STATE OF HP Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 06.07.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 14N of 1998, acquitting the alleged accusedrespondents under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in reference to FIR No. 156 of 1996 dated 25.05.1996.

(2.) Prosecution case is that the victim, Parveen Kumari (deceased), daughter of Ram Chander (PW2), was married to Satbir Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Singh (accusedrespondent) and she was kept nicely for few months, however, after some time, the relation between the husband and wife become strained and members of the family of Satbir Singh, i.e., motherinlaw, fatherinlaw, sisterinlaw and Satbir Singh himself started taunting Parveen Kumari and started demanding dowry. On two occasions the matter was compromised. Even thereafter taunting and demand of dowry was not stopped. However, on 24.05.1996, at about 11:45 a.m., Parveen Kumari (deceased) expired due to 100% burn injuries. In this respect, FIR, Ex. PW8/A was registered and case was investigated and the accusedrespondents were charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Session Court.

(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses, whereas, accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.