N.S.SHEKHAWAT,J. - (1.)Challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment dtd. 29/11/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. III, Faridabad, whereby, the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sec. 306/34 IPC, the State of Haryana has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. The learned trial Court held that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused up to the hilt and by extending them benefit of doubt, they were ordered to be acquitted. The said findings have been assailed by the prosecution on various grounds by preferring the instant appeal.
(2.)Shorn of unnecessary detail, the facts, which would be necessary for the effective adjudication of the present case are that the prosecution was launched in the instant case on the basis of complaint made by Sunder Dass, father of (since deceased). He, inter-alia, stated that he was a doctor and had two sons and two daughters. As per him, the marriage of his eldest daughter (since deceased) was solemnized with Dr. Darshan Lal Makkar, respondent No. 1/accused in the year 1984 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and at that time age of (since deceased) was 41 years. Even though, he had given dowry beyond his capacity, still after seven days of marriage, his daughter came with respondent No. 1 to meet him and told that respondent No. 1 wanted to divorce her. After advice, he sent both of them back to her matrimonial home. It was further alleged that whenever (since deceased) came to Faridabad, she always complained that she was being harassed by her husband Darshan Lal Makkar, father-in-law Madan Lal, mother-in-law Vidya Rani and brothers-in-law, namely, Surinder Kumar and Harish Kumar. They were forcing her to bring more dowry from her parents. On her refusal, she was beaten up by Darshan Lal and she disclosed the said facts to the complainant in the presence of his eldest son and wife.
(3.)They pacified (since deceased) and after giving her Rs.5000.00, she was sent back to her husband. Even three years back, his son Gulshan Kumar and Ram Nath brother-in-law had visited her and she had told that respondent No. 1 had kept another lady Pushpa Sharma. She was beaten up by Darshan Lal respondent No. 1, when she raised the protest.