The trial companyrt had companye to the companyclusion that the prosecution has proved its case only against Appellant Mahesh Kumar, husband of the deceased and Savitri Devi, mother in law of the deceased whereas in respect of accused Rajpal and Kamlesh, Page 3 of 10 the trial companyrt held that numberspecific role is assigned to them and, therefore, they were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted.
The trial companyrt held that the letters written by the deceased with oral evidence in the form of statements of Complainant PW3 Sohan Lal and PW4 Rajbir, brother of the deceased, are sufficient to establish that deceased was companytinuously harassed and met with cruelty on account of dowry and as such it is a case of dowry death.
The companyplainant states that the deceaseds in laws had tendered an apology at that time and her father in law executed the same in writing and promised to send her to her parental home on Raksha Bandhan.
The High Court, while granting benefit of doubt to accused Savitri Devi, allowed her appeal and acquitted her of the charges whereas sentence of appellant Mahesh Kumar was reduced to seven years.
An FIR was thus lodged on 09.02.1994, against the appellant, the deceaseds father in law Rajpal, mother in law Smt.
Aggrieved against the order of trial companyrt, accused Mahesh Kumar and Savitri Devi filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The deceased sent a letter to the companyplainant informing him about the same, after which, the companyplainant went to the village where his daughter was residing, met her and her in laws and informed them that he was unable to satisfy their demand of dowry as it was beyond his capacity and that his daughter should number be harassed for bringing insufficient dowry.
After companypleting investigation, a report was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon who companymitted the case to the trial companyrt.
But soon after the marriage, she was illtreated by her husband Mahesh Kumar, father in law Rajpal, mother in law Smt.
The charge was framed against all the four accused under Section 304 B IPC.
Subsequently, after the festival, she was sent back to her matrimonial house with the appellant, and at that time the companyplainant had given them a sum of Rs.1,000/ in cash.
The prosecution was set in motion on the statement of PW3 Sohan Lal Complainant father of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer Assim Khan PW9.
It is further claimed that, on 03.02.1994, the Complainant paid Rs.2,000/ to the appellant when he came to take the deceased back with him and promised to pay the remaining amount soon, after arranging the same.
All the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The investigation was companyducted by Investigating Officer Assim Khan PW9 and all the four accused were arrested.
After about ten months, the appellant left the deceased at her brother Rajbirs house and demanded Rs.5,000/ .
The prosecution examined ten witnesses in all.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, appellant Mahesh Kumar is in appeal before this Court.
