Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 677 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Resham Lal

2002-07-17

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. The State of Punjab has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment dated 31.10.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, who acquitted respondents Resham Lal, his father Chani Ram and his mother Bachni of the charges framed against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and in the alternative under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Resham Lal son of Chani Ram, aged 37 years at the time of trial, his father Chani Ram and mother Smt. Bachni, both aged 70 years when they appeared before the trial Court in order to face their trial, were chargesheeted under Sections 498-A, 304-B and in the alternative under Section 302/34 I.P.C. on the allegations that on 25.11.1990 in the area of village Lakhan Pur they harassed Smt. Amarjit Kaur with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Secondly, on the same date, time and place they extended cruelty and harassment to the deceased in connection with the demand for dowry, as a result of which the death of Amarjit Kaur took place on 25.11.1990 otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and thereby allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. In the alternative, the trial court framed a charge against all the accused that they in furtherance of their common intention which was to commit murder of Amarjit Kaur by intentionally and knowingly causing her death and thereby committed an offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 3. The story of the prosecution at the trial has been unfolded by Shri Kishan Chand son of Hariditta Ram, resident of village Jandu Singha, Police Station Adampur, district Jalandhar when he gave his statement Ex.PE before ASI Surinder Kumar of Police Post Lakhanpal attached to Police Station Nurmahal and it was stated by the complainant that he is resident of village Jandu Singha and deals in the sale and purchase of she-buffaloes. He has two sons. The eldest is an employee in All India Radio, Jalandhar and younger to him is Amarjit, aged about 30 years and he is also married and is serving in Air Force, MES, Adampur. Younger to him is his daughter Amarjit Kaur, aged about 28/29 years. He has two sons. The eldest is an employee in All India Radio, Jalandhar and younger to him is Amarjit, aged about 30 years and he is also married and is serving in Air Force, MES, Adampur. Younger to him is his daughter Amarjit Kaur, aged about 28/29 years. In the year 1985 he married his daughter Amarjit Kaur and at the time of her marriage he gave dowry according to his status. After one year of the marriage Resham Lal, husband of his daughter, started taunting her by saying that the dowry given by her father at the time of her marriage was insufficient. They had been turning her out of the house after giving beating in order to bring more articles and money. About six months back, his daughter came to him while weeping and she told that the gold necklace given at the time of her marriage had been stolen by her mother-in-law and husband and on the contrary they had been accusing her of the theft and she was turned out of the house after giving beating. In order to save his daughter from false accusation, he along with his brother Charan Dass and his son Amarjit and daughter Amarjit Kaur deceased went to village Lakhanpal and discussed the whole matter in detail with the in-laws of Amarjit Kaur. On the asking of his daughter the complainant opened the box lying inside and on search it led to the recovery of gold necklace. Then the complainant snubbed the in-laws of the deceased and made them feel ashamed. After getting effected compromise between them, the behaviour of the in-laws remained cordial for some time. It is further alleged by the complainant that about four months back his daughter gave birth to a son. He went to the house of his daughter in order to give customary gifts (Chhuchhak) on that happy occasion so that his daughter may be able to lead a happy life. He gave two suits to the mother-in-law of his daughter, 5 suits to her daughter, one suit to his son-in-law and one suit to each of the sisters of her daughters husband and a ring and clothes were also given to the newly born child. At that time his son-in-law became furious because no ornament was given as a gift to him and his mother. At that time his son-in-law became furious because no ornament was given as a gift to him and his mother. The ceremony of Chhuchhak was attended by his brother Charan Dass and his brother-in-law (sisters husband) Gurdial Chand. About a month back his daughter again came to him with tears in her eyes. At that time his brother Charan Dass and his son Amarjit were also present in the house. She told with tears that her husband and mother-in-law had again started beating her and she had been turned out of the house with the direction to bring ornaments for them also, or she should not enter their house. On that day again the complainant along with his brother Charan Dass and his son Amarjit went to the house of accused at village Lakhanpal and beseeched them expressing their financial inability to meet the demand and it was told to them that after making arrangement in few days they will provide ornaments to them also and Smt. Amarjit Kaur was again allowed to stay in the house of her in-laws. The complainant further alleged that on the day when he made statement he was out of his house since morning in connection with his business. His nephew Harjit Pal came to him at village Ballan at about 2 p.m. and told him that the in-laws of Amarjit Kaur had murdered her by setting her on fire for the greed of dowry. On this information he reached his village and took with him his brother Charan Dass, nephew Harjit Pal and