JAGSIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the cases i.e. CRA-D No. 216-DB of 2009 and CRR No. 2816 of 2008 arising out of common judgment of conviction, order of sentence qua appellant Jagsir Singh and acquittal of Baldev Singh and Balwinder Kaur, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad are taken up together with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and revisionist.

(2.) Appellant/convict, Jagsir Singh has filed appeal against judgment of conviction dtd. 9/9/2008 and order of sentence dtd. 10/9/2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in Sessions Case bearing No. 119 of 2005 dtd. 26/9/2005, titled as "State v. Jagsir Singh" vide which appellant Jagsir Singh is sentenced as under:-

(3.) Brief facts as per prosecution case are that on 6/7/2005 SI Kanwar Singh along with the police party was present on Kundel Barrier in connection with routine checking. Mahender Singh complainant came and got his statement recorded. He stated that he is resident of village Jaglan and an agriculturist by profession. He was blessed with three children i.e. two sons and a daughter. His daughter Sajandeep Kaur aged about 19 years was married to Jagsir Singh s/o Baldev Singh resident of Udaipur according to Hindu rites and he had given dowry articles beyond his means. Sajandeep Kaur was sent to her matrimonial home for leading a happy married life. However, when his daughter returned to parental house she disclosed to him, his wife and his son that Balwinder Kaur-mother-in-law, Baldev Singh-father-in-law and Jagsir Singh-husband were pressurizing her to bring a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs for purchasing a car and they openly proclaimed that she would be rehabilitated only when their demand was satisfied. He persuaded his daughter and told her that he would make her in-laws understand. He along with Sukhpal Singh and Nachhatar Singh visited house of accused in village Udaipur and requested them not to harass his daughter. They openly raised demand of Rs.2.00 lakhs for purchasing a car. The complainant expressed his inability to satisfy this demand as he was a poor person. They threatened not to rehabilitate his daughter. Thereafter, they returned to their village Jaglan. He again persuaded Jagsir Singh and others and ultimately, they took his daughter back to matrimonial home. On 6/7/2005, complainant received telephonic call from Baldev Singh-father-in-law that his daughter Sajandeep Kaur had expired. On receiving this information, he along with many other persons of his village came to Udaipur and saw dead body of his daughter. The complainant alleged that Jagsir Singh had murdered his daughter by strangulating her. She was maltreated in the matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry. With these allegations present FIR was registered under Sec. 498-A, 304-B/34 IPC. Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of formal FIR.