State Of Haryana vs Jai Singh And Ors. on 6 August, 1998
24. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had argued that
prosecution witnesses have failed to corroborate the complaint in all
material particulars. It is argued that from the entire deposition of
prosecution witnesses no specific incident of any cruelty could be proved
against the accused. It is further submitted that there are several
contradictions in the statement of public witnesses i.e PW2 complainant
and her mother, who was examined as PW3. It is further submitted that
as per the deposition of PW2 complainant, herself it is evident that she
had mentioned that she was kept well in her matrimonial house for initial
23 years after her marriage and it was only from the year 2000 onwards
FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 10 OF 17
that the accused persons had started committing cruelty upon her for
demand of a motorcycle and cash. It is submitted that there are no
specific allegations or specific date of any incident when such demand
were raised or any such alleged cruelty was committed upon the
complainant. It is further argued that it is an admitted fact that in a
maintenance suit filed by the complainant before Rewari court, a
compromise had taken place in the year 2010, and complainant had gone
back to her matrimonial home. It is also an admitted fact of the
complainant that she had lived in her matrimonial home after the said
settlement, only for about six months and there was no specific act of
cruelty even during the said six months.