GURDAS SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the husband-Gurdas Singh against the judgment of conviction dated 06.11.2000 and the sentence order dated 07.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide he was convicted under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three year under Sec. 498-A of the Code and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The parents of appellant, however, were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 406/498-A/304-B/34 of the Code.

(3.) The instant case was registered on the basis of statement dated 07.05.1998 made by Gurmail Singh (father of deceased-Charanjit Kaur), before the Sub Inspector of Police Amar Singh, where in he inter alia, stated that his daughter was married to Gurdas Singh-appellant in the year 1997 and he had gifted her with a cash amount of Rs. 50,000, one coloured T.V, one refrigerator, 20 tolas of gold etc. However, appellant and his parents started making demand for a Royal Enfield Motorcycle and a video cassette recorded after about two or three months of the marriage. The deceased was harassed and physically tortured by the appellant and his parents, as narrated by the deceased to him. But the complainant advised his daughter to return to her nuptial home and make a sincere attempt to defuse the situation but her husband and his parents refused to relent. The complainant was highly dismayed and convened the panchayat, who accompanied him to village Rori and advised the members of the nuptial family of his daughter to treat the young bride with love and compassion but they continued pressing their demand for more dowry and even threatened to do away with Charanjit Kaur and marry the appellant again in case their demands were not met. A nephew of the complainant Harminder Singh accompanied Charanjit Kaur to her matrimonial home but the demand for more dowry was again repeated in his presence. They were not allowed to enter the house without meeting their demand and both of them returned to their native village. The complainant thereafter agreed to meet the demand after harvesting the rabi crop and thereafter, the deceased was allowed to return to her matrimonial home. However, the complainant was informed on that night itself that his daughter had died at the Civil Hospital, Rori after consuming poison on 04.05.1998. The matter was then brought to the knowledge of the police that appellant and his parents had killed Charanjit Kaur since he had failed to meet their unjust demand for a motorcycle and a Video Cassette Recorder. Subsequently, a case under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 was registered against the appellant and his parents.