Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 893 (PNJ)

Jhirmal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-09

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment 1. Jhirmal s/o Harbhajan Singh r/o village Mian-Da-Pind, District Hoshiarpur, (Punjab) has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2000, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Jaswinder Kaur by administering poison and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. 2. The appellant with his companions was charge-sheeted on the allegations that on 18.10.1995 at about morning time in the area of village Mian-Da-Pind, in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur wife of appellant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and secondly they treated the deceased with cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and thereby they allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Shri Jarnail Singh son of Shri Faqir Singh, resident of village Kotli Khurd, father of the deceased Jaswinder Kaur, made a statement Ex P.G. before ASI Jagdish Singh of Police Station, Dasuya and it was averred by the complainant that he is a resident of village Kotli Khurd and does the work of cultivation. He has two sons and one daughter. His daughter Jaswinder Kaur was married to Jhirmal Singh, appellant, resident of Mia Da Pind about three years ago and out of this wedlock one female child of the name of Kashmiro aged 2 years at the time of the occurrence was born. It is alleged by the complainant that after about six months of the marriage, the in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur started harassing her for bringing less dowry. He continued giving dowry articles to her according to his capacity. About six months back, the in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur had sent her to the house of her parents for bringing money as they wanted to send the appellant abroad. Consequently, he arranged a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from his relatives and gave the same. Even after that, her husband Jhirmal Singh, his brothers Nirmal Singh, Jassa Singh, Jethanies (sisters-in-law) Surinder Kaur, Amarjit Kaur and father-in-law Harbhajan Singh continued harassing Jaswinder Kaur and they were asking Jaswinder Kaur to bring more money. Consequently, he arranged a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from his relatives and gave the same. Even after that, her husband Jhirmal Singh, his brothers Nirmal Singh, Jassa Singh, Jethanies (sisters-in-law) Surinder Kaur, Amarjit Kaur and father-in-law Harbhajan Singh continued harassing Jaswinder Kaur and they were asking Jaswinder Kaur to bring more money. Then about a month prior to the present occurrence, Jaswinder Kaur came to his house and told him that her in-laws had tried to kill her by giving electric shocks but she could save her life after beseeching them. Thereafter, Sukhwinder Singh Sarpanch and Amarjit Singh Shahi, Member Panchayat, of village Shangla intervened and sent Jaswinder Kaur to the house of her in-laws. The complainant further alleges that today in the morning i.e. on 18.10.1995, Kulbir Singh son of Harbhans Singh, resident of village Chack Kassom, who is the brother-in-law (Sandhu) of his brother told him that the in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur had administered poison to her and on hearing it he along with Harnek Singh son of Shri Surjit Singh, resident of village Kotli Khurd rushed to village Mia Da Pind where Jaswinder Kaur was lying on a cot. They reached at about 10 A.M. On inquiry, Jaswinder Kaur told that in the morning her husbands brothers Nirmal Singh, Jassa Singh, Surinder Kaur wife of Jassa Singh, Amarjit Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh and tier father-in-law Harbhajan Singh caught hold of her from arms and they were exerting that daily bickering should be finished for all times to come. It was also stated by the deceased to his father that Jhirmal Singh, appellant forcibly poured the tablets of sulphide in her mouth and thereafter, the water was poured in her mouth. The complainant stated that they arranged the vehicle and took Jaswinder Kaur to Civil Hospital. Dasuya for treatment. The in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur had tried to restrain them for taking Jaswinder Kaur to the Hospital. After reaching Civil Hospital, Dasuya, Jaswinder Kaur died. Finally, it is alleged by the complainant that his daughter