SHUSHILA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case, complaint was filed by Shushila Kumari against the acquittal of Gurmukh son of Krishan Chand and Damayanti wife of Krishan Chand. Both gurmukh and Damayanti were convicted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, kurukshetra for offence under Section 406, ipc to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the same, Gurmukh and Damayanti respondents had filed appeal and the same was decided by the additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. It was stated by the petitioner that she was married with Gurmukh Singh on 21st January, 1991 at Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and at the time of marriage various articles of dowry were given and they were entrusted to the accused. It is further stated that accused had demanded dowry. Prosecution had examined P. W. 1 Ram Chander, father of the complainant. Shushila, petitioner-complainant has appeared as P. W. 2. Other prosecution witnesses were Amar Nath P. W. 3, Raj Kumar P. W. 4 and Devi Dayal P. W. 5 along with P. W. 6 Nripjeet Singh. Under section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused has stated that it was a love marriage and no dowry articles were given. In defence the prosecution examined D. W. 1 Krishan Kumar Director private Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. and D. W. 2 Manohar Lal.

(3.) THE learned appellate Court below considered various factors. It took into account that Ram Chander P. W. 1 had no capacity to give articles as suggested by the prosecution. The Court also doubted the list annexure-A and Annexure-B, which were filed along with the complaint and after appreciating the entire prosecution, came to the conclusion that no offence is made out. The learned appellate Court below also placed reliance on letter Exs. D-1 to D-6 to hold that there is no mention of demand or entrustment of dowry articles.