RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present revision petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 8.7.2005, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissed an application, filed under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the private respondents be summoned to stand trial.

(2.) THE petitioner's daughter Geeta was married to one Jatinder. On 8.4.2004, the petitioner received a telephonic communication that his daughter and her husband had fallen into a canal, while riding a motor-cycle and though Jatinder had survived, Geeta's whereabouts were unknown. The petitioner recorded a statement dated 9.4.2004, before the police, stating therein that his daughter had been done to death for failure to meet the demands of dowry. It was alleged that his daughter's husband Jatinder, mother-in-law Kamlesh, father-in-law Sarnam Singh, Sonu son of Sarnam Singh, Komal wife of Sonu were dissatisfied with the dowry. Soon after her marriage, his daughter had disclosed, to the petitioner, that the aforementioned individuals harassed her for not brining a buffalo. After a few days, the petitioner arranged a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the purchase of a buffalo and handed over the same to his daughter's father-in-law. A month later, the in-laws (respondent Nos. 2 to 5) began beating and harassing his daughter so as to coerce her into bringing a cooler, a fridge and a motor-cycle. As he could not fulfil these demands, the petitioner brought his daughter back. She stayed with him till 3.3.2004. Thereafter, at the intervention of a Panchayat, Geeta was returned to her matrimonial home. A fortnight thereafter, the beating and harassment commenced and a demand was raised for a television. These, in brief, are the facts in the petitioner's first statement to the police.

(3.) CHARGES , under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the IPC, were framed against the accused. The petitioner appeared as a witness on 17.9.2004 and deposed that his daughter was done to death, for failure to fulfil the demands of dowry. She was harassed and treated with cruelty by her husband Jatinder and respondent Nos. 2 to 5. In essence, he repeated the allegations, levelled by him, in his first statement, dated 9.4.2004. During cross-examination, he was confronted with his subsequent statement, dated 12.4.2004, i.e., the supplementary statement exonerating respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and implicating Geeta's husband and his friends for her murder. He disowned the statement and categorically asserted that he had never made any such statement.