Jaswinder Kaur was harassed by her husband, brothers of her husband, sister-in-laws and father-in-law and after administering her poison she was killed in the greed of dowry and action be taken against them. His statement Ex. P.G. was read over and explained to Jarnail Singh who signed the same into token of its correctness in Panjabi. His statement Ex. P.G. was read over and explained to Jarnail Singh who signed the same into token of its correctness in Panjabi. The Thanedar Shri Jagdish Singh made endorsement Ex. PG/1 under the said statement at 2.00 P.M. and it was sent to Police-Station, Dasuva, for registration of the case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PG/2 was recorded under Sections 304-B/148/149 IPC vide Rapat No. 13/14 registered in the police-station at 2.05/2.55 P.M. by ASI Sucha Singh. 4. Shri Jagdish Singh, PW-10, started investigation of this case. He goes to the hospital where the dead body of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was lying. He prepared inquest report Ex. PC. He drafted application Ex PB and the dead body was sent to the doctor for post-mortem examination. After the post-mortem examination, the clothes removed from the dead body, were produced before the Thanedar which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PM. The clothes are Jumper Ex. P.1, Salwar Ex. P.2 and Dupatta Ex. P.3. The Thanedar visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex. PN with correct marginal notes. He arrested Jhirmal Singh accused on 21.10.1995 along with Harbhajan Singh and Nirmal Singh. He further arrested Jaspal Singh on 26.10.1995. On 21.12.1995, Amarjit Kaur and Surinder Kaur were arrested. 5. PW-1 Dr. Achhar Singh sent information slip Ex. PA (at page 495 of the trial Court file) to the SHO, Police-Station, Dasuya and the contents of the information runs as follows "To The S.H.O. This is to inform you that one Jaswinder Kaur wife of Jhirmal Singh, d/o Jarnail Singh village Kotli Khurd P.S. Dasuya was brought by her father with suspected poisoning. She expired at 11.30 A.M. Dated 18.10.1995 Sent through Kashmir Singh Sd/- Achhar Singh SMO C.H. Dasuya." This very doctor on 18.10.1995, at 4.00 P.M. conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jaswinder Kaur, aged 22/23 years. The dead body was brought by Dalwinder Singh and Mangat Ram constables and identified by Jamail Singh and Harnek Singh. The dead body was of a healthy looking female. Staining was present on dependent parts. Rigor mortis were present on upper limbs partially. As per the police information, she died on account of poisoning. The dead body was brought by Dalwinder Singh and Mangat Ram constables and identified by Jamail Singh and Harnek Singh. The dead body was of a healthy looking female. Staining was present on dependent parts. Rigor mortis were present on upper limbs partially. As per the police information, she died on account of poisoning. The length of the body was 5-3" approximately and it was wearing clothes i.e., one Jumper full sleeves yellow colour with green bootian, Salwar Yellow colour with green butian and yellow Duppata-Mouth and eyes were closed. There was white froth in the nostrils and mouth. 6. Organs of gestation and the uterus contained a dead foetus. It was 40 cm long weighing about 2 kgs. The age of the foetus was about 32 weeks. The doctor preserved the viscera and it was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner for analysis. The doctor also preserved the contents of the stomach, contains of spleen, kidney and small and large intestines. After the post- mortem examination, he handed over to the police the re-constituted dead body along with foetus and the contents of the viscera besides the letter of request. As per the opinion of the doctor, the time that elapsed between death and post-mortem was within six hours. 7. On 11.12.1995, the doctor wrote a letter to the SHO, Police-Station, Dasuya, by giving reference to the report of Chemical Examiner stating therein that Aluminium Phosphide, a pesticide was detected in the contents of the viscera and that constituent of Aluminium Phosphide was detected. Therefore, the doctor opined that the cause of death was due to poisoning by Aluminium Phosphide, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 8. The doctor further deposed that the post-mortem was conducted on the police request Ex. PB. Ex. PC is the inquest report. Ex. PD is the carbon copy of the post-mortem report which he gave after the post-mortem examination and the report of Chemical Examiner is Ex. PC on the basis of which he gave his opinion Ex. PF about the cause of death. 