Dharam Pal, who is just like a brother in the relationship, and reached Civil Hospital, Jalandhar and found her daughter Amarjit Kaur lying in the mortuary in a burnt condition. The complainant alleged that his daughter has been burnt by his son-in-law Resham Lal, his father Chuni Ram and his mother Bachni for the greed of dowry. The above statement was read over and explained to is Kishan Chand who put his left thumb impression in token of its correctness. The complainant alleged that his daughter has been burnt by his son-in-law Resham Lal, his father Chuni Ram and his mother Bachni for the greed of dowry. The above statement was read over and explained to is Kishan Chand who put his left thumb impression in token of its correctness. The Thanedar made endorsement Ex.PE/1 underneath the said statement and sent the same to Police Station Nurmahal for registration of case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PE/2 was recorded in the police station vide DDR No. 15 recorded at 5.20 p.m. and it was closed vide DDR No. 16 at 5.55 p.m. The endorsement Ex.PE/1 was concluded by the Thanedar at 4.40 p.m. in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. 4. PW5 ASI Surinder Kumar took over the investigation of this case. He deposed that he prepared inquest report Ex.PD on the bead body of Amarjit Kaur on 25.11.1990. As it became dark he stayed in the hospital as curfew was imposed in City Jalandhar due to murder of seven persons by the militants. Next day at about 8.30 a.m. he reached the spot in village Lakhanpal in the house of Resham Lal and took in possession burnt pieces of clothes, one bottle having a label of Director Special, one match-box having some sticks, one Talai and one Chaddar. Burnt pieces of clothes and match-box were sealed in separate parcels and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PE. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PH with correct marginal notes. The accused were not present in the house. The door of the house was lying open. On 25.11.1999 he handed over the dead body along with inquest report Ex.PD and request for post-mortem examination Ex.PJ to HC Kulbir Singh and Const. Hans Raj for post mortem examination. On 24.1.1991, he took into possession list Ex.PL and receipts Exs.PM/1 to Ex.PM/5 vide memo Ex.PN. The list of articles of dowry and receipts were produced by Kishan Chand PW. He arrested the accused on 2.12.1990 and recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 5. On 25.1.1991, Sham Lal Khosla prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence. On 26.11.1990, the doctor in charge, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Kaur, a young girl of 28 years and found that the dead body was completely naked. 5. On 25.1.1991, Sham Lal Khosla prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence. On 26.11.1990, the doctor in charge, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Kaur, a young girl of 28 years and found that the dead body was completely naked. Singing of hair on scale was present. The body was covered with burn injuries. Sooty blackening was present. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was burn injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The burn injuries were anti-mortem in nature. He issued Ex.PD the post-mortem report which was admitted by the accused during the course of trial. Ex.PQ is the Bed Head Ticket of the deceased. Ex.PR is the certified copy of the judgment dated 24.8.1984 passed by the court of Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, who granted ex parte decree of divorce in favour of Smt. Amrit Devi against her husband Balbir Singh. It may be mentioned here that deceased Amarjit Kaur was earlier married with Balbir Chand. Thereafter she was married with Resham Lal accused. 6. On completion of investigation of the case, all the three accused were challaned in the court of Area Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 28.2.1991 committed the accused to the Court of Sessions in order to face their trial under Section 304-B IPC. 7. Vide order dated 10.4.1991, the learned trial court framed charges under Section 498-A, 304-B in the alternative under section 302/34 IPC against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 8. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 Sham Sunder Khosla, Draftsman, who proved scaled site plan Ex.PC dated 25.1.1991. PW2 is Charan Dass. PW3 is Kishan Chand complainant. PW4 is Gurdial Chand and PW5 is Investigating Officer Surinder Kumar. The prosecution tendered into evidence statements of formal witnesses on affidavits. 9. Statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. The defence of accused Resham Lal is as follows :- "I am innocent. This is a false case against me made out of general and unfounded suspicion. 9. Statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. The defence of accused Resham Lal is as follows :- "I am innocent. This is a false case against me made out of general and unfounded suspicion. The deceased was in the habit of going out in the fields in the evening with one excuse or the other. On the fateful evening she went out in the fields against my wishes to take Khori. When she returned I just asked her as to why she had gone out in the evening against my consent. On that night she slept inside the room and I slept outside in the courtyard because we were at cross words. She was a patient of high blood pressure. At about mid-night she set herself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. On knowing this I raised alarm and all the inmates of the house, neighbours including the Sarpanch collected at once. We broke open door and put off the fire. We removed her to the hospital in a tempo. She could not survive despite our best efforts to save her life." 10. The defence of Chani Ram was that he was innocent and he adopted the statement of his co-accused Resham Lal. Similarly Smt. Bachni adopted the statement of her son by making an assertion that she too was innocent. 