JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant No. 3 Praveen Kumar is the husband of deceased Smt. Geetu while the appellant No. 1 Gurucharan Kumar and appellant No. 2 Smt. Sudesh are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. 2. The deceased was married to the appellant (accused) No. 3 on 28.4.1990 and on 13.7.1990 (i.e. within 3 months from the date of the marriage) she committed suicide in the house of the accused-appellants. According to the prosecution before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with the demand for a car in dowry. They maltreated her and taunted for bringing insufficient dowry and pressurised her to press her parents to give a car to them owing to which she took the extreme step to commit suicide by hanging herself. Thus, according to the prosecution they have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased and also committed dowry death. 3. The learned trial Court framed the charge of the offences Under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) & 304-B (causing dowry death) Indian Penal Code against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses, who are PW 1 Ved Prakash (father of the deceased) PW 2 Hem Raj, PW 3 Anju Ahuja (sister of the deceased), PW 4 Smt. Yashoda (mother of the deceased), PW 5 Gulshan Vinayak, PW 6 Sudarshan Kumar, PW 7 Badri Prasad, PW 8 Dr. K.N. Markande, PW 9 Pala Ram and PW 10 Megh Chand. 4. In their statements Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused-appellants have admitted that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant No. 3 took place on 28.4.1990 as they stated that the invitation cards of the marriage Ex. P/35, Ex. P/36 & Ex. P/37 are correct. They have also admitted that the deceased committed suicide on 13.7.1990 vide their reply to the question No. 5. P/35, Ex. P/36 & Ex. P/37 are correct. They have also admitted that the deceased committed suicide on 13.7.1990 vide their reply to the question No. 5. However, they, while denying to have demanded any dowry and subjected the deceased any cruelty or harassment, have stated that the deceased was a modern, free loving lady and liked driving, that she asked them to buy a car which they declined as they were not in a position to purchase one that she did not find the kind of freedom and life style which she wanted in their family atmosphere and that owing to these, she became frustrated and committed suicide. They have examined two witnesses in defence. They are DW 1 Diwan K.S. Puri and DW 2 Hem Raj. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar convicted the accused-appellants for the offences Under Sections 304-B & 306 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to a simple imprisonment for 7 years for the offence Under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code and a simple imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence Under section 306 Indian Penal Code. 6. Against this conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 8. As established by the prosecution evidence and admitted by the appellants, the deceased was married to the appellant No. 3 on 28.4.1990 and within three months on 13.7.1990 she committed suicide in the house of the appellants, who lived together therein. Suicide is obviously death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances. 9. The prosecution case is that a car was demanded in dowry by the appellants and on that account they maltreated and harassed the deceased and as a result of which she committed suicide. The appellants' case on the other hand is that the deceased wanted the appellants to buy a car for her driving hobby and modern life, but they declined as they were not in a position to do so. Consequently, she felt frustrated and committed suicide. Obviously & admittedly suicide was committed by the deceased in connection with the demand of a car. Consequently, she felt frustrated and committed suicide. Obviously & admittedly suicide was committed by the deceased in connection with the demand of a car. The only difference between the prosecution and the defence is that as per the prosecution the car was demanded by the appellants in dowry for which she was maltreated and harassed by the appellants, whereas according to the defence the car was demanded by the deceased from the appellants, who declined which caused frustration to her. Therefore, it has to be seen as to which of two above versions are correct and acceptable. 10. PW 1 father of the deceased has deposed that after the marriage when the deceased came back from her husband's place to his (PW l's) house she complained to him that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law (i.e. all the three appellants) have taunted that her father was a good lawyer and he had let them down by not giving cash or a Maruti Car in dowry. After her return to her in-laws' place she, in the month of June, 1990, asked him on telephone to send the money for the car because the appellants are taunting and harassing her too much for the same. He (PW 1), therefore, sent his wife (i.e. PW 4 mother of the deceased) on 27.6.1990 to the daughter's matrimonial home to look into the matter herself. On return on 4.7.1990 his (PW 1's) wife confirmed that the deceased was being maltreated and harassed in connection with the demand of a car in dowry. 11. PW 4 the mother of the deceased, deposed that she went to the deceased's in-laws place and lived there from 27.6.1990 to 4.7.1990. During her stay there, she found that her daughter (deceased) was being rudely treated at the hands of the appellants. They even demanded car from her (PW 4). The witness said that the mother-in-law of the deceased even said that she (PW 4) was capable of giving five cars not to say one. 12. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 4 seems to be quite natural, truthful and reliable. The evidence of cruelty, maltreatment and harassment and the demand of dowry by the parent of the deceased cannot be termed as interested and disbelieved. The victim could reasonably be expected to disclose the acts of cruelty and harassment to her parents and not to outside persons. The evidence of cruelty, maltreatment and harassment and the demand of dowry by the parent of the deceased cannot be termed as interested and disbelieved. The victim could reasonably be expected to disclose the acts of cruelty and harassment to her parents and not to outside persons. Here in the present case PW 4 herself went to the house of the appellants and herself has seen that the deceased was maltreated and harassed by them and they (appellants) even put their demand of car in dowry before her (PW 4) and owing to which she took the extreme step of committing suicide. The probability factor does echo in favour of the version given by the prosecution witnesses PW 1 & PW 4. Even a girl of modern and free nature having driving hobby would not commit suicide within three months of her marriage merely because her husband or in-laws have declined to accede to her demand to buy a car. If the car was demanded by the deceased herself she would not have told her parents that her husband and in-laws demand car in dowry and would have straight way told to her parents that the car is needed by her. In my opinion, from the stand of probability the prosecution version and not the defence version seems to be truthful and reliable. The defence story seems to be after thought and concocted. Hence it is established that the car was demanded by the appellants in dowry and the deceased was subjected to cruelty, maltreatment and harassment by them in connection with the demand of a car in dowry and owing to which she committed suicide within three months of her marriage in the house of the appellants. During the period from 27.6.1990 to 4.7.1990 PW 4 stayed in the house of the appellants and the demand of the car was put by the appellants to her and she (PW 4) herself observed that the deceased was maltreated and harassed by them. On 13.7.1990 the suicide was committed. Thus soon before the suicide the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of a car in dowry. 13. On hearing the death of his daughter PW 1 and PW 4 (parents of the deceased) and others went to the house of the appellants. On 13.7.1990 the suicide was committed. Thus soon before the suicide the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of a car in dowry. 13. On hearing the death of his daughter PW 1 and PW 4 (parents of the deceased) and others went to the house of the appellants. When PW 1 reached there in the morning of 14.7.1990 the police was already there and was conducting the proceedings Under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code. After the necessary formality postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted and thereafter the cremation took place. But all through PW 1 did not say to any one including the police with regard to the dowry demand and the maltreatment or harassment of the deceased. It is after the cremation that PW 1 chose to lodge the FIR with the police at 8.30 p.m. on 14.7.1990. According to the learned counsel for the appellants this delay in lodging the FIR and non-discloser of maltreatment or harassment of the deceased earlier when the police was already there in connection with the proceedings Under section 174 Criminal Procedure Code are indicative of the fact that the prosecution story and allegations are after thought and concocted. But a minute appraisal of the circumstances would show that the contention of the defence is not correct. PW 1's daughter, who was married only less than three months prior has committed suicide in the house of the appellants. PW 1 and his family members and relatives were obviously in extreme shock when they reached there. Police was there at the report or call of the appellants. The dead body of the deceased was lying there. PW 1 did not know what version the appellants had given to the police and on what lines the police was proceeding. In such moment of shock, grief and suspense PW 1 would naturally keep mum and would wait and see. After the post-mortem and cremation when the dust of shock, grief and suspense has slightly settled down PW 1 went to the police and lodged the FIR at 8.30 p.m. on the same day. In such moment of shock, grief and suspense PW 1 would naturally keep mum and would wait and see. After the post-mortem and cremation when the dust of shock, grief and suspense has slightly settled down PW 1 went to the police and lodged the FIR at 8.30 p.m. on the same day. In my opinion, there is nothing unnatural in the conduct of the PW 1 in lodging the FIR at 8.30 p.m. and it cannot be said that the FIR was delayed and prior to that there was no proper and suitable occasion to make the allegations etc. etc. The father of the girl, who has committed suicide within three months of her marriage would not falsely implicate any one and let the real culprits go scot free. I do not find that the prosecution story and the allegations are after thought or concocted. 14. I think that the offence of dowry death punishable Under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code is fully proved against the appellants. 15. When the deceased was maltreated and harassed by her husband and in-laws in connection with the dowry demand and owing to which the suicide is committed by her (deceased) the case of abetment of suicide is made out against the husband and in-laws. In my opinion, therefore, the offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide) is also proved against the appellants. 16. That appellants have rightly been convicted for the offences Under Sections 304-B & 306 Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court. The sentence awarded by it is also adequate and justified. No interference is called for. 17. No other point has been argued and pressed before me. 18. In the result, the appeal fails and, therefore, is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******