ARVIND KUMAR,J - (1.) THE appellants are aggrieved with the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence dated 27.1.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2003, by virtue of which all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. Each of them were required to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, further imprisonment for a period of three years has been awarded. Since the appellants were convicted for major offence i.e. Section 304-B I.P.C., so, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Shanti and others v. State of Haryana, 1991(2) RCR(Criminal) 55 : AIR 1991 SC 1226, the trial court did not impose any sentence upon the appellants for committing an offence under Section 498A I.P.C.
(2.) FIRST of all, prosecution version needs to be noticed. Reena Devi (since deceased) was married with appellant No. 2 Sunil Kumar somewhere in the mid of year 1999, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are the father and mother respectively while appellant No. 4 is brother of Sunil Kumar appellant. According to the prosecution, sufficient dowry was given in the said marriage, but the appellants dissatisfied with the same, started harassing and maltreating Smt. Reena Devi. A demand of cash for purchasing plot and motorcycle was put forth by all the appellants. The aforesaid demand as well as harassment, meted out to her at the hands of her husband and in-laws, was conveyed by Smt. Reena to her brother Dinesh and mother Sona Devi, since her father Randhir had already expired. As a consequence of said demand, a Panchayat was convened and the matter was settled. Smt. Reena was sent to her nuptial home along with appellant No. 2 Sunil Kumar. But there was no change in the circumstances and Smt. Reena was again harassed and beaten up by all the appellants in relation to demand of dowry in the shape of cash of Rs. 20,000/- or sometimes they demanded Rs. 30,000/-.
(3.) THE prosecution version further highlights the instance when Smt. Reena Devi was again given beatings for not satisfying the demand of dowry of her in-laws. This time again, the matter was settled with the intervention of Panchayat and Smt. Reena was sent to her matrimonial home with Sunil Kumar.;