11. When called upon to enter into their defence accused examined Dr. S.K. Kaura of Kaura Nursing Home, Jandiala as DW1, who deposed that on 17.8.1989 Amarjit Kaur was admitted in his Nursing Home and she was discharged on 28.8.1989. She was suffering from acute pain abdomen. He proved Ex. DA the certificate which was issued by him. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not prepare Bed Head Ticket showing hourly and daily treatment which might have been given to Amarjit Kaur. He even did not write the name of father of Amarjit Kaur in the medicine-slip Ex.PR. DW2 is Gurmail Ram, who deposed that Amarjit Kaur was residing with her husband Resham Lal in front of his house for the last about ten years. The parents of Resham Lal had started residing separately. He even did not write the name of father of Amarjit Kaur in the medicine-slip Ex.PR. DW2 is Gurmail Ram, who deposed that Amarjit Kaur was residing with her husband Resham Lal in front of his house for the last about ten years. The parents of Resham Lal had started residing separately. He never heard any dispute between Resham Lal and his wife Amarjit Kaur over inadequate dowry nor did he see any controversy involving the parents of Resham Lal. Previously he was Sarpanch and now he was a Member Panchayat. He also deposed that no relation of Amarjit Kaur had ever approached him complaining against the maltreatment of Amarjit Kaur by the accused party on account of the less dowry. He further deposed that on the day of occurrence the room occupied by Resham Lal and his wife was chained from inside. He called the Sarpanch of the village and when the door of the room was pulled they went inside and saw the room full with smoke. All the members of the accused family were present. Minor son of the deceased was sleeping on a separate bed. Amarjit Kaur was in a burnt condition. All the family members including this witness put off the fire and saved Amarjit Kaur. A four-wheeler was brought by the younger brother of Resham Lal and Amarjit Kaur was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar in the said four-wheeler by 15 persons. All the three accused accompanied them to the hospital. DW3 is Bantu Ram, who deposed that Resham Lal accused is the brother of his wife. He was married with Amarjit Kaur in the year 1981. The ceremony of Chander- andazi was performed and nothing was revealed about the divorce taken by Amarjit Kaur from her previous husband. 3/4 years thereafter they came to know of this fact that she had not obtained divorce from her previous husband. Then an application for seeking divorce was got moved from Amarjit Kaur in 1984 and decree of divorce was granted accordingly. 12. The learned trial court for the reasons given in paras 7 to 11 of the judgment came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove any of the charge against the accused. The Court opined that the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have not been proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. The Court opined that the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have not been proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. The reasons given by the trial court are reproduced as under :- "7. The learned P.P. submitted that the prosecution is successful in proving guilt of the accused through reliable evidence produced on file. No doubt, by post-mortem report Ext.PO, which was not challenged, it is established that Amarjit Kaur died of burn injuries which means unnatural death. It is also proved by the evidence of PW2 to PW4 that Amarjit Kaur died when she was living with her husband. But two facts more the establishment of which is disputed are essential to attract the provisions of Section 304-B and Section 498-A IPC. Here, it is not out of place to mention that there is no evidence to prove the charge framed under Section 302 IPC. 8. Now, coming to the two disputed facts referred to above the prosecution version is that marriage between the deceased and Resham Lal, accused, was performed in the year 1985 after obtaining decree of divorce by Amarjit Kaur from her previous husband on 24.4.1984. The defence version is that the ceremony of chadder-andazi was performed in 1981 though Amarjit Kaur obtained formal decree of divorce from her previous husband in the year 1984 and that no marriage ceremony was performed in the year 1985. PW2 to PW4 have deposed that the disputed marriage was performed in the year 1985 and their version appears to be plausible because decree of divorce from previous husband was obtained by Amarjit Kaur in the year 1984. There is no circumstance brought on record permitting to draw inference that the marriage was not performed in the year 1985 excepting mere assertion of the defence. I am, therefore, of this considered opinion that the marriage was performed in the year 1985 and the death took place at the house in-laws within seven years of Amarjit Kaurs marriage. 9. But the fourth ingredient of the offence with which the accused are charged is not established on record. Though the learned P.P. has taken pains to prove that it is a dowry death case but to my mind the prosecution evidence led on this point is not consistent and worthy of reliance. 9. But the fourth ingredient of the offence with which the accused are charged is not established on record. Though the learned P.P. has taken pains to prove that it is a dowry death case but to my mind the prosecution evidence led on this point is not consistent and worthy of reliance. Of course, death is there and most likely due to depression or we may call harassment but it was not in connection with demand of dowry and, therefore, the case will not fall within the definition of dowry death. 