RAJBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide CRA No.1469-SB of 2002 filed by appellants-convicts Rajbir & Ors. and CRR No.2256 of 2002 filed by petitioner-complainant Bhoj Raj, arising out of the same impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence of trial Judge, by virtue of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition.

(2.) The matrix of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that the marriage of Roopwati, sister of complainant Bhoj Raj (PW3) (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with appellant Rajbir son of Manohar Lal on 11.3.1995, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. He was stated to have spent an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on her marriage beyond his capacity and gave one scooter marka Chetak, Godrej almirah, black & white TV, sewing machine, table, chair, bed, HMT watch, and gold ornaments, besides other customary dowry articles including cash of Rs. 5100/-, but the accused were not satisfied. They started demanding Hero Honda motorcycle, colour TV and cash of Rs. 50,000/- from her. She used to narrate the pointed demands to her parents. It was alleged that 15/16 days prior to the present occurrence, Roopwati had come to her parental house and narrated the tale of her woe that the accused were demanding the Hero-Honda motorcycle, colour TV etc. and Rs. 50,000/- in cash, failing which, they would continue to harass and beat her in this regard.

(3.) Sequelly, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 20.9.1998, appellant Rajbir came to the house of complainant and told that Roopwati was missing from her matrimonial home. The complainant and his brother searched for her in their relations, but in vain. On 22.9.1998, when the complainant and his brother had gone to her matrimonial home in village Pelak in search of his sister, then they noticed that the dead body of Roopwati wrapped in the cloth was lying there. According to the complainant that appellants-accused Rajbir (husband), Ramesh, Prem ss/o Manohar Lal (brothers-in-law), Manohar Lal s/o Karelal, his wife Chironji (parents-in-law) (since acquitted), Ramsiri w/o Ramesh and Maya w/o Prem (sisters-in-law) had murdered her either after giving beating or administering some poisonous substance to her on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint (Ex.PA) of complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the accused, by means of FIR No.409 dated 22.9.1998 (Ex.PA/1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A and 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Palwal, previously District Faridabad, now Distt. Palwal, in the manner depicted here-in-above.