9. On the completion of the investigation of the case, initially four accused were challaned in the Court of Area Magistrate, who, supplied the copies of the documents as required under the law and vide order dated 6.4.1996, committed the accused to the Court of Session to face the trial. 10. PF about the cause of death. 9. On the completion of the investigation of the case, initially four accused were challaned in the Court of Area Magistrate, who, supplied the copies of the documents as required under the law and vide order dated 6.4.1996, committed the accused to the Court of Session to face the trial. 10. At the first instance, vide order dated 4.9.1996, the charges under Sections 302/34/498-A IPC were framed. Subsequently, with the addition of two more accused, fresh charge was framed on 9.7.1997 against the appellant and his five companions under Sections 302/149 and 498-A/149 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Achhar Singh PW-1, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur. PW-2 is Jarnail Singh complainant who supported the allegations of the statement Ex. PG. PW-3 is Shri Kulbir Singh. He is related with Jarnail Singh as the latter is the brother of the Sandhu of Kulbir Singh. According to this witness on 18.10.1995 he went to village Mian Da Pind in connection with Akhand Path ceremony and there he came to know that Jaswinder Kaur was administered poison by her in-laws. Thereafter, he returned to village Kotli Khurd and told this fact to Jarnail Singh. PW-4 is constable Sukhdev Singh who gave his statement on affidavit Ex. PH. PW-5 is constable Dalwinder Singh. He also gave his statement on affidavit Ex. PJ. PW-6 Mangat Ram and PW-7 Shri Balbir Singh gave their statements on affidavits Exs. PK and PL respectively. PW-8 is Mr. Harnek Singh who deposed that Jaswinder Kaur deceased was his cousion sister from the brotherhood and she was married with appellant about 5/6 years back. Soon after her marriage, the in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur started harassing her and demanded dowry. Panchayats were convened several times and on 18.10.1995, his uncle Jarnail Singh told him that Jaswinder Kaur had been administered poison by her in-laws. He along with Jarnail Singh, Kulbir Singh and others went to village Mian-Da-Pind and when they reached the house of the accused they saw Jaswinder Kaur lying unconscious on the cot. On their asking Jaswinder Kaur told them that in the morning her in-laws had administered poison to her. He along with Jarnail Singh, Kulbir Singh and others went to village Mian-Da-Pind and when they reached the house of the accused they saw Jaswinder Kaur lying unconscious on the cot. On their asking Jaswinder Kaur told them that in the morning her in-laws had administered poison to her. Amarjit Kaur and Surinder Kaur had caught hold of her and Jhitmal Singh had put the tablets of aluminium sulphide in her mouth and Jhirmal Singh also poured water in her mouth. It was also stated by her that Jassa Singh and Harbhajan Singh had also caught hold of her at that time. Thereafter, Harnek Singh and Jarnail Singh and others arranged a conveyance and the deceased was brought to the hospital. PW-9 is Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Sarpanch who deposed that Jaswinder Kaur was married with Jhirmal Singh appellant about three years prior to her death and prior to the incident, Jaswinder Kaur informed him that her in-laws were harassing her and were demanding dowry. Then he along with Shangara Singh, uncle of the deceased, went to the house of the accused. A Panchayat was convened at the Dera of Amarjit Singh Sahi in village Mian-Da-Pind. Both the parties gathered there and it was settled that the deceased will not be harassed in future. Then he took Jaswinder Kaur to the house of the accused in the company of Shangara Singh. About one month thereafter, we came to know that the accused had given poison to Jaswinder Kaur. PW-10 is Inspector Jagdish Singh who recorded the statement Ex. PG of the complainant and at his instance the FIR was recorded. He is the investigating officer of this case. PW-11 is Amritprit Singh, Revenue Patwari who prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PO on 9.11.1995. Finally the prosecution tendered into evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner who found Aluminium Phosphide in the viscera of the deceased ad closed the case. 12. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating ircumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. The plea of Shri Jhirmal Singh appellant was as follows : "On 12.10.1995, Jaswinder Kaur went to her parents house to deliver her expected child. She bat Amritpal daughter of Sukhwinder Singh s/o Jarnail PW. Sukhwinder and his wife had an altercation and quarrel with Jaswinder Kaur. The plea of Shri Jhirmal Singh appellant was as follows : "On 12.10.1995, Jaswinder Kaur went to her parents house to deliver her expected child. She bat Amritpal daughter of Sukhwinder Singh s/o Jarnail PW. Sukhwinder and his wife had an altercation and quarrel with Jaswinder Kaur. Sukhwinder Singh slapped her and asked her to leave the house and not to come again. She returned to her in-laws house in the evening on 17.10.1995. She disclosed the matter to me. She was feeling much humiliated due to the behaviour and ill-treatment of her brother and his wife. During the night she remained under much depression and tension. I consoled her and pacified her. In the early morning on 18.10.1995, I went to my work at Dasuya. I was a truck driver. My brother Jaspal informed me at Dasuya that Jaswinder Kaur had consumed celphos tablets. I rushed to my house and from there to civil hospital Dasuya along with Hardev Singh. On learning about her death I returned to my house to inform my parents. In the meanwhile, the complainant party had got the case registered with the police. We did not administer poison to her as alleged against us. She committed suicide since she was of over sensitive nature and of weak nerves. Hardev Singh has died during the pendency of this case." We need not to incorporate the version of other accused since they have been acquitted by the trial Court and that there is no State appeal against them. 13 When called upon to enter into his defence, accused-appellant examined Shri Tilak Raj DW-1. According to this witness he is a Commission Agent. On 17.10.1995 there is a entry in his register at serial No. 48 which shows that Harbhajan Singh son of Jiwan Singh, resident of Mian-Da-Pind brought paddy crop for sale at his shop but the crop could not be sold as it was wet and he remained present at his shop during the night time on that night. The witness further deposed that Nirmal Singh was also with him. Paddy of Harbhajan Singh was sold on 18.10.1995 and entry to this effect at serial No. 56 was made in his register. He further deposed that at the time the crop was put to bid only Nirmal Singh was present there. Again bid was made sometime in the afternoon on 18.10.1995. Paddy of Harbhajan Singh was sold on 18.10.1995 and entry to this effect at serial No. 56 was made in his register. He further deposed that at the time the crop was put to bid only Nirmal Singh was present there. Again bid was made sometime in the afternoon on 18.10.1995. He also stated that inquiry was conducted by D.S.P. Dasuya and he recorded his statement. Before the DSP, he also produced the record and the entries of his register which are also verified by the Secretary of the Market Committee. DW-2 Surjit Singh is a Record Keeper who produced the photo copy of the order dated 19.12.1995 passed by the Court of Shri M.S. Rattu the then Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which the arrest of Sukhwinder Kaur and Amarjit Kaur was stayed by the Court. 14. DW-3 is Shri Dharam Pal, Ahlmad of the Court of Shri M.S. Rattu, Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who deposed that the copy of the bail order dated 19.12.1995 in respect of Sukhwinder Kaur was sent to SHO Police-Station Dasuya. DW-4 is Sarbjit Kaur widow of Pargat Singh. She is the daughter-in-law of Harbhajan Singh accused since acquitted. She deposed that Harbhajan Singh is his father-in-law while Nirmal Singh is the elder brother of her husband while Jaspal Singh alias Jagga is younger brother of Pargat Singh. She also stated that Amarjit Kaur is the wife of aforesaid Nirmal Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur is the wife of Jaspal Singh. As per the statement of this witness, Jhirmal Singh appellant is the husband of the deceased who had gone to the house of her parents 5/6 days before her death for the delivery of the child as she was pRegulation nt. The deceased had told her that she would be returning after Diwali. One day before her death she returned from the house of