RADHEY SHAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by Radhey Sham (husband), Ram Murti (father-in-law), and Smt. Kamla (mother-inlaw) of Raj Bala (since deceased), challenging their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment dated 27.1.2000, and the order of sentence, dated 28.1.2000, whereby each one of them was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that according to the prosecution, the marriage of Raj Bala (since deceased) was solemnized on 29.11.1984 with Radhey Sham, appellant No. 1, as per Hindu customs and rites. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law. Dharam Pal (PW1) and Krishan Chand (PW6) are brothers of Raj Bala (since deceased). Shishpal (PW3) is a friend of Krishan Chand (PW6). According to the statement (Ex. PA) of Dharam Pal (PW1), which was recorded by SI Satbir Singh (PW7), the age of Raj Bala (since deceased) was 22 years at the time of her marriage with appellant No. 1, Radhey Sham; no child was born for many years after the marriage and ultimately she gave birth to a female child about a year before her death; the members of her in-laws' family used to harass her on account of in-adequate dowry brought by her in the marriage; about three years prior to her death, she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the appellants with a direction that she should bring Rs. 10,000/- otherwise she had to stay with her parents; she stayed at her parental house for about 11 months; a Panchayat was convened and the appellants agreed to take Raj Bala on the assurance that in order to meet their demand of Rs. 10,000/-, they would be free to sell the ornaments of Raj Bala and her father would arrange fresh ornaments lateron; the appellants agreed that they would not harass Raj Bala, hence, Raj Bala accompanied her husband, Radhey Sham, to her matrimonial house; despite that the appellants continued to harass Raj Bala on one pretext or the other; one week prior to the death of Raj Bala, she visited her parental house and lodged a protest with her brother, Krishan Chand (PW6), that her in-laws had sent her to bring Rs. 10,000/- and, as such, Krishan Chand arranged Rs. 5,000/- and sent back Raj Bala along with her another brother, Sham Lal, to her in-laws' house; in the morning of 24.2.1991, Fateh Singh, uncle of appellant No. 1, Radhey Sham, visited the house of the complainant and told him that Raj Bala had died on the previous night; the complainant, Dharam Pal (PW1) and his brother, Krishan Chand (PW6), along with four villagers reached the house of the appellants at village Sanch, Police Station, Pundri, District Kaithal, and found that Raj Bala was lying dead on the ground in a room and observed that there were ligature marks on her neck; and that the complainant, Dharam Pal (PW1), became suspicious that her sister was killed by the appellants on account of demand of dowry.

(3.) On the basis of the statement (Ex. PA) of Dharam Pal (PW1), formal FIR (Ex. PA/2) was registered at Police Station, Pundri, District Kaithal. The inquest report (Ex. PE) was prepared and the dead body of Raj Bala was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. R.C. Mittal (PW2) conducted the autopsy and prepared post-mortem report (Ex. PB). During investigation, the appellants were arrested and interrogated by SI Satbir Singh (PW7). After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was prepared and the same was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate for proceeding in accordance with law. Since the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, was exclusively triable by the learned Court of Session, therefore, the matter was committed to the latter Court. Finding a prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34, IPC, the charge for the said offence was framed against all the three appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.