Rajinder Kumar vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.

Whereas, Rajinder Kumar and his father Jagdish Chand have filed Crl. Appeal No. 307DB of 1993 challenging the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, dated August 2, 1993, holding them guilty under Section 304B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default thereof to further undergo RI for two years as also under Section 316 read with Section 34 IPC in which they have been sentenced for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each or in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months as also under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each or in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months (all the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently). Smt. Pushpa, mother of deceased Savita Sharma has filed Crl. Revision No. 288 of 1994 challenging the same very order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitting Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Anil Kumar and Vipin Kumar all sons of Jagdish Chand, one of the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 307DB of 1993 as also Krishna Devi wife of Vijay Kumar. She, in the revision aforesaid, has also prayed for enhancement of sentence awarded to Rajinder Kumar and Jagdish Chand. This revision was ordered to be heard along with Crl. Appeal No., 307DB of 1993. It is for this reason that we propose to dispose of both the Crl. Appeal as well as Crl. Revision by this common order.

The facts leading to unfortunate death of Savita Sharma need a necessary mention. She was married to appellantRajinder Kumar in October, 1987 and breathed her last on August 6, 1991. In this short period of her married life, she had been blessed twice and had, thus, two living children whereas she was expecting to be blessed for the third time being pregnant at the time of her death. She along with her husband Rajinder Kumar, appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 307DB of 1993, was brought to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar on August 5, 1991. Her mother Pushpa Devi addressed an application to the SHO, Police Station, Yamuna Nagar requesting that the appellants and respondents in Crl. Revision No. 288 of 1994 be proceeded against and action be taken against them for having killed her daughter Savita Sharma. She mentioned in the application aforesaid that marriage of her daughter Savita Sharma, aged 22/23 years, was solemnized with Rajinder Kumar on October 27, 1987. At the time of marriage, she had spent an amount of Rs. 1/2 lacs on dowry. Ten days prior to solemnization of the marriage, she had given a sum of Rs. 50,000/ to Jagdish Chand, father of the bridegroom because he had expressed his inability to meet the expenses on the marriage due to paucity of funds. After marriage, her daughter was maltreated and the accused continued demanding more money time and again. She had given Rs. 10,000/ each to them three times. In spite of that, they turned her daughter out of the house and had thrown her belongings out of the house. Later on they agreed to let her daughter live in their house provided a room was constructed for her. During that period, they sold the gold weighing ten tolls of her daughter. Her husband expired on July 19, 1991 and her soninlaw sent her daughter to her house directing her to tell that he was in need of a sum of Rs. 40,000/ as he needed Rs. 20,000/ for the construction of the room, Rs. 15,000/ for paying back the debts and Rs. 5,000/ for payment of loan. So much so he had threatened her that if she failed to bring the money, she should not come back. He further told her that they would do away with her if she came back without the desired amount. Her daughter told the whole story to her in a separate room instead of in the presence of all relatives. She told her daughter that she would pay a visit to her on August 8, 1991 after the Kirya ceremony of her husband and would get all the debts etc. paid and that would also get a room constructed for her. As promised, she was to pay a visit on August 8, 1991 and she arranged the money accordingly. Her daughter was got admitted in the hospital at Yamuna Nagar on the night of August 5, 1991 in badly burnt condition. On August 5, 1991 at 2 AM Manoj Kumar along with three other boys came in a van and said, "Your sister is suffering from pain in the abdomen and she in lying admitted in Civil Hospital at Yamuna Nagar." She was not present at home but on August 7, 1991 when they reached the hospital, they came to know that the inlaws of her daughter, namely, Jagdish Lal, Rajinder Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Krishna Rani wife of Vijay Kumar had killed her daughter after setting her ablaze.