her parents. On the day when she returned from the house of her parents, Harbhajan Singh and Nirmal Singh accused had gone to Ghogra Mandi for selling paddy. Jhirmal Singh appellant was a truck driver and he had gone with the truck and returned to the house at about 8/9 P.M. on the day of occurrence. On the day when she returned from the house of her parents, Harbhajan Singh and Nirmal Singh accused had gone to Ghogra Mandi for selling paddy. Jhirmal Singh appellant was a truck driver and he had gone with the truck and returned to the house at about 8/9 P.M. on the day of occurrence. It has also been stated by this witness that Nirmal Singh and his wife Amarjit Kaur had been living separately for the last about 15 years and they were separate in mess and residence from them. Jhirmal Singh appellant, her husband, Jaspal Singh and Harbhajan Singh were living jointly and they were joint in mess and residence. It has further come in the statement of Sarabjit Kaur that Jhirmal Singh accused and his wife Jaswinder Kaur spent the night intervening 17/18.10.1995 nicely and on that night one of the accused gave any beating to Jaswinder Kaur. On the next day, at about 9.00 P.M. Kashmir Kaur d/o Jhirmal Singh accused had passed latrine. She went inside the room of Jaswinder Kaur. She was lying on the bed and had vomited. The vomit material was lying on the ground close to her bed. She called Jaswinder Kaur but she did not respond. Then she called Amarjit Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and Mohinder Kaur and they found that the deceased Jaswinder Kaur was lying unconscious. From the vomit material, a smell was coming indicating that the deceased had taken wheat preserving pills. It has also come in the statement of this witness that Jhirmal Singh and Pargat Singh had left the house at 6.00 P.M. for doing their respective jobs. Jaspal Singh alias Jassa was called from outside and he was sent to Dasuya and Ghogra Mandi to inform Jhirmal Singh accused as well as Harbhajan Singh and Nirmal Singh accused while her mother-in-law asked Hardev Singh to inform the parents of Jaswinder Kaur about her condition. The lady has further stated that the parents of the deceased came to their house at about 10.00 a.m. and they took Jaswinder Kaur to the hospital in spite of their protest. Finally, she came to know that Jaswinder Kaur had died. DW-5 is Mr. The lady has further stated that the parents of the deceased came to their house at about 10.00 a.m. and they took Jaswinder Kaur to the hospital in spite of their protest. Finally, she came to know that Jaswinder Kaur had died. DW-5 is Mr. Mohinder Singh, Chahal who verified the investigation of this case and stated that his investigation showed that Harbhajan Singh and Nirmal Singh were innocent and he gave the directions that both of them should be shown in column No. 2. 15. Jhirmal Singh appellant appeared as his own witness as DW-6 and he supported his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to this witness, his wife had gone to the house of her parents. On return to the house, he was informed by her that there was an altercation between her daughter and the daughter of her brother. On account of the altercation between the children, she gave a slap upon Amrit daughter of her brother Sukhwinder Singh. On this her Bhabi became annoyed. Her brother gave a slap on her face. So much so her brother and his wife asked her to go away from the house and not to show her face again to them. Upon this, he advised his wife Jaswinder Kaur that he would talk to her brother and console her and on the next morning he left the house at about 6 A.M. and went to the truck union, Dasuya and was informed by his brother Jaspal Singh that Smt. Jaswinder Kaur had taken something poisonous and was lying unconscious. He returned to the house and was informed that Jaswinder Kaur had taken something poisonous and became unconscious and that her parents had already taken her to the hospital. Resultantly, he came to Civil Hospital, Dasuya and came to know that Jaswinder Kaur had expired. Then he returned to his own house to inform his parents about the death of his wife. In short, this man has tried to show before the trial Court that the deceased committed suicide. It has also come in the statement of DW-6 that he does not have any passport and, therefore, he cannot contemplate for going abroad and he never demanded Rs. 50,000/- from his in- laws nor he sent Jaswinder Kaur to the house of her parents to