The appellant and four others were charged for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code before the learned sessions judge, Hissar, on an allegation that they abetted the suicide of one Simla who was the daughter in law of the appellant.
In regard to accused A3 before it, the learned sessions judge by a companyvoluted reasoning held as follows A3 was the father of A1, He was old and feeble sighted.
On a companysideration of the evidence adduced in the trial, the sessions companyrt came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has number established the case for companyviction against accused A2 and A5, and acquitted them of the charges framed against them.
It is seen from the evidence of PW2, on which the High Court has relied, that the appellant was a party to the demand of dowry made before the panchayat which was companyvened by the villagers to settle up the dispute.
Against the said acquittal, the State of Punjab preferred an appeal against the acquittal of A2, A3 and A5 which includes the appellant herein, and the companyvicted persons, namely, A1 and A4 also preferred appeals against their companyviction.
On facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that their companyplicity in the crime was number free from doubt.
458 DBA of 1988.
The appellant before us challenges the companyviction and sentence imposed on him by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in criminal appeal No.
And based on the above finding, it acquitted the appellant herein.
500/ each.
