They were sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/ each with default stipulation of SI for one year, and also one year RI with fine of Rs.5000/ with stipulation of SI for one month for the two substantive offences respectively.
It is of relevance to numbere that while deceased was married to accused Surender, her sister, Manju PW 11 was married to Virender, elder brother of Surender.
By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge reduced the sentence to 3 years RI instead of 10 years RI in respect of accused appellants Hiralal and Angoori keeping in view their old age.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was placed for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Section 304 B and 498A IPC.
Bahadur Singh PW 1 , Sobha Rani PW 5 , Ratti Ram PW 10 , Manju PW 11 , the father, brother, companysin brother and sister, respectively of the deceased spoke about the dowry demands.
The fine imposed was maintained but the default sentence was reduced to six months, custodial sentence and fine for offences punishable under Section 498A were maintained.
11/1999 and the appellants were found guilty under Sections 304 B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
Other appellants Hiralal and Angoori Devi were her father in law and mother in law respectively.
She was married to accused Surender on 26.11.1995.
Grievance was made by the family members of deceased that she was subjected to torture for dowry and that led to her suicide.
This has been categorically accepted by both PWs 10 and 11.
It has been accepted by the prosecution witnesses that there was numberdemand for valuable articles at any point subsequent to the marriage in case of Manju.
In case of appellant Surender, the sentence was reduced to 7 years in respect of first offence, while for the second offence the sentence was maintained.
Before the alleged suicide, there were differences between the deceased and her husband for which allegations were made with the police.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that ingredients of Section 304 B and 498A are number made out.
There was a companyciliation made by the officials and the companyditions indicated related to separate residence.
Trial was companyducted by learned Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions case No.
Since the death was unnatural, information was lodged with police and investigation was undertaken.
The evidence of relatives PW 1, PW 2, PW 10 and PW11 does number inspire any companyfidence.
If the demand was made for deceased as alleged, there is numberreason as to why a departure was made in case of her sister.
It is relevant to numbere that for substantiating the accusations twelve witnesses were examined.
Both the marriages were solemnized on the same date.
On the companytrary it was companyfirmed that at the time of marriage there was numberdemand for dowry.
There was numberevidence regarding any dowry demand.
The testimony was accepted to be truthful and companyent by the Trial Court.
The matter was carried in appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Finally the difference was sorted out by settling that they shall stay separately from other members of the family.
