In The Case Of State Of Haryana Vs Darshan Lal & Another Before The High Court Of Punjab & Haryana

FACTS OF THE CASE 

• The appellant has challenged the correctness and legality of the impugned order and judgement dated 29.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge.
• The learned judge in the impugned judgement has acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
• On the basis of the complaint filed by father of the deceased, marriage of his eldest daughter (deceased) was solemnity through Hindu rites and ceremonies with Darshan Lal in 1984. He had given sufficient dowry in the marriage as per his then capacity.
• After seven days of marriage, the deceased came back with respondent no.1(husband of the deceased) because he wanted to divorce her. But on advice, both were sent back to their matrimonial home.
• Things never got better. The deceased was harassed by her husband and in-laws for dowry and was beaten by her husband.
• After three years, it was found that her husband had kept another lady and when the deceased protested she was badly beaten by the respondent no.2
• On 09.07.2002 it was found that the deceased had consumed poisonous substance to commit suicide so as to put an end to her life.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 

• The learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the trial court has grossly committed error and passed the impugned order. It was submitted that eleven prosecution witnesses were examined and they had supported the case.
• The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has refuted the submissions and argued that the respondents never subjected deceased to cruelty, maltreatment or harassment due to insufficiency of dowry. It was argued that vague and unfounded allegations are levelled against the respondents.  

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT 

• The court held that the appeal preferred is without any substance and thus is dismissed. The judgement passed by the trial court is upheld and affirmed.
• Court observed that vague and general allegations regarding demand of dowry are levelled against the respondents.
• The statement made by the main prosecution witness, father of the deceased during cross-examination states that during 18 years of marriage of the deceased, no complain regarding any maltreatment and harassment was made against the respondents. He admitted that no demand for dowry was made by the respondent at the time of marriage.
• Court held that simply because of the fact that the wife (deceased) committed suicide in her matrimonial home, itself does not make her in-laws AMD husband liable for abetment to commit suicide.