SUDARSHAN PURI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The petitioner's learned counsel argued that there is no specific averment that the petitioner who is fathier -in -law of the deceased harassed or treated the deceased with cruelty. Relying on 1997 Crl. A.R. 134 and 1997 Crl. A.R. 121, he submitted that no evidence is collected to show that soon before death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. It is hard to believe that the petitioner being father -in -law was demanding dowry. The deceased committed suicide by hanging. Therefore, the Police has wrongly roped the petitioner in this case registered under Sections 498 - A/304 B/34 I.P.C. The mother -in -law and brother -in -law have already been enlarged on bail. He also submitted that father of the deceased has given a supplementary statement wherein he has given a different version than the earlier one to say that it is a case of murder and the deceased was tortured/beaten before her death and blood was also found in her room.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel these are all improvements made by the father of the deceased to show that the deceased was murdered.

(3.) RESPONDENT 's counsel submitted that deceased was married on 10.2.1997 to the petitioner's son and she was found dead on 18.7.1997. From the F.I.R., it is evident that even 7/8 days before her death she came to her parental home and told that she was apprehending death to her life as her in -laws have threatened her to throw her in Jamuna so that her parents may not do anything.