BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.1998/ order of sentence dated 10.3.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Bhim Singh, Jai Singh, Jal Singh sons and Murti wife of Hari Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each under Section 304-B of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of the same, the defaulter to undergo further imprisonment for four months under Section 498-A of IPC with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts in brief of the prosecution case are that Sharmila, daughter of Hukam Singh complainant was married to the accused Bhim Singh on 19.2.1992. The accused Murti is the mother, the accused Jai Singh and Jal Singh are the brothers of Bhim Singh. They were dissatisfied with the dowry given in the marriage of Sharmila since deceased. On her third visit to her parental house, she told her parents that the accused were demanding Rs.1,25,000/- for house construction and were maltreating her on that account. When Bhim Singh came to his in-laws' house to take Sharmila with him, he was assured by his father-in-law Hukam Singh that as and when he gets land compensation from the government, he will pay the money to him. Two months later, the complainant again received the information that his daughter was being harassed. He sent his son Pardeep to her in-laws' house. On return, he told that she was being ill-treated and beaten up on that account. On this, the complainant called her to his house and kept her there for about 5-6 months. Bhim Singh again came to take her along. She was sent to her matrimonial home. When the accused did not change their attitude, the complainant along with his aforesaid son, Attar Singh and Raj Kumar went to the house of the accused, where Sharmila narrated to them the story of maltreatment. They persuaded the accused and returned back. On 30.12.1993 Pardeep again went to the house of the accused. On his return, he informed the complainant that she was still being harassed. On 1.1.1994, the complainant got a message through Attar Singh, that she had died by consuming some poisonous substance. On receipt of this information, the complainant along with others went to Village Birhera and found his daughter lying dead. He lodged a report with the police. The case was registered. The dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon. He committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence. They put forth that they are victims of blackmail. Sharmila was a woman of extremely impulsive and short-temperament nature and used to take small things to heart and detested village life as she was brought up in the city atmosphere and also did not like to do household chores. She also used to insist upon separate living from the parents of her husband and other family members, which was assured to her after "gauna" ceremony of Jal Singh. She committed suicide in a fit of anger. The accused did not adduce any evidence in their defence.