DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED appellant Deepak Kumar has directed the present appeal against the judgment dated 13.11.2000 and order dated 17.11.2000 passed by Sh. Darshan Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide which the accused -appellant was convicted under Sections 304 -B and 498 - A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 304 -B of the IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ - for the offence under Section 498 -A of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court, however, acquitted co -accused after giving them benefit of doubt.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that Sunita, daughter of complainant Arjun Singh Verma (PW -5) was married with accused Deepak Sadha. Complainant moved an application to the SHO, Pinjore wherein it was mentioned that on 14.9.1996 at about 3.45 p.m, complainant received a telephonic message at Tohana from accused Deepak Sadha from Pinjore that his daughter Sunita is serious and he should reach immediately. Complainant along with his wife, two brothers Prithvi Singh and Bhim Singh and his son Hem Raj reached at Pinjore at about 9.20p.m. and found his daughter Sunita dead in J.N. Shori Hospital situated at Nalagarh road, Pinjore. He apprehended foul play in the sudden death of his only daughter. Complainant thought that she has been murdered by her in -laws, husband and her sister -in -law (Nanad). Name of her father -in -law is R.C. Sadha, Mrs. Nirmala Sadha is her mother -in -law. It was further mentioned that his daughter had been tortured for dowry in the past also. She was brought from Tohana by his son -in -law and his maternal uncle Rajinder Kumar. A dispute was settled at Tohana before his brothers Pirthi Singh and Bhim Singh. Complainant had sent his daughter on the clear understanding and the assurance of good behaviour in future and that there would be no demand of dowry in future. It was further alleged that all the articles of jewellery given at the time of marriage of his daughter were in the custody of her in -laws. At the time of re -settlement also, a sum of Rs.25,000/ - was given through his brother Bhim Singh.

(3.) THE copies of documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session therefore, the same was committed to the Court of Session.