JAGJIT CHAND AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 31.12.2012/14.1.2013 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge(I) Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) in Sessions Case No. 11-J/2010, whereby appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 306 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for offence under Section 498-A IPC.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 29.12.2009 at about 12.35 am, Vandana Kumari, deceased, was brought by accused Dinesh Kumar to CHC Fatehpur. Accused Dinesh Kumar informed Ved Parkash that his daughter was seriously ill and had been brought to CHC Fatehpur. She was declared dead by the concerned Doctor. Statement of PW-1 Ved Parkash was recorded under Section 154 CrPC. Deceased Vandana Kumari was married to Dinesh Kumar in the year 2005. Two children were born. Vandana Kumari (deceased) was repeatedly harassed by her husband Dinesh Kumar, father in law Jagjit Chand and mother in law Ashana Devi @ Archana Devi for bringing insufficient dowry and they used to harass her physically and mentally. On account of repeated harassment by the accused, deceased Vandana Kumari was in physical and mental stress and she consumed some poisonous substance and resultantly died.

(3.) Prosecution examined a number of witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They denied the allegations levelled against them. They were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as noticed above. Hence, this appeal.