10. Kishan Chand (PW3) reiterated the version given by him to the police. But if we make careful scrutiny of the same it would show that no harassment was being cause to Amarjit Kaur soon before her death. According to the evidence of not only Kishan Chand but also Gurdial Chand (PW4) and Charan Dass (PW2) six months prior to the occurrence Amarjit Kaur was accused of having committed theft of a gold necklace which was ultimately recovered from a trunk of her in-laws and the dispute was settled down. It was not a dispute in connection with the demand of dowry but with regard to the theft of a necklace. 11. These witnesses further deposed that four months prior to the occurrence, a son was born to Amarjit Kaur and when customary gifts were presented by her parents the accused showed their unhappiness because no gold ornament was presented to Amarjit Kaurs husband and mother-in-law. Here again the dispute was not with regard to the demand of dowry in consideration of the marriage. But this dispute persisted as deposed by PW2 to PW4 and ultimately it became cause for the death of Amarjit Kaur. When cross-examined Kishan Chand admitted in the beginning that no demand of dowry was put forward before marriage nor any such demand was made during the first year of marriage. An inference can be safely drawn that the demand of dowry in consideration of marriage could not start after one year. There may be hundred and one reasons for cropping up differences between husband and wife after marriage but certainly we do not find any evidence in this case which may lead us to this conclusion that here the differences were in connection with the demand of dowry. There may be hundred and one reasons for cropping up differences between husband and wife after marriage but certainly we do not find any evidence in this case which may lead us to this conclusion that here the differences were in connection with the demand of dowry. That being so, neither the provisions of Section 498-A nor those of Section 304-B IPC shall be attracted." 13. The State of Punjab is not satisfied with the impugned judgment dated 31.10.1991, hence the present appeal. 14. We have heard Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the appellant, Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case. 15. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code lays down as follows :- "304-B. Dowry death. - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 16. The reading of the above section would show that in order to succeed under this section, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish that the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is also to be shown that soon before her marriage she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry and such death shall be considered as dowry death. 17. 17. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code lays down a follows :- "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 18. The reading of this section would also show that if the husband or relative of the husband treats a woman with cruelty as explained in the Explanation, he is guilty of the offence. The Explanation added to Section 498-A lays down the meaning of "cruelty", which means any wilful conduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or causing harassment to a woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. If it is established on the record that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death, in such a situation the offence would be covered under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act which draws presumption in favour of the prosecution that such a victim must have been treated with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. It is established on the record that the marriage between the deceased and Resham Lal took place on 17.5.1985 i.e. within seven years of the death of the deceased. It is established on the record that the marriage between the deceased and Resham Lal took place on 17.5.1985 i.e. within seven years of the death of the deceased. It is also established from the post-mortem examination of the deceased that she died on account of the burn injuries and under unnatural circumstances. It is even the case established on the record from the statements of the DWs that the incident of fire took place inside the house of the accused on the relevant day. 19. The sole point for determination in this case is whether the case is covered under Section 304-B or under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In this connection we have to rely upon the statements of those witnesses who are natural in the given circumstances and are in a position to depose about the relations between the deceased and her husband. Since these are matrimonial disputes, the relations of the deceased would be the natural witnesses, but at the same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that such relations of the deceased would also try to implicate maximum persons because they have lost sympathy for the in-laws after the death of their daughter. Kishan Chand (PW3) stated that he gave dowry according to his status at the time of marriage of his daughter. About a year the relations between the deceased and her husband remained cordial but thereafter they became strained. The witness further deposed that six months prior to the occurrence Amarjit Kaur complained that it is being suspected by her in-laws that she has committed the theft of gold ornaments. The matter was brought to the notice of other relatives of the deceased. They went to the house of the accused. A search was conducted and it was found that the necklace was already in that house. The second incident is with regard to Chhuchhak. On that occasion also the complainant party was not in a position to give gold rings on the occasion of the birth of male child. It has also come in the statement of this witness that one month prior to her death Amarjit Kaur approached