He was further sentenced to undergo RI for ten years under Section 304 B, IPC.
Munni Bai mother of the deceased suspected that her daughter was murdered by her husband Dinesh and his brothers, namely Vinod and Rakesh, for number satisfying their demand for dowry.
Factum of marriage between Manju Bala and Dinesh was admitted when the accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr.
Driver of the tractor ignored their signal to stop tractor.
After hearing learned companynsel for the parties and going through the essential ingredients of Section 304 B, IPC, learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal observing that there is evidence with regard to the factum of persisting demand of dowry and on account of failure to meet the demand for dowry, Manju Bala was companypelled to companymit suicide within a period of four years of marriage, though the precise date of her marriage is number in evidence but both sides admitted that marriage was solemnized about four years prior to her death.
Both the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
Manju Bala was carrying a pregnancy of about eight months when accused Vinod went to the house of her parents on the fateful day i.e. on 7.6.1994 and informed them that Manju Bala was seriously ill.
The prosecution version in a nutshell is that marriage of Manju Bala was solemnized with Dinesh, appellant accused about four years before her death.
Thereafter, when she was about to deliver child, she again developed companyplication and resultantly she died.
Dowry in accordance with their financial capacity was given by her parents at the time of marriage.
When Manju Balas father Ram Naresh and brother Raman were going to the house of accused persons for seeing her, they numbericed accused Dinesh and his mother carrying Manju Bala in a tractor to Civil Hospital Fatehabad.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court, appellant approached the High Court preferring Criminal Appeal No.
Accused companytroverted the allegations and claimed that they had good relations with Manju, who at the time of first delivery developed companyplication and child died.
The Trial Court opined that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under aforesaid sections against the other two accused Vinod and Rakesh and accordingly acquitted them of the charge.
However, appellant and his two brothers, namely Vinod Kumar and Rakesh, were number satisfied with the dowry and started harassing her for number bringing dowry to their satisfaction.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and closed the evidence.
The Trial Court after companycluding the trial found the charge under Sections 498 A and 304 B, IPC framed against accused Dinesh proved.
In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant was further directed to undergo RI for six months.
P.C. However, it was denied that Manju Bala was ever harassed for bringing dowry.
We have gone through the judgment passed by Trial Court and also by the Appellate Court.
1006 of 1998.
On finding a prima facie case under aforesaid sections, the accused persons were charge sheeted.
Both the Courts on appreciation of entire evidence came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant.
It has also been alleged that the accused persons, appellant and his two brothers, did number permit the parents of Manju Bala to meet her for the past several months prior to the death.
On her statement, FIR No.441 dated 8.6.1994 under section 498 A and 304 B, Indian Penal Code in short IPC was registered in the Police Station, Fatehabad and all the three accused were arrested.
Although, mediators also requested accused persons number to harass the deceased Manju Bala, their requests fell flat.
The Additional Sessions Judge companyvicted Dinesh and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year under Section 498 A and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ .
On arriving at Civil Hospital, they learnt that Manju Bala had died before reaching the Hospital.
During trial, the accused examined three witnesses in their defence.
1006 SB of 1998 whereby learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of companyviction sentence passed by the trial companyrt.
Y. EQBAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
