SADHU RAM Vs. SATISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS :

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Satish Kumar son of Ram Phal was married to the deceased daughter of the complainant, namely, Neelam Kumari on 29.6.2004. within four months of the marriage, said Neelam Kumar died an unnatural death on 27.6.2004. According to her post -mortem report dated 28.6.2004 (Annexure P - 1), the cause of her death was "asphyxia due to strangulation which is ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the due course of time". FIR No. 106 dated 28.6.2004 under Sections 304 -B and 498 -A/34 IPC was got registered by the Petitioner - i.e. father of the deceased (Neelam Kumari) on 28.6.2004. As per the allegations contained therein his deceased daughter was being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry by her husband and her mother - in -law and was given beatings in that regard; that a demand for a car along with cash amount of Rs. 2 lacs was raised by Respondent No. 1 and his family members; the daughter of the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home in three clothes; the complainant along with his brother Ram Kala took his daughter to her parental village in the month of April 2004 and thereafter Respondent No. 1 was called and advised not to demand dowry as Rs. 5 lacs had already been given to him and his family; the complainant also paid Rs. 25,000/ - to him, however, Respondent No. 1 and his family members kept on persisting for their demand of Rs. 2 lacs in cash upon which the complainant took a panchayat on 21.6.2004 to the village of Respondent No. 1 where, in the presence of everyone, a sum of Rs. 51,000/ - was more paid to Respondent No. 1; that on 27.6.2004 i.e., the date of occurrence, the Petitioner's nephew Pardeep had gone to the village of Respondent No. 1 where he was allegedly threatened by Respondent No. 1 and his family members that they would kill Neelam Kumari if their demand for dowry was not met. Thereafter, said Pardeep came crying to the Petitioner's village at about 10 p.m., on that very day and informed that Neelam Kumari had been killed by Respondent No. 1 and his family members.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY thereafter, the Petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the above mentioned bail order dated 12.8.2004. In support of the said application, the Petitioner relying upon the 'birth certificate' purported to be that of Respondent No. 1 and some more documents contended that he was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence, therefore no bail ought to have been granted to him on this account. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, vide order dated 25.8.2004 (Annexure P7) dismissed the application on the premise that Respondent No. 1 had neither attempted to tamper with the evidence nor has mis -used the concession of bail in any manner, therefore, no ground for cancellation of bail was made out.