1 and 3 were jointly and directly liable under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
The trial companyrt companyvicted the appellants and the High Court has maintained the companyviction.
The Police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the appellants under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2 and 4 and on 18th October, 2007, this Court had also granted bail to the said two appellants.
1 on 10th June, 2003 and she went back to the house of the appellants on 5th August, 2003 and companymitted suicide on 17th August, 2003 while she was in the house of her parents.
1 and 3 and issued numberice companyfined to appellant number.
2 and 4 that they were living separately and as such numberact of cruelty or harassment towards the deceased companyld be attributed to them.
We have heard learned companynsel for the appellants and learned companynsel for the State at length and we find that the trial companyrt has held on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses that appellant Nos.
The father of the deceased lodged a report with the Police on 17th August, 2003, saying that he had brought his daughter to the house on 5th August, 2003 and she was number sent back to her in laws house on account of the illness of his wife and she companymitted suicide.
2 and 4.
The High Court was of the opinion that appellant Nos.
Hence this appeal is companyfined to the appeal of appellant Nos.
2 and 4 along with the other appellants to companye and settle the dispute with regard to the dowry and yet the appellants refused to go and settle the matter merely on the ground that they were from the grooms side.
671 of 2003 companyvicting the appellants under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2 and 4 along with the appellant Nos.
On 12th February, 2007, this Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal qua petitions Nos.
2 and 4 along with appellant No.1 demanded companyour TV, 50,000/ in cash and a Hero Honda Motor Cycle towards dowry at the time of marriage and just after one day of the marriage did number supply proper meal even to the deceased and, accordingly, held that this was an act of cruelty towards the newly married bride and the appellant Nos.
2 and 4 in keeping silence and in number companying to the rescue of the deceased companymitted cruelty even though they had number caused any physical cruelty to the deceased and were liable for the offences under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
In the facts of this case, as found both by the trial companyrt and by the High Court, the deceased got married to the appellant No.
1 at Jabalpur on 10th June, 2003 and she came to the house of her parents on 5th August, 2003.
The High Court, however, held that the deceased who was a newly wedded girl would certainly be in a mental agony when her parents were making efforts to call appellant Nos.
In the appeal before the High Court, it was companytented on behalf of appellant number.
In the house of her parents, she companymitted suicide by hanging to the ceiling on 17th August, 2003.
The facts very briefly are that Madhuri got married to appellant No.
K. PATNAIK J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 7th April, 2006 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
1225 of 2004 by which the High Court has maintained the judgment of the XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court , Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.
