Satish Kumar husband had demanded Rs.5,000/ and Rs.10,000/ for purchase of goods for his shop which amount was given to him.
At the time of her marriage, various articles listed in the companyplaint were handed over to the accused and in all about Rs.1,50,000/ were spent thereon.
After companypletion of the trial, the learned trial companyrt acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 406 IPC but companyvicted them under Section 498A IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo I. for one month.
Before trial was companypleted, Ram Lal, the father of Santosh Kumar died and the other five persons faced trial.
During investigation list of articles Ex.
In appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge companyfirmed the same.
The neighbours had pacified her and assured that her in laws would behave properly in future.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, had found the accused persons guilty and had companyvicted them as aforenoted.
In spite of that, the petitioners were number satisfied and had been beating her on several occasions.
On going through the challan, the learned trial Court framed charges under sections 406 and 498 A IPC and when the accused pleaded number guilty to the charges, called upon the prosecution to lead evidence in support of its case.
On the birth of each of her children, her parents had spent Rs.20,000/ .
According to FIR No.
The attitude of the in laws did number change and on 21.05.1992 she was turned out from the house after being told that she should number return to the matrimonial home, otherwise she and her children would be done to death.
However, the High Court by order in a separate Criminal Revision Petition Criminal Revision No.
She was also told that if she wanted to settle with Satish Kumar then her parents should purchase a separate house for her.
Primarily the prosecution relied upon the version of the companyplainant PW 1 , mother PW 5 , and the brother PW 6 .
Despite this, the persons mentioned in the companyplaint were number satisfied with the articles of dowry handed over to them, with the result that her husband Satish Kumar, mother in law Satya, brother in law Sunil Kumar, father in law Ram Lal, his sister Ishwar Devi and Om Parkash, brother in law of Ram Lal had been pressing her to bring more dowry.
The Stridhan was kept by them.
On 01.12.1991 the appellants had tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her, but she was able to save herself by running away.
The trial companyrt, the First appellate companyrt and the High Court did number accept this plea.
PD, Ex.
On companypletion of the investigation challan was put in Court under sections 406, 498 A IPC.
On account of the beating, she started bleeding and was about to leave for Delhi Police Station, but was dissuaded by the members of the locality from doing so.
Challenge in the Revision Petition was to the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, finding each of the present appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
The High Court numbered that there were lots of improvements and false implication of two other persons.
Despite this assurance, there was numberchange in their attitude and on 03.03.1992 her husband gave her severe beating and asked her to bring Rs.45,000/ for the purpose of taking agency and they companyld give only Rs.25,000/ .
The stand of the appellants all through was that the evidence of these witnesses does number inspire companyfidence.
PB and letters alleged to have been written by Santosh Kumari Ex.
But this had number satisfied her in laws.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Marriage between Santosh Kumari and Satish Kumar Appellant No.1 was solemnization on 21.10.1985.
Six persons were arrayed as accused persons on the basis of information lodged by Santosh Kumari.
On the basis of this companyplaint, formal FIR under Sections 406 and 498 A read with section 120 B IPC was registered.
After the birth of the children, the petitioners turned her out of the matrimonial home, so that her parents companyld be forced to spend money on the upbringing of the children.
Conviction under Section 498A IPC was upheld by the High Court so far as the present appellants are companycerned.
695 dated 20.6.1992 that was registered in Police Station City Sonepat at the behest of Santosh Kumari, at the time of her engagement, her parents had given sufficient articles valued at Rs.20,000/ to her husband and other members of his family.
PE, Ex.
PF, Ex.
PG and Ex.
However, finding that the evidence was inadequate, the High Court directed acquittal of the companyaccused persons.
PH were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.
607 of 2000 directed their acquittal.
Om Prakash, the brother in law of her father in law used other methods to torture her and she bore the atrocities attributing them to her wedlock.
Each one of them was companyvicted as in the case of the present appellants.
Dr, ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the present appellants.
They also filed appeals along with the present appellants and their appeals were dismissed.
