KAPTAN @ HARI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 259 -SB and 572 -SB of 1995 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.4.1995 and 22.4.1995, respectively, passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in case FIR No. 145 dated 23.8.1992 P.S. Beri under Sections 498 -A/304 -B/201 IPC. Crl. Appeal No. 259 -SB of 1995 has been filed by Kaptan @ Hari Kishan, Krishan and Chhotu, who have been convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and Crl. Appeal No. 572 -SB of 1995 has been filed by Lilu @ Randhir (husband of the deceased), who has been convicted under Sections 498 -A; 304 -B and 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 201, IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that appellant Lilu @ Randhir was married to Saroj (deceased) in the year 1988 and his real brother Rohtas was married to her real sister Ram Ratti. It is the case of prosecution, which was launched on the statement of Smt. Chameli, mother of deceased Saroj and Ram Ratti, that both the brothers, Lilu @ Randhir and Rohtas, used to harass their respective wives for want of more dowry. An amount of Rs. 5,000 was given to appellant Lilu @ Randhir by the complainant after taking loan. Whenever, he used to come at Dadri at his in -laws house, he always demanded money from the complainant. On 13.8.1992, on the occasion of Raksha Bandan, appellant Lilu @ Randhir and deceased Saroj came to Dadri. Appellant Lilu @ Randhir demanded Rs. 10,000 from the complainant by saying that he has to open a Karyana shop. Thereupon, the complainant replied that Rs. 5,000 earlier paid to him, were not returned and she was not in a position to pay him Rs. 10,000. Thereafter, appellant Lilu @ Randhir went to his house leaving the deceased at the house of her mother. Subsequently, Hari Singh, uncle of deceased Saroj persuaded her to go to her in -laws house, upon which she went to her in -laws house. Thereafter, on 18.8.1992, appellant Kaptan, elder brother of accused Lilu @ Randhir, came to the house of the complainant and asked her that she was being called by Rohtas in village Paharipur. The complainant did not accompany him alone. Subsequently, she went to village Paharipur along with her relations, where she came to know from her daughter Ram Ratti that her another daughter Saroj was killed by the appellants and she was cremated. Thereafter, the complainant came back to her house at Dadri and four days after the occurrence, she lodged the FIR on 23.8.1992. The matter was investigated by SI Ashok Kumar, SHO, Police Station Beri. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed against the appellants.

(3.) THOUGH the prosecution had cited 13 witnesses in the list of witnesses submitted by it, but it examined only six witnesses in support of the charges framed against the appellants. The prosecution also tendered in its evidence affidavits of HC Hari Parkash and Constable Kanwal Singh as Ex. PH and Ex. PJ and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PL.