against the accused persons that he had given dowry on the eve of marriage beyond his means but after 20-25 days of marriage, Karamvir-appellant No. 2 herein, Maya Deviappellant No.1 herein and brothers Dharamveer and Paramveer and sister Sonika, started harassing his daughter for more money. When Kavita visited her father‟s house, she narrated the entire tale of woes to her parents and brother. When the complainant enquired about the matter, the appellants informed the complainant that the appellant No. 2 is in need of money and they also have to perform the marriage of Sonika. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to appellant No. 2 so that the daughter of the complainant is not harassed. It was further stated that the complainant received a letter of his daughter regarding continuous demand for dowry and sufferings meted out to her. The complainant paid a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of refrigerator and gold chain to the appellant No. 2. Kavita was sent with her husband on the assurance that the accused family would not harass her in future. Even on the day of „sakrant‟, when the brother of the deceased visited her matrimonial home, the accused threatened them that the household articles of Kavita will be thrown out. A further demand of Rs. 30,000/- was made to meet the kitchen expenses by the appellants. Since that demand was not fulfilled, the deceased was left with her father at Delhi. Subsequently, the complainant requested to compromise the matter and tendered his apology in writing. In June 1996, the deceased was brought to home by the accused persons. After some days, when the complainant visited her matrimonial home at Rohtak, he was informed that situation has not changed and whenever she brings money, the peace returns for 10-20 days otherwise she is beaten mercilessly by the accused persons. On 26.09.1996, the complainant got the information about the death of his daughter. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the accused were found guilty under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC. There is ample evidence that the deceased was harassed, maltreated and was subjected to cruelty, for and in connection with the demands for dowry by the accused. Admittedly, appellant No. 2 was present in his office on 26.09.1996