It appears that this application was received by Harnam Singh, ASI, Police Post Farakpur at about 4.20 PM on August 7, 1991. ASI Harnam Singh, in the column meant for the steps taken by the police, recorded that he alongwith other police constables after getting free from postmortem examination of Savita deceased wife of Rajinder Kumar, was present near the gate of Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar that Smt. Pushpa Devi along with her sons Om Parkash, Vijay Kumar and Rajinder Kumar submitted the aforesaid application. On August 5, 1991 a ruqa from the doctor about the admission of Smt. Savita and Rajinder Kumar in the Railway Hospital in injured condition due to burns and later on an information from the doctor about their admission in Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, were received. First of all, in this regard, Harbans Singh, ASI had obtained the opinion of the doctor of the Civil Hospital wherein the doctor declared both of them unfit to make their statements. Thereafter, he was also informed in writing by the doctor that both the injured persons were unfit to make their statements. On August 6, 1991, an information from the doctor regarding the death of Savita was received from Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. On receipt of the said information, he reached the hospital and obtained opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Rajinder Kumar to make a statement. He was at that stage also declared unfit. Again in the evening of August 6, 1991 he obtained the opinion of the doctor wherein the doctor declared Rajinder Kumar fit to make statement. Therefore, he conducted proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding death of Savita. The ASI then obtained the opinion of the doctors, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Savita Sharma. The burns were antemortem in nature sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of events. He registered a case against all the accused under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC. The formal FIR with regard to the incident regarding the death of Savita was, thus, recorded at 4.45 PM on August 7, 1991.

The prosecution, with a view to bring home the offence against the appellantsRajinder Kumar and Jagdish Chand as also the acquitted accused examined Dr. Shridhar, Railway Hospital Jagadhari Workshop as PW 5. He stated that on August 5, 1991 Rajinder Sharma and Savita Sharma were brought to Railway Hospital at Jagadhari Workshop. He just gave first aid to them and referred them to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. He had also sent information (ruqa) Ex. PD to the Incharge, Police Post Farakpur about the admission of the aforesaid patients in Railway Hospital. In his crossexamination, he stated that the police had obtained his opinion regarding the percentage of burns on the persons of Savita and Rajinder Kumar and that he had opined that there were 100% burns on the person of Savita Sharma whereas percentage of burns on the person of Rajinder Kumar was 50%. Dr. N.K. Garg, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar was examined as PW7. He stated that on August 5, 1991 Savita Sharma and Rajinder Kumar were referred from Railway Hospital to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and he sent information Ex. PD about their admission in the hospital. On the same day, Harbans Singh ASI had moved an application, Ex.PC, on which he had made an endorsement, Ex.PC/2 that both Savita Sharma and Rajinder Sharma were unfit to make their statements at 9.30 AM. On the same day at 11 PM (night), he had declared on police request that Savita Sharma was unfit to make statement. He had also declared Rajinder Kumar Sharma unfit to make statement on August 6, 1991. He had sent another information about the receipt of dead body of Savita Sharma, who was earlier referred to PGI on August 6, 1991. On police request, Ex. PJ, Dr. V.K. Sharma had opined that Rajinder Sharma was sedated and unfit to make statement at 10 AM on August 6, 1991. However, at 7.20 PM Dr. V.K. Sharma declared Rajinder Sharma to be fit to make statement on August 7, 1991. He along with Dr. A. Narain conducted postmortem on the dead body of Savita and in the opinion of the doctors the cause of death was due to shock resulting from burns. The burns were ante moterm in nature and sufficient to cause death and the probable duration between injury and death was within few hours and between death and postmortem 24 to 48 hours. Ram Phal Constable was examined as PW2. He stated that on August 7, 1991 he was posted at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar and on that day he had received special report of the case from Bishamber Dayal, ASI which was further handed over by him to the Judicial Magistrate. Harnam Dass was examined as PW3. This witness had prepared scaled site plan, Ex. PA of the place of occurrence at the instance of the police and on the pointing out of the witnesses. In crossexamination he stated that he inspected the spot at 6 PM and he had prepared rough notes of the spot and whatever the PWs and the police officials had pointed out at the spot, he had mentioned the same in the site plan, Ex.PA. He also stated that the houses shown adjoining to the place of occurrence were the residential houses. Harbans Singh, ASI was examined as PW4. He stated that on August 5, 1991 he had received information, Ex. PB from Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar on which he had gone to the Civil Hospital and made an application, Ex. PC to the doctor seeking his opinion about the fitness of Savita Sharma on which the doctor opined that she was not fit to make her statement on August 5, 1991 at 9.30 PM. Pushpa Devi, mother of the deceased Savita Sharma was examined as PW6. She has broadly supported the prosecution version. In her crossexamination she, however, stated that at the time of marriage she had withdrawn a sum Rs. 50,000/ which was lying deposited in the name of her daughter in Punjab National Bank, Haridwar. Her husband had also withdrawn a sum of Rs. 40,000/ from his funds and he had also obtained Rs. 30,000/ from chit funds. She also stated that engagement was fixed six months prior to making a payment of Rs. 50,000/ by them and the date of marriage was settled fifteen days prior to the actual date of marriage. No talk had taken place regarding any dowry articles at the time of settling the date of marriage, and that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was paid ten days prior to the date of marriage. This amount of Rs. 50,000/, she further stated, was taken from the Provident Fund by her husband. She also stated that she or her relations never harassed Asha, wife of her son on account of demand of dowry. She, however, admitted that Asha wife of her son Vijay Kumar has also got a case registered against them under Sections 498A/406 IPC vide FIR No. 197 of 1988 against her husband and her son Vijay Kumar. That case was, however, not registered against her. She denied the knowledge if she was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahadra on June 6, 1988. She admitted having returned the dowry articles in the Court to Asha, wife of her son. She also admitted having made number of applications against her daughterinlaw Asha and her parents. She further admitted that Kanwaljit Singh was the son of her sister and he was residing at Jagadhari Workshop and he had never written any letter about the harassment meted out to Savita Sharma at the hands of the accused. She also admitted that Sat Pal, her brother, was employed at Yamuna Nagar but, she stated, that he had only orally informed her about the maltreatment meted out to Savita Sharma. She also admitted that at the time of writing Ex. PE, application addressed by her to the SHO, all her relations were present in the hospital. She admitted having not mentioned in her application the occasions on which she had given the amount of Rs. 10,000/ to the accused. She also admitted that both the children of deceased Savita Sharma were now residing with their grand parents. She also admitted that her sons Rajinder Kumar and Om Parkash and Kanwaljit Singh were already present in the hospital on August 7, 1991 before her arrival and these persons had told her on her arrival that they had not stated anything before the police despite the fact that police had made enquiries from them and that they had further stated that whatever would be done, it would be done by mother of the deceased. She admitted that her daughter had never written any letter but she qualified by saying that it was so because she was prevented from writing letters. In the very next line, she admitted that Rajinder Kumar used to bring her daughter to Haridwar on Saturdays and then they would come back on Monday morning.

Rajinder Kumar, brother of the deceased was examined as PW8. He too like PW6 Pushpa Devi, has broadly corroborated the prosecution version. In his crossexamination, however, he stated that the matter of marriage was finalised about 22 days prior to the exact date of marriage and the negotiations of marriage had taken place at Delhi. In those days, he was residing at Delhi and nothing was settled about giving and taking in his presence. An amount of Rs. 50,000/, this witness states, was paid as it was lying with them in their house. He, unlike his mother, stated that Savita used to write letters about the demands made by the accused but he further stated that all such letters were torn out by her mother. He further stated that all the letters written by his sister were received by his mother at Haridwar but the same were never shown to him. About the demand of Rs. 40,000/, this witness stated in his statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the same was made on the occasion when his father had died and number of persons had gathered there. He, however, changed this statement and stated that the demand was made few days before the death of his father. He was, thus, duly confronted with his statement made before the police.

Sat Pal son of Shri Megh Raj, who is maternal uncle of Savita, being brother of Smt. Pushpa Devi, was examined as PW9. He too has broadly supported the prosecution version. With regard to demand of Rs. 50,000/ he stated that the same was paid to the accused in his presence. He was confronted with his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he had not stated so. The other demands of the accused, as he sought to make out in his deposition before the Court, were not referred to by him in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., thus, he was confronted. Since there was variance in his statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with regard to demand of Rs. 40,000/, he was confronted on that count as well. Harnam Singh ASI was examined as PW10. He apprised the Court the way and manner in which he had partly conducted investigation of this case. In his crossexamination he stated that on August 6, 1991 relations of both the parties had been coming and going in the hospital. He had asked Rajinder and Om Parkash, brothers of Savita, Kanwaljit and Sat Pal to make a statement but they refused to do so prior to arrival of Smt. Pushpa. He also recorded the statement of Rajinder accused at 7.20 PM on August 6, 1991. He had not recorded the statement of neighbours of the accused while preparing the site plan, Ex. PN. He further stated that Pushpa Devi had not handed over to him any letters written by Savita. Mehar Singh Inspector, Incharge CIA Staff, Yamuna Nagar was examined as PW11. He had simply arrested some of the accused.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Rajinder stated that on August 5, 1991 he was on his duty. He had come back at about 5.30 PM and had asked his wife to accompany him to the hospital as the son of his brother Vipin was admitted there. His wife went in the kitchen to prepare tea. There was very less kerosene oil in the stove and as such she tried to inflame it. She tried to put more kerosene oil in it and in this process she caught fire by accident and the can of kerosene fell on the ground. On hearing the noise he immediately rushed to the kitchen and tried to save his wife. He also received some burn injuries on his hands, face, forehead and other parts of the body. His wife was wrapped in a blanket and he and his wife were taken to the hospital, where he remained unconscious for two days. However his statement was recorded on August 6, 1991 by the police when he gained consciousness. It was an accidental fire in which his wife and he were involved. He further stated that he had cordial relations with his wife throughout. Even his wife''s brother Om Parkash and Rajinder Kumar used to reside with him at Yamuna Nagar since the date of marriage. He and his relations never asked his inlaws to give them any help. No body taunted his wife for bringing less dowry or taking more articles like cash etc. It was a concocted story just to implicate them. After the birth of his son, they had gone to Vaishno Devi for Mundan and his wife''s relations also accompanied them. His daughter''s birthday was on July 16, 1991 which was celebrated with great pomp and show at their residence at Yamuna Nagar. On July 19, 1991 his wife had collected the photographs of the birthday. However, on the same day, an information was received that his fatherinlaw had expired. Thereafter, he and his wife went to Haridwar. He further stated that even after the registration of the case they had received a letter from the office of the Works Manager, Northern Railway, Jagadhari Workshop that Om Parkash, his brotherinlaw, was to appear in the written test to be held on July 12, 1992 for the recruitment of skilled Artisans. He further stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Jagdish Chand stated that he was a retired Railway employee and was a pensioner. All his married sons were living with their respective families separately. He did not interfere in their life. On October 5, 1991 after coming to know that his son and his wife received burn injuries, they were immediately admitted in the Railway Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and from there to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. From there Savita was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. So, he asked his son Ashok Kumar to take her to PGI and sent his another son Manoj Kumar for giving information to the parents of Savita at Haridwar. House No. 22 was owned by him where he was living with his wife Smt. Darshana and son Manoj Kumar. He never raised any demand of dowry nor he was paid any amount of Rs. 50,000/ before marriage. No amount after the marriage was ever paid, and allegations to that effect were false. At the time of his retirement, he received the amount which he spent on the marriage of his son. The appellants and their coaccused led evidence in defence.

Charanjit Sharma was examined as DW1. He is father of Asha, who was married with son of Pushpa complainant. He stated that his daughter had also filed a case against the son of the complainant, Vijay Kumar at Delhi as his daughter was not kept nicely. Another case under Sections 498A/406 IPC had also been filed by him against Vijay Kumar, husband of his daughter. That case was also against Pushpa, her husband Raghunath and Om Parkash. His daughter Asha was now residing with him along with her son for the last eight years. He further stated that his daughter had filed a petition, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. His daughter had also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which an allowance of Rs. 250/ was granted vide orders dated December 16, 1987. Sunita Sharma wife of Rajinder Kumar, PW8, was examined as DW2. She stated that she was married with the son of complainant namely Rajinder on October 11, 1986. Savita deceased was married with Rajinder Kumar accused 1 1/2 years after her marriage. In that marriage, many articles that were given to her and to Asha Rani were also given to Savita Sharma. Rajinder and Savita used to visit Haridwar and Delhi at weekends and they used to stay for about two days. Savita never made any complaint to them against her husband or inlaws. Two months prior to her death, Savita, her two brothersinlaw, namely, Vijay and Om Parkash, Poonam (wife of Om Parkash) and she had gone to Vaishno Devi after the Mundan ceremony of Savita''s son. In her cross examination, she admitted that her mother is aunt of Rajinder accused i.e. Rajinder accused was her mother''s sister''s son. Kalu Singh was examined as PW3. He had only brought the summoned record of Smt. Savita Sharma wife of Anil Kumar, Staff Nurse, Swami Daya Nand Hospital at Sahadra and stated that she was employed in the hospital on July 5, 1986 and she continued to be so. She was on leave from July 28, 1991 to August 3, 1991 on account of death of her uncle who had expired on July 26, 1991. Mohinder Kumar Clerk, Railway Workshop was examined as DW4. From the summoned record, he stated that Rajinder Kumar was on leave from June 8, 1991 to June 10, 1991 and again on June 24, 1991, June 25, 1991, June 27, 1991 to June 29, 1991. He was also on leave on July 26, 1991 and then from July 29, 1991 to July 31, 1991. On August 5, 1991 Rajinder Kumar was on duty upto 5 PM. Darshan Kumar, Assistant, office of Mother Memorial Children Hospital, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar was examined as DW5. His statement is with regard to Vipin Kumar, acquitted accused. Dhian Chand was examined as DW6 and he stated that on August 5, 1991 when the occurrence took place he went to the spot. Dalip Chand, Raj Kumar and Harminder Singh had come to the spot and they were also residents of the same locality. Smt. Savita was being removed to the hospital and he had also gone to the hospital. He also stated that Rajinder accused had cordial relations with his wife. Statement of DW7 Satish Kumar pertains to the acquitted accused Ashok Kumar and so is the statement of DW8 Shiv Ram. Dalip Chand was examined as DW9. He stated that his sister''s house was adjoining to the house of Rajinder accused and that he was on visiting terms with his sister as well as accused. His brotherinlaw was suffering from fever because he was a patient of TB. Thus, he had gone to enquire about his welfare on August 5, 1991. The residents of the locality after hearing hue and cry rushed to the house of Rajinder, and they saw both Savita and Rajinder in burnt condition and that they took them to the railway hospital. Anil Kumar was examined as DW10. He is photographer by profession. He only deposed with regard to the photographs that he had taken on the occasion of birthday of Rajinder''s daughter.

Mr. P.S. Mann, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in support of the appeal preferred by the appellants, Rajinder Kumar and Jagdish Chand, contends that not only the FIR in this case is belated one without giving any explanation thereof, the evidence with regard to demand of dowry or money after the marriage is totally shaky, there being vital contradictions in the statements of the material witnesses. He also contends that Pushpa, complainant in the present case and mother of Savita deceased, had made a crude attempt to involve all the relations of the husband of her daughter, number of whom have been found to be innocent by the learned trial Judge and, therefore, no implicit faith can be placed upon her testimony made before the Court. The other witnesses, who have supported her version are highly interested and that the very fact that the husband of deceased Savita, namely, appellant Rajinder Kumar, received 50% burn injuries himself, would go a long way to show that demand of dowry and money after the marriage on various counts is a made up affair. If Savita was actually taunted, beaten or tortured in the way and manner as suggested by the prosecution, the husband would have not made a valiant effort to save his wife in which process his own life was put out in danger, contends the learned counsel.

