INDER SINGH AND ANR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition, for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners, in a case of dowry death and emanating from the record, inter-alia, are that the marriage of Kiran (since deceased), daughter of complainant Bijender Khatri s/o Om Parkash (for brevity "the complainant"), was solemnized with Amit, son of Inder Singh (petitioner No.1) on 25.2.2013, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies. The complainant (PW1), in his statement (Annexure P1), has specifically stated that he had performed the descent marriage by spending huge amount beyond his capacity and had given sufficient dowry to the accused. Just ten days after the marriage of his daughter, accused Amit (husband), Inder Singh (petitioner No.1) (father-in-law), Roshni (mother-inlaw), Sumit brother-in-law (Jeth) and Sushma (petitioner No.2), sister-in- law (Jethani), started harassing her on account of bringing insufficient dowry. They gave beatings to Kiran and turned her out of the matrimonial home. The matter was, however, pacified and she was sent to her matrimonial home by the complainant. Some days thereafter, the accused pressurized her either to bring a sum of Rs. 50 lacs from her parents or to purchase a plot in Delhi in their names. She showed her inability to fulfill their illegal demand of Rs. 50 lacs on account of paucity of funds with her father. The accused gave beatings and again turned her out of the matrimonial home. She narrated the entire tale of her woe to her father (complainant) and expressed apprehension that the accused would endanger her life. Subsequently, about 25 days prior to the instant occurrence, the complainant persuaded his daughter to go to her matrimonial home on the assurance of the accused to keep her nicely, but in vain.

(2.) Likewise, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 3.1.2014, Kiran (deceased) had telephonically informed the complainant about the maltreatment and mis-behaviour of the accused towards her. In the morning of 5.2.2014 at about 8 A.M., she again made a call, talked and informed her mother that petitioners and their other co-accused were harassing, torturing and extending beatings to her on account of nonfulfillment of their illegal demand of Rs. 50 lacs to or purchase a plot in Delhi. On the same night at about 8.30 P.M., petitioner Inder Singh has telephonically informed the complainant that his daughter had sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the hospital. As soon as, the complainant reached there, he found his daughter dead. According to the complainant that his daughter Kiran had been set ablaze and murdered by the accused.

(3.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, the prosecution claimed that the death of Kiran was caused by burns or bodily injuries and she died an unnatural death within about one year of her marriage and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners and their other co-accused, vide FIR No.28 dated 6.2.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 304-B, 498-A, 120-B and 302 IPC by the police of Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat, in the manner depicted here-in-above.