagir Singh-respondent No.2, Jagir Kaur-respondent No.3, (mother of Ranbir Singh-respondent No.1) demanded dowry, he used to pacify them and they would agree not to trouble his daughter for dowry. However, Harpreet Kaur respondent No.4 (sister-in-law) ('nanad') of his daughter used to taunt her for dowry; besides, used to beat her. In the morning, on 25.11.2011, Harpreet Kaurdeceased, daughter of the appellant on telephone called him to Sirsa city. He went there and at that time Ranbir Singh-respondent No.1, Jagir Singh-respondent No.2, Jagir Kaur-respondent No.3 and Harpreet Kaur-respondent No.4 ('Nanad') were all present at their house. His daughter in their presence asked the appellant to take her alongwith him, as she was pregnant otherwise respondents No.1 to 4 would kill her for dowry. Jagir Kaur-respondent No.3 and Harpreet Kaur-respondent No.4 ('Nanad') were demanding '4.00 lacs in dowry from the appellant. The appellant, however, informed them that he had given dowry as per his capacity at the time of the marriage and could not fulfill their demands. The appellant, however, counseled the respondents No.1 to 4, and pacified them but Jagir Singh-respondent No.2 refused to let his daughter accompany him.

(2.) Therefore, he left. At about 4.00 p.m., the appellant received information on telephone that his daughter had committed suicide.

(3.) On receiving this information, he alongwith his brother Amrik Singh and other members of the Panchayat of the village came to Sirsa.