DINESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
April 25,2014
DINESH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. IQBAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]KANS RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DHAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KAMESH PANJIYAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ANILKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-285] [REFERRED TO]PUTAN VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-239] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHBHAI BHANUBHAI VACHHANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(UTN)-2018-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA MARIK AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIWAS AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-99] [OVERRULED]
KHUMBHA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-80] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-472] [REFERRED]
RAM SHANKER VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHANKER VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI KANT VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-224] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-7-220] [REFERRED TO]
AMRUTLAL LILADHARBHAI KOTAK AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-86] [REFERRED TO]
PHULAU VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN HEGDE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-452] [REFERRED TO]
M. NARAYAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-136] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. JOGENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1006-SB of 1998 whereby learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction/sentence passed by the trial court.
(2.)The prosecution version in a nutshell is that marriage of Manju Bala was solemnized with Dinesh, appellant-accused about four years before her death. Dowry in accordance with their financial capacity was given by her parents at the time of marriage. However, appellant and his two brothers, namely Vinod Kumar and Rakesh, were not satisfied with the dowry and started harassing her for not bringing dowry to their satisfaction. Although, mediators also requested accused persons not to harass the deceased Manju Bala, their requests fell flat. It has also been alleged that the accused persons, appellant and his two brothers, did not permit the parents of Manju Bala to meet her for the past several months prior to the death.
(3.)Manju Bala was carrying a pregnancy of about eight months when accused Vinod went to the house of her parents on the fateful day i.e. on 7.6.1994 and informed them that Manju Bala was seriously ill. When Manju Bala's father Ram Naresh and brother Raman were going to the house of accused persons for seeing her, they noticed accused Dinesh and his mother carrying Manju Bala in a tractor to Civil Hospital Fatehabad. Driver of the tractor ignored their signal to stop tractor. On arriving at Civil Hospital, they learnt that Manju Bala had died before reaching the Hospital. Munni Bai mother of the deceased suspected that her daughter was murdered by her husband Dinesh and his brothers, namely Vinod and Rakesh, for not satisfying their demand for dowry. On her statement, FIR No.441 dated 8.6.1994 under section 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') was registered in the Police Station, Fatehabad and all the three accused were arrested. On finding a prima facie case under aforesaid sections, the accused persons were charge sheeted.
(2.)The prosecution version in a nutshell is that marriage of Manju Bala was solemnized with Dinesh, appellant-accused about four years before her death. Dowry in accordance with their financial capacity was given by her parents at the time of marriage. However, appellant and his two brothers, namely Vinod Kumar and Rakesh, were not satisfied with the dowry and started harassing her for not bringing dowry to their satisfaction. Although, mediators also requested accused persons not to harass the deceased Manju Bala, their requests fell flat. It has also been alleged that the accused persons, appellant and his two brothers, did not permit the parents of Manju Bala to meet her for the past several months prior to the death.
(3.)Manju Bala was carrying a pregnancy of about eight months when accused Vinod went to the house of her parents on the fateful day i.e. on 7.6.1994 and informed them that Manju Bala was seriously ill. When Manju Bala's father Ram Naresh and brother Raman were going to the house of accused persons for seeing her, they noticed accused Dinesh and his mother carrying Manju Bala in a tractor to Civil Hospital Fatehabad. Driver of the tractor ignored their signal to stop tractor. On arriving at Civil Hospital, they learnt that Manju Bala had died before reaching the Hospital. Munni Bai mother of the deceased suspected that her daughter was murdered by her husband Dinesh and his brothers, namely Vinod and Rakesh, for not satisfying their demand for dowry. On her statement, FIR No.441 dated 8.6.1994 under section 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') was registered in the Police Station, Fatehabad and all the three accused were arrested. On finding a prima facie case under aforesaid sections, the accused persons were charge sheeted.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.