Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of Jatinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, an appeal was filed by the accused Jatinder Kumar in the supreme court challenging the impugned decision of the high court of Punjab and Haryana. In this case the accused was charged of abetting the suicide of his wife Meenakshi. the accused and his family constantly taunted the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry. The accused and his relatives many a times even tortured the deceased and evoked her to get more dowry. Meenakshi’s father Som Prakash testified that he had spent 2.5 lakh rupees in marriage of his daughter and later gave Twenty thousand rupees to her, so, that they do not torture his daughter, money which he gave to his daughter was used in clinic of the accused. One night Som Prakash came to know that his daughter has committed suicide and is in the hospital, after that the father lodged a FIR in the local police station against the husband his mother and his two brothers.
The Trial court after hearing the case, relied on the testimonies of the witness number 1,2 and 4 , found all the four people guilty under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused further challenged the decision of the trial court in the high court of Punjab and Haryana, which acquitted the other family members except Jatinder Kumar. The accused further filed an appeal in supreme court challenging the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the accused pleaded that he was not guilty as his wife was in depression because of death of her relatives and she could not adjust in a small town like Mullana, the trial court and the high court found these claims to be baseless and rejected them. The Supreme Court also rejected such erroneous claims and held that “ We are not testing the legality of acquittal of the co-accused persons in this appeal. On the basis of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence was rightly confirmed by the High Court so far as the appellant is concerned. The factors which the High Court found for convicting the appellant, in our opinion, establishes guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is dismissed. We are apprised that appellant, at present, is on bail. The appellant’s bail bond stands cancelled. Let the appellant surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks from date and undergo rest of the sentence.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824