MISRO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. According to the prosecution, Sarvsmt. Jagwanti and Bhateri, daughters of Dilbagh Singh, were married to Jai Singh and Munish, respectively, sons of Daya Nand, ten/twelve years ago. According to Jai Parkash who is the first informant, they gave adequate dowry to both of them in their marriage. His sister Bhateri was putting up with the father-in-law, husband and mother-in-law. They were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her in the marriage. They used to taunt her that she belonged to pauper's family; otherwise brides bring lot of dowry in their marriage. They used to demand fridge, cooler and scooter from her. They repeated their demand for fridge, cooler and scooter nine/ten months prior to Bhateri's unfortunate end. Jai Parkash assured them that he would satisfy their demand after the harvesting of the crop. He expressed his inability to fulfil their demand on the spur of the moment, saying that he was the only earning member in the family. On the occasion of Holi, his uncle who lived in village Fatehpuri went to see the gins. They threatened that if their demand was not fulfilled, they would kill Jai Parkash. Jai Parkash, uncle of Manipal, also assured them that their demand would be fulfilled definitely after the crop was harvested. On 26th of April, 1998, at about 7.30 a.m. they received message from Randhir and Bhim Singh of village Fatehpuri who went to village Salha was and they informed Jai Parkash that his sister Bhateri had died of burns. Thereupon Jai Parkash reported the matter to the police on the basis of which this case was registered.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of Bhateri took place 10/12 years ago and, therefore, it cannot be a "dowry death". He further submitted that it is not believable that Bhateri was treated with cruelty by Daya Nand, etc., because she had not brought adequate dowry and Jagwanti was not given any such treatment although Bhateri and Jagwanti were similarly situated. Counsel further submitted that it is not believable that the demand for fridge, cooler and scooter was made 10/12 years after the marriage. If demand for dowry is made, he submitted that it is made when the marriage is quite recent. Learned Asstt. Advocate General for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, submitted that it is a case of murder of Bhateri by Daya Nand, etc. He further submitted that charge has been framed against Daya Nand, etc., under Section 302, I.P.C., by the Sessions Judge when he felt that there was sufficient evidence against them to frame charge against them under Section 302, I.P.C.

(3.) I have gone through the statements of Jai Parkash, etc., recorded during investigation, without going into the worth of evidence test there should be prejudice to the trial on merits whether Section 306, I.P.C. is made out or 302, I.P.C. is made out, I feel that bail should be allowed to the petitioners. So, bail to the petitioners to the satisfaction of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhajjar.