Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

39. PW13 Sarma Devi has deposed that deceased Meenu is her cousin. Her marriage was solemnized with Kailash on 27.11.2001. After marriage she used to inform her that her husband, mother/father in law and sister in law and maternal mother in law used to harass her. Deceased was not having any child after marriage and that is why they tortured and taunted her and told that "sabko bahuho ke bachhe ho gaye hai, tere khu nhai hua'. They also taunted the deceased that low quality dowry articles were given in the marriage of Meenu by her parents. She has further stated that in the month of May 2005 she came at her parental house and deceased also came and she told her that in laws beaten and tortured her regarding that she was not having any children. She advised Meenu for treatment of fertility problem at State Vs.Kailash @ Bittoo etc Kalkaji. In the night of 10.7.05 at about 2.30 a.m, telephone information was received through maternal mother in law of deceased at their house that condition of Meenu was serious and sent her parents immediately. Thereafter they went there. She also reached at 6 a.m at her in­laws house. Her family members were also present there. They told her that Meenu was expired due to heart attack. When she saw the dead body of Meenu, she found some marks on the neck of deceased on both sides. The marks were like a bluish mark on her neck. After enquiry they found that they were not giving satisfactory answer regarding the death of deceased. On 11.07.05 her statement Ex.PW13/A was recorded by the SDM. On 26.7.05 her supplementary statement was recorded by the IO. She told the IO that her cousin used to tell her that her husband, mother in law, father in law, sister in law and maternal mother in law taunted her for less dowry. Deceased Meenu also told her that she does not disclosed to her parents about the incident of beating and demand of dowry otherwise her parents will worry about her. In cross examination she has stated that the expenses in the marriage were around Rs.3.00 lac to Rs.4.00 lac. All the necessary things like TV,Bed, Cooler, Fridge etc were given in the marriage. Accused maternal mother in law namely Kasturi Devi used to visit on weekly basis at the matrimonial house. She cannot give the specific date when she visited at the matrimonial house of deceased. In the month of May, 2005 when she was at her maternal home, the State Vs.Kailash @ Bittoo etc deceased first told her about the cruelty upon her regarding dowry. She admitted that from 2001 to May 2005, deceased never told her about cruelty on account of dowry. VOL. However, she used to tell her that her husband would leave her. She admitted that giving and taking dowry is an offence. When the deceased told her about cruelty on account of dowry in May, 2005 she did not have any talk in this regard with inlaws. She admitted that neither the deceased Meenu nor her family members ever made any complaint regarding demand of dowry to the police. Deceased made complaint to her regarding beatings in May 2005. She did not make any complaint to the police in this regard. In her statement to SDM, she had not stated anything about dowry. She had told to IO in this regard when her statement was recorded. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW13/DA wherein the fact of dowry is not mentioned. She admitted that there was no demand of dowry that is why it is not mentioned in the statement to SDM and to IO. Again on court query, witness submitted that demand of dowry was there as stated by the deceased to her. She denied that it was not a case of cruelty or harassment on account of dowry nor it is a case of murder or dowry death. She denied that this case had been made against the accused persons after due planning by her.