RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 6.9.1994 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the accused Raj Kumar and Ram Piari had been convicted for offences under Sections 304 -B and 498 -A IPC. For offence under Section 304 -B IPC, the Appellants had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and for the offence under Section 498A IPC, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. The sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) THE deceased in this case is Daya Kaur aged about 18 years d/o Sucha Singh R/o Balheri. Sucha Singh father of the deceased is the complainant in this case. The death had taken place on 24.3.1992 just after 5 -6 months of the marriage in matrimonial house in village Bishangarh about 18 kms. away from the village of the complainant. The FIR was lodged on 25.3.1992 on the statement made by Sucha Singh. Accused Raj Kumar happens to be the husband whereas Ram Piari is the mother -in -law. Raj Bala, the married sister of the husband had also faced trial but she was acquitted. The death in this case had been by consumption of Sulphas Tablets. The factum of death otherwise than under normal circumstances and within seven years of marriage is not disputed.

(3.) SHRI R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant had argued that Sucha Singh (PW 2), the father of the deceased and the complainant of the case had not supported the prosecution case. He argued that there was no earlier history of demand. There was no evidence that there was any demand before the marriage or at the time of marriage or at the time of any ceremonial occasion. There was no evidence of ill treatment. Further there was no evidence of mode of harassment or cruelty. It was also not specifically stated by any of the witnesses as to who out of the accused had made that demand. He pointed out from the statement of witnesses, that it would come out that the father of the deceased was just a labourer having five children whereas the father of Raj Kumar was a permanent Beldar. He was having agricultural holding also, which was being irrigated by canal. From the statement of Sucha, it was pointed out that 4 -5 days prior to the occurrence Sucha and Lachmi had visited the house of the accused in connection with engagement of the brother of Raj Kumar accused. At that time, Daya Kaur had just asked Sucha to get her a T.V., cycle, a wrist watch and a fan. Sucha had stated that Daya Kaur must have been harassed by the accused to get these things as she would not have otherwise demanded these things. Sucha had stated that Daya Kaur had never complained of any thing earlier and that the accused was raising any demand. Sucha had further stated that when he asked Daya Kaur to identify who had actually demanded those articles then Daya Kaur told that Sucha should not be concerned about this fact. From this, it was vehemently argued that throughout the period of marriage, there had been no demand on earlier occasion nor there was any complaint. It was argued that Daya Kaur might have asked for the articles of her own since it was quite possible that the brother of Raj Kumar was engaged and those articles may be coming as dowry at the time of marriage of brother of Raj Kumar and Daya Kaur may be feeling lower in status if the articles were not there. It was argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant that in the circumstances not much reliance can be placed on testimony of Lachmi Devi (PW3). From the statement of Sham Lal PW8, who is the brother of Sucha, it was pointed out that Smt. Lal had visited the house of the accused one and half month after the marriage and at that time nothing had happened. It was argued that Daya Kaur was living happily throughout and there was no occasion even for the parents to visit earlier than that engagement ceremony or to bring Daya Kaur due to any complaint.