(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:14)ti(cid:2)(cid:26)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:5)(cid:28)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:5)

(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:21)

(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)

(cid:4)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:30) !(cid:30)"(cid:2)#$%(cid:2)(cid:19)#!(cid:30)&’(cid:30) (cid:2)(cid:11)()(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)*

(cid:26) #$#+$,(cid:30)"(cid:2)#$%(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:30),(cid:30)&’(cid:30) (cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:11))(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)*

(cid:7)-. &(cid:30)$"(cid:30) /////(cid:5)00(cid:30)11.$2

3(cid:30) (cid:31)+(cid:31)

42.2(cid:30)(cid:2)#5(cid:2)(cid:21). 6.$. //////(cid:4)(cid:30)(cid:31)0#$"(cid:30)$2

(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:16)%(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:19)7(cid:28)8(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:4)/(cid:2)(cid:27)(cid:24)4(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)3(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:2)4(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:2)(cid:23)(cid:18)88

(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:19)7(cid:28)8(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:4)4/(cid:2)(cid:27)(cid:24)4(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:22)4(cid:21)(cid:2)9(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:18)

Present: Mr. A.S. Mann, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Munish Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)

(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:22)4(cid:21)(cid:2)9(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:27)/(cid:2)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband (hereinafter

referred to as ‘accused’) against the judgment of conviction dated 03.07.2019 and order of sentence dated 05.07.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which he had been held guilty for committing the murder of his wife and son in case arising out of FIR Ex. PW7/A and has

been sentenced as under:(cid:30)

4(cid:30),2:#$ (cid:4)(cid:18) ti:$(cid:30)(cid:2):&0#(cid:31)(cid:30)" (cid:26)(cid:30) :#"(cid:2)#5(cid:2)(cid:31)(cid:30)$2(cid:30)$,(cid:30)

:$ (cid:2) "(cid:30)5.+12 (cid:2) #5

0.6&(cid:30)$2(cid:2)#5(cid:2)5:$(cid:30)

302 IPC Life Rs.20,000/(cid:30) RI for two years

imprisonment

498(cid:30)A IPC RI for one year Rs.2,000/(cid:30) RI for two months 201 IPC RI for two years Rs.5,000/(cid:30) RI for six months

(cid:11)

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Shankuntla Devi (mother of accused) had since been acquitted in this case.

2. ti(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:20)4(cid:2)(cid:14)ti(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:14)4(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)4(cid:22)

The FIR Ex.PW7/A bearing No.461 dated 16.12.2016 was lodged at Police Station Kanina under Sections 201/302/304B/,468A/120B IPC, against the accused on the basis an application Ex.PW1/A moved by PW1(cid:30)Rameshwar Dayal (father of the Reena). In this complaint, PW1 prayed for taking action against the accused and his mother alleging that his daughter was married with the accused in the month of February 2014 and he gave sufficient dowry in the marriage. After the marriage, his daughter was tortured for dowry by the accused. On many occasions, in order to satisfy the demand of the accused, he gave money but accused did not stop torturing her daughter for demand of dowry. About 4(cid:30)5 days before moving application Ex. PW1/A on 16.12.2015, his daughter telephonically asked him that Rs. One lac be sent to the accused, otherwise the accused had threatened to kill her. On 16.12.2015, he took Rs. One lac and reached at the house of the accused in village Dhanonda and asked Shankuntla Devi,