bring money. His father-in-law never paid Rs. 15,000/- to him. It has also come in the statement of DW-6 that he does not have any passport and, therefore, he cannot contemplate for going abroad and he never demanded Rs. 50,000/- from his in- laws nor he sent Jaswinder Kaur to the house of her parents to bring money. His father-in-law never paid Rs. 15,000/- to him. It has also come in the statement of this witness that there was no quarrel between him and his wife. The deceased was always treated with love and affection by him and by his parents and brothers and no beating etc. was given to her. Denying the averments of the prosecution it was stated by this witness that Jaswinder Kaur his wife was taking even petty things to heart and she was of grudging nature. She used to feel annoyed on petty matters. 16. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 498-A read with Section 149 IPC. The trial Court further held that there is no basis for conviction under Section 302/149 vis-a-vis Jassa alias Jaspal Singh, Nirmal Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Amarjit Kaur and Surinder Kaur alias Sukhwinder Kaur but the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against Jhirmal Singh appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, he was convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal. 17. Before we deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate for us to reproduce paras No. 26 to 34 of the judgment of the learned trial Court, to highlight the reasons why the appellant Shri Jhirmal Singh has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. "26. The plea of the accused Jhirmal Singh that Jaswinder Kaur went to her parents house on 12.10.1995 to deliver her expected child where she gave beating to Amritpal daughter of Sukhwinder Singh son of Jarnail Singh. Sukhwinder Singh and his wife had an altercation and quarrel with Jaswinder Kaur. Sukhwinder Singh slapped Jaswinder Kaur and asked her to leave the house and not to come again, she returned to the house of her in-laws, in the evening on 17.10.1995. She disclosed the matter to accused Jhirmal Singh. Sukhwinder Singh and his wife had an altercation and quarrel with Jaswinder Kaur. Sukhwinder Singh slapped Jaswinder Kaur and asked her to leave the house and not to come again, she returned to the house of her in-laws, in the evening on 17.10.1995. She disclosed the matter to accused Jhirmal Singh. She was feeling much humiliated due to the behaviour and ill-treatment of her brother and his wife. During the night she remained under much depression and tension. The accused consoled and pacify her, does not appeal to reason. Jaswinder Kaur deceased was the only sister of Sukhwinder Singh and his brother and is the only daughter of PW Jarnail Singh. In normal and natural circumstances, the brothers of a girl who is alone will not misbehave with her. Even in the cases there is some altercation between the children, the matter would no be taken, seriously. 27. The second part of the version of the accused is that the accused Jhirmal Singh went to Dasuya early in the morning of 18.10.1995 to attend his work. He was a truck driver. His brother Jaspal Singh informed him at Dasuya that Jaswinder Kaur had consumed celphas tablets. He rushed to his house and from there to Civil Hospital, Dasuya along with Hardev Singh. On learning about the death of Jaswinder Kaur, he returned to his house to inform his parents. In the meanwhile, the complainant party got the case registered with the police. When appeared in the witness box as DW 6 Jhirmal Singh has stated in his examination-in-Chief that on 18.10.195 early at about 6 A.M., he went to the truck union, Dasuya. Jaspal Singh his brother met him at Dasuya who returned from "Ghogra Mandi at about 10.30 A.M. Jaspal Singh told him that Jaswinder Kaur had taken some poisonous substance and was lying unconscious. 2/3 minutes thereafter, Hardev Singh also came there, and told Jhirmal Singh that he had sent a telephonic message to his in-laws telling that Jaswinder Kaur had taken something poisonous and was lying unconscious. 28. The following facts and circumstances would go to show that the plea taken by the accused Jhirmal Singh cannot be taken to be correct at all. 29. 28. The following facts and circumstances would go to show that the plea taken by the accused Jhirmal Singh cannot be taken to be correct at all. 29. In his statement, the accused Jhirmal Singh when appeared as DW6 stated that