- (1.) THE appellant/complainant challenges correctness of judgment dated 10.01.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court for Heinous Crime Against Women), Hisar, acquitting respondents No.2 to 4 (herein) of charges under Section 304 -B/34 of the IPC.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that admittedly, Suvita, daughter of the complainant met an unnatural death by drowning. The prosecution has adduced evidence, on record, to prove that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, gifts were given at the time of birth of a boy and thereafter a girl. The prosecution has also adduced evidence to prove that the respondents were not satisfied and soon before the death, demanded an LCD TV and a fridge. The demand of dowry having been corroborated by statements of prosecution witnesses has been wrongly rejected. It is further submitted that the appellant/complainant has deposed that the deceased was beaten up by the respondents and thereafter drowned in the village pond but his deposition has neither been considered nor appreciated in accordance with law. The death admittedly being unnatural, onus lies upon the respondents to explain the factum of this unnatural death.
(3.) WE have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. A telephone call was received at Police Station Narnaund on 08.06.2010 that a lady has drowned in a pond in village Mirchpur. The police party reached the village and found the dead body of Suvita wife of Vinod, lying on a cot in the house of Vinod Kumar. The family members of Suvita were called. Sunehra Singh, father, Sudhir, brother and Satyawati, mother of the deceased reached house of Vinod Kumar where Sunehra Singh recorded a statement that his daughter was married to Vinod Kumar on 11.11.2003 and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but Vinod Kumar and his parents were not satisfied. Suvita gave birth to a son -Akash and a girl -Anchal. At the time of birth of these children, the appellant spent money and gave gold etc. but the respondents were not satisfied. About three months before the death of Suvita, she visited his house and informed him that the respondents have been taunting her that she is from a poor family and has not brought enough dowry. Suvita also stated that the respondents have demanded an LCD TV and a fridge. He sent his daughter back with a promise to do something in the matter. On 08.06.2010, he received a telephone call from Vinod Kumar that Suvita is missing from the home. They rushed to village Mirchpur and made an effort to locate Suvita but to no avail. They came to know at about 10:00 AM that Suvita has drowned in the village pond. The appellant stated that he believes that Suvita has either been murdered or was constrained to end her life.;