VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. According to the prosecution, Saroj d/o Jaipal Singh was married to Vikram son of Sid Kishan on 15.3.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs. Her father had given dowry beyond his financial capacity. Since the marriage of Saroj, her mother-in-law Krishna, father-in-law Siri Kishan and her husband Vikram were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. After marriage, her in-laws started tounting Saroj saying that she had brought inadequate dowry. After six months of her marriage, Saroj came to her father's house alone and started weeping and telling him, her mother Mohan Dai and her brother Joginder that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and her husband were not happy with the dowry given to them in her marriage and after giving beatings, they had turned her out from the matrimonial house. She further told that she had been warned to bring Rs. 50,000/- if she meant her rehabilitation into the matrimonial home. Her father sent her back saying that he would meet the demand of her in-laws. He could not fulfil their demand of Rs. 50,000/- as he was poor having number of children. After fifteen days, he sent his son Joginder to enquire about the welfare of his daughter Saroj and then Saroj told Joginder that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law had given her beatings for not fulfilling their demand of Rs. 50,000/-. On the following day, Jaipal Singh collected some respectables of the village and went to Wazirabad where before the persons of brotherhood of the in-laws of Saroj, Jaipal Singh narrated her tale of woe. They assured him that in future Saroj will not be maltreated. After counselling his daughter Jaipal Singh left her at Wazirabad. After months back, Vikram left Saroj at his house and told him that he should keep his daughter at his house if he could not give him Rs. 50,000/-. According to prosecution, Saroj lost her life on account of ill- treatment by her in-laws as her parents could not fulfil their demand for Rs. 50,000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Saroj was pRegulation nt even before marriage and her father had given in writing to her in-laws that if Saroj ran away anywhere or commited some foul act, the responsibility will be theirs and not his son-in-law's or that of his family. He further submits that Saroj committed suicide by consuming some poisonous material due to shame as she was having illicit sexual relations with her cousin and was pRegulation nt from him before marriage. I feel that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be admitted to bail. So bail to him to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.