NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant faced trial under Section 304 -B and 498 - A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in FIR No. 144 dated 24.08.2008 for offences under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B IPC, Police Station GRPS, Karnal. He was convicted of the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304 -B IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 498 -A IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) MEENA (deceased) who was married about one and half year before her death, is stated to have ended her life by jumping herself before a running train. It may be stated at the outset that before registration of FIR, the police party went to the hospital where appellant and Shamsher Singh father of the deceased were present. PW -9 stated that father of the deceased did not suspect any foul play in the sudden death of Meena and therefore, the proceedings were conducted in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C. and statements of appellant and father of the deceased were recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that deceased Meena, sister of PW -7 -complainant -Hawa Singh, was married with appellant on 02.02.2007 and some dowry articles were also given. When the complainant went to meet his sister about eight days after the marriage, she disclosed about the maltreatment meted out to her by appellant, his parents and wife of his elder brother (Bhabhi) on account of insufficient dowry and for not bringing a motorcycle. The complainant told the appellant and his family members that despite being poor persons they have given them the dowry as per their capacity. The complainant brought his sister to her parental home and informed the family members about the said demand. One month thereafter, the appellant and his parents came to bring the deceased but they reiterated the demand of motorcycle and therefore, did not take back the deceased with them. The complainant and his family had, however, assured to meet the aforesaid demand sometimes later.