- (1.) Respondents-accused (Satish Kumar, Tarun Kumar, Ramesh Kumari and Punita Rani) were tried but acquitted by the learned Trial Judge on a charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 IPC.
(2.) Criminal Appeal No. 589-DBA of 2000 has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the verdict of acquittal; while Criminal Revision No. 892 of 2000 has been filed by the complainant against that very finding.
(3.) Mst. Shobha, youngest daughter of Hukam Chand, was married to respondent-accused Tarun Kumar on 21.6.1994. Respondents-accused Satish Kumar and Ramesh Kumari are parents of respondent-accused Tarun Kumar; while respondent-accused Punita Rani is a sister of respondent- accused Tarun Kumar. She was unmarried at the relevant point of time. Respondents were not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by Mst. Shobha, inspite of the fact that she did bring along sufficient dowry articles at the time of her marriage. The dissatisfied in-laws of Mst. Shobha i.e. Respondents made no bones about their grievance with regard to inadequacy of the dowry brought by her. They would, at every available opportunity, also announce that the dowry articles brought by Mst. Shobha in her marriage were of a quality which was less than those given at the marriage of people belonging to low caste. When the lady brought facts to the notice of her natal family, her father Hukam Chand, Uncle Des Raj PW14 and few others visited the matrimonial house of Mst. Shobha and impressed upon the respondents desirability of refraining from unnecessarily harassing the bride on account of what the latter viewed to be inadequate dowry. In response thereto, the respondents refrained from causing any dowry-related harassment to Mst. Shobha for about two months but resumed their rancour-full attitude thereafter. They would even belabour her at times. On one particular occasion, her elder brother Suresh went over the house of respondents and handed over a cash amount of Rs. 10,000/-to them. However, things did not improve for the bride.;