1, Manmohan Singh.
Complainant Sudershana Rani, thereafter, had a talk with the accused persons and assured that their demand of scooter and golden bangle would be fulfilled after Manmohan Singh would return.
Even thereafter, during her visit to parental home at 2 3 occasions, Reeta Kumari informed her family members that the accused were repeating their demand of scooter and golden bangle.
Reeta Kumari was, therefore, again sent back to matrimonial home along with PW4 Gopal Singh, companysin of Reeta Kumari.
The trial Court, while number accepting the evidence of PW4 Gopal Singh as to demand of dowry by accused No.1 Manmohan Singh husband of Reeta Kumari, had observed that numbersuch demand companyld have been made by him.
Being aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence, three accused persons, viz.
PB FIR 111 on the same day by PW 9 Swinder Singh Station Inspector who met them at the bus stand, Kahnuwan.
However, Reeta Kumari, immediately after marriage, disclosed on her first visit to parental home after 3 4 days that the accused were subjecting her to taunts and harassments for number bringing scooter and golden bangle kara in dowry.
She was, however, pacified by Sudershana Rani and other family members to return to matrimonial home on an assurance that scooter and golden bangle would be given when the companyplainants husband Manmohan Singh would companye on leave.
The Court observed that he was serving in Indian Army and was occasionally attending matrimonial home after taking leave.
On June 20, 1999, at about 3.30 p.m., one Mangat Ram, who acted as mediator for the marriage between Reeta Kumari and Manmohan Singh, informed parents of Reeta Kumari that Reeta Kumari died after companysuming some poisonous substance.
3, Kishan Singh, father in law of the deceased, accused No.
The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record and on the basis of depositions of PW2 Sudarshana Rani complainant, PW 4 Gopal Singh and PW 7 Dharminder Singh held that as far as accused No.5 Sushma Rani was companycerned, she had already married prior to the marriage of Manmohan Singh and was staying with her husband and two children at matrimonial home at village Kaulsher which was at a distance of 60 70 KMs.
Charge was framed against the accused, the companytents thereof were read over and explained to them.
The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined nine witnesses including important witnesses, PW2 Sudershana Rani, companyplainant and mother of deceased Reeta Kumari PW4 Gopal Singh, companysin brother of deceased Reeta Kumari and PW7 Dharminder Singh, brother of deceased Reeta Kumari.
3 and 4, parents in law of deceased Reeta Kumari were companycerned, the trial Court was fully justified in companyvicting both of them for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 315, IPC.
Thereafter he came on leave from June 14, 1999 to July 9, 1999.
For an offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC the appellants were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, whereas for an offence punishable under Section 315, IPC, they were ordered to undergo imprisonment for three years.
The young bride was told in clear terms that if the demands of the accused of scooter and golden bangle would number be met with, she should number companye back to matrimonial home.
She had been referred to in the FIR as the sister of accused No.
accused No.1 Manmohan Singh husband, accused No.3 Kishan Singh father in law and accused No.4 Bachni Rani mother in law preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Statement of Sudershana Rani was recorded at Ex.
The High Court again examined the evidence on record, heard the arguments of the parties and companysidered the reasons recorded and companyclusions arrived at by the trial Court.
That was the reason for companysuming Aluminium Phosphate by the deceased Reeta Kumari and thus the deceased companymitted suicide.
In the circumstances, according to the trial Court, it companyld number be said that he was responsible for companymitting offences punishable under Sections 304B and 315, IPC.
The Court, therefore, forwarded him to the Juvenile Court for passing an appropriate order of sentence in accordance with law.
After the marriage, he again joined service.
The trial Court, hence, was number right in companyvicting him under Section 498A, IPC.
from Kahnuwan.
On hearing the news, Sudershana Rani complainant, along with her son Dharminder Singh and nephew Daulat Singh went to the house of the accused at village Kahnuwan where they found dead body of Reeta Kumari lying in a room.
Challan was, therefore, presented against the accused for offences punishable under Section 304B, 315 and 498A, IPC.
It was alleged by the prosecution that death was caused by the accused and it was a dowry death.
According to them, they were falsely implicated by the police.
The accused pleaded number guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
Accordingly, their companyviction as well as order of sentence was maintained.
On November 28, 2005, leave was granted and the appellants were directed to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/ each to the satisfaction of the Addl.
It held that as far as accused Nos.
The order companyvicting accused Nos.
It was further stated that accused Manmohan Singh and deceased Reeta Kumari husband and wife had gone to Vaishno Devi and were returning from the temple on the previous day of the occurrence.
Since an offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC was exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the trial Magistrate companymitted the case to the Sessions Court, Gurdaspur.
3 and 4, father in law and mother in law of deceased Reeta Kumari under Sections 304B and 315, IPC recorded by the trial Court and companyfirmed by the High Court is challenged in the present appeal.
So far as accused No.2 Janak Singh was companycerned, the trial Court held that he was a juvenile when the offence was companymitted which was clear from the perusal of his birth certificate.
Regarding Manmohan Singh accused No.1, husband of Reeta Kumari, the trial Court observed that he was serving in Indian Army.
The charge was framed against five accused i.e. accused No.1 Manmohan Singh, husband of the deceased accused No.2 Janak Singh, brother in law of the deceased, accused No.
The facts of the case in nutshell are that Reeta Kumari, daughter of Tilak Singh and Sudershana Rani PW2, got married to Manmohan Singh original accused No.1 on February 19, 1999 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
By the said order, the Courts below companyvicted the appellants herein for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 315, Indian Penal Code IPC .
On September 23, 2005, numberice was issued on Special Leave Petition as also on the application for bail.
4, Bachni Rani, mother in law of the deceased and accused No.5 Sushma Rani, sister in law of the deceased.
The accused denied to have companymitted any offence.
The prosecution case also disclosed that at the time of death, Reeta Kumari was pregnant with a child of about 12 weeks gestation period in her womb.
As to accused No.1 Manmohan Singh husband, however, the High Court held that from the evidence, it was number proved that he was responsible for companymitting an offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC.
When they reached near Pathankot, the deceased insisted that they should first visit her parental village Kahnuwan whereas husband Manmohan Singh, accused No.1 insisted that they should go to the matrimonial home first.
There was numbersufficient evidence of demand of dowry by accused No.
The marriage was performed on February 19, 1999.
As already stated earlier, sentence was awarded on accused No.3 Kishan Singh and accused No.4 Bachni Rani, father in law and mother in law of the deceased by the trial Court.
She would number have been benefited by the demand of dowry of scooter and golden bangles.
128 of 1999 and companyfirmed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh on May 4, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.950 SB of 2002.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal is filed by the two appellants against an order of companyviction and sentence recorded by the Addl.