Mr. Varinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, however, endeavonrs us to uphold the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhari.

We have given out thoughtful consideration to the various points raised by learned defence counsel and, in totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, are inclined to accept the same. Even though, it is the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs. 21/2 lacs was spent on the marriage, there is absolutely no allegation that this amount was spent on the asking of either of the accused, whether convicted or acquitted by the learned trial Judge. There being, thus, no demand ever made by any of the accused, Pushpa and her husband, who had spent an amount of Rs. 21/2 lacs on the marriage of their daughter, could not make it a case of demand of dowry. It is true that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ is stated to have been paid to father of Rajinder, who in turn handed over the same to his sons, who were accompanying him but from the reading of evidence of various witnesses, we are of the view that the evidence led by the prosecution on that behalf is absolutely discrepant and inspires no confidence. Pushpa in her deposition stated that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was withdrawn from the bank and then paid to father of Rajinder Kumar. If an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was withdrawn from the bank, surely it could be proved by documentary evidence. That apart, son of Pushpa, who appeared as PW8, in his deposition stated that the amount of Rs. 50,000/ was lying at their house. There are other discrepancies as well in the depositions of the witnesses examined on that behalf with regard to payment of Rs. 50,000/. So is true with regard to payment of Rs. 10,000/ on three different occasions as also payment of Rs. 40,000/ which, concededly, was not paid and, before payment of which, Savita died. We are further not prepared to believe that a demand of Rs. 40,000/ was made in the gathering which had collected on account of demise of father of Savita. It is true that the witness on better advice thought of shifting the time of this demand of Rs. 40,000/ but they were duly confronted with their statements, as have been mentioned above. Totally discrepant is the evidence with regard to demand of dowry and an amount of Rs. 10,000/ on three different occasions and an amount of Rs. 40,000/ at the time of demise of father of Savita apart. What clinches the issue in favour of the accused is the fact that Rajinder himself got 50% burns. He remained unconscious for about two days immediately after which his statement was recorded which happens to be in tune with his statement when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence evidence, reference whereof has been given above, also supports the theory of Savita getting burn injuries accidentally, or may be for the reasons that she thought of putting her life to an end for some reasons which cannot be deciphered from the records of the case. However, the fact remains that her husband made desperate attempt to save her. So much so he put his own life into complete danger. As mentioned above, he received 50% burn injuries which could cause even his death. His all out efforts to save his wife, in the process of which he got severe burn injuries, militates against the normal human conduct and if, as a matter of fact, Savita was tortured, tormented or insulted, for not bringing either sufficient dowry or not fulfilling the aftermarriage demands of the accused, Rajinder would have not made a valiant, although abortive, attempt to save his wife. In that case, he would have not been that much interested that Savita might survive as she had been an eye sore for not fulfilling the demands. Further, it is not understandable if all demands made by the accused, as is the prosecution case, were duly met and even an unpaid amount was promised to be paid by a date fixed, why Savita was still being tortured on account of demand of dowry. The things would have been different if the demands made by the accused were not met but that, however, is not the prosecution case.

From the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, a doubt creeps in the mind of the Court with regard to complicity of the accused in commission of the offence alleged against them. That being so, they deserve the benefit of doubt and, thus, earn their acquittal.

Inasmuch as the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellants, Rajinder Kumar and Jagdish Chand, no conviction can be recorded against the acquitted accused, who have already been given such a benefit by the trial Court and all of whom were residing separately and against whom there was no specific allegation of either demanding money or dowry at any time either from Savita or her parents. The Criminal Revision (No. 288 of 1994) preferred by Smt. Pushpa has, thus, no force and is consequently dismissed. The net result is that whereas Crl. Appeal No. 307DB of 1993 filed by Rajinder Kumar and Jagdish Chand shall stand allowed, thus, setting aside the order of sentence and conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, against them, revision bearing No. 288 of 1994 filed by Smt. Pushpa shall stand dismissed.