SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJU Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 21.8.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2005 whereby accused Roshan Lal and Simro Devi have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC, whereas the accused/ convict Sanjay Kumar herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and (acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of IPC) and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) and in case of default in the payment of fine, accused shall further undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 498-A of IPC.

(2.) Briefly the prosecution case is that complainant Khem Chand (PW-1) had five daughters and his youngest daughter Anita (victim) was married to accused Sanjay in the year 2000. The said marriage was arranged marriage without any dowry, as alleged. Out of the said wed lock, victim gave birth to a daughter within two years. Whenever, victim used to come to the parental house, she was making complaint regarding, taunting, harassment and maltreatment by indicating that her husband, father-in-law Roshan Lal and mother-in-law Simro Devi have always been giving taunts by saying that had the marriage been solemnized in their community, they would have received much dowry. Further PW-1 and his wife several times tried to prevail upon the accused so as not to maltreat victim. However, there was no change in the behaviour of the accused. Victim visited her parental house on 28.2.204 in connection with 'Jatra' and also complained of maltreatment by the accused in reference to the demand of dowry demand. On 6.5.204, PW-1 received a telephonic message regarding the death of his daughter and he left Baldwara on 7.5.204 and found that the dead body of the victim was lying there. On 7.5.2004 Dr. Ashok Chauhan (PW-4) conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the victim and noticed ligature mark on the neck of the victim, however, opined that the victim had died of hanging leading to asphyxia.

(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 13 prosecution witnesses, whereas in their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused persons denied the prosecution case.