him and made a request to get her gold ornaments as she was being harassed by her in-laws and that she had been turned out from the matrimonial home. It has also come in the statement of this witness that one month prior to her death Amarjit Kaur approached him and made a request to get her gold ornaments as she was being harassed by her in-laws and that she had been turned out from the matrimonial home. On this the complainant party went to the house of the accused and made a prayer that since they were financially tight, therefore, the ornaments will be given to them in due course. In the cross-examination this witness admitted that no demand of dowry was put forth before marriage and during the first year of marriage. However, Amarjit Kaur was not being properly treated by her in-laws which suggested that they were not satisfied with the dowry. Thus from the statement of the father of the deceased, it becomes clear that there was no demand in connection with the dowry but definitely there was harassment to the deceased and the conduct of the accused falls within the definition of Section 498-A I.P.C. If this is the substantive statement of Kishan Chand (PW3), we are not inclined to give much reliance to the statement of PW2 Charan Dass when he deposed that the deceased complained that her in- laws are beating her on the pretext that dowry given to her was insufficient. Thereafter an incident of the necklace took place which was patched up. On the third occasion some customary gifts were given to the family of the accused at the time of birth of a male child to Amarjit Kaur and on those gifts also the reaction of the accused party was not up to the mark. It is the case of the prosecution through the mouth of Charan Dass (PW2) that Amarjit Kaur was again turned out from the house because she was not able to bring gold ornaments for her husband and his mother. It is the case of the prosecution through the mouth of Charan Dass (PW2) that Amarjit Kaur was again turned out from the house because she was not able to bring gold ornaments for her husband and his mother. From the statement of Charan Dass, which is in contradiction with the statement of Kishan Chand (PW3), we are of the opinion that there was no demand of dowry from the accused but definitely they had been causing cruelty when they raised a demand of gold ornaments and when they had been beating the deceased on account of the fact that the articles brought by her at the time of marriage and thereafter on the occasion of the birth of male child were not as per their satisfaction. 20. To proceed further, the statement of PW4 Gurdial Chand is to the effect that the deceased was often beaten by the accused to pressurise her to bring more money from her parents and the accused were not satisfied with the dowry. It has also come in the statement of Gurdial Chand that the deceased complained that she was being accused of committing a theft of gold ornaments. Further, it has come in the statement of this witness that the accused shouted that the gold ornaments brought at the time of Chhuchhak ceremony are not according to their liking. The statement of Gurdial Chand is in direct contradiction with the statement of PW3 Kishan Chand when the latter clearly stated in the cross-examination that there was no demand of dowry put forward before the marriage and during the first years of marriage of Amarjit Kaur. In such a situation, it looks to be highly improbable that with the passage of time the accused party will raise the demand of dowry but definitely they were not satisfied with the articles brought by the deceased at the time of her marriage and with those articles which were given to her at the time of Chhuchhak ceremony. It is also established on the record that the deceased was being maltreated and harassed with a view to coerce her so that she may be able to bring more monetary benefits or property or valuable security for the benefit of her in-laws. 21. It is also established on the record that the deceased was being maltreated and harassed with a view to coerce her so that she may be able to bring more monetary benefits or property or valuable security for the benefit of her in-laws. 21. Now the other point which survives for determination is who was the predominant figure who coerced the deceased and met her with cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A. Again we have to rely upon the statement of Kishan Chand (PW3), who deposed that the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased made a demand for gold rings at the time of birth of male child, whereas in the FIR it is alleged by the complainant that the husband of the deceased and her mother-in-law started beating her by saying as to why she had not brought gold ornaments for them. In all probabilities it would have been the husbands act which compelled the deceased to leave the house. If the deceased for that alleged reason had taken her life by adopting the extreme step, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., but in our considered opinion the husband of the deceased cannot escape liability under Section 498-A I.P.C. Therefore, we are inclined to convict Resham Lal respondent under Section 498-A I.P.C. as the case against him has been proved beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution has been able to lead cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence against him to that extent. 22. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the State is partly allowed. The judgment of the trial court is hereby set aside and rigorous imprisonment of two years is hereby imposed only upon Resham Lal and appeal of the State qua Chani Ram and Bachni is dismissed. Let intimation about the passing of this judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, who shall arrange the custody of Resham Lal so that he may be able to serve the sentence as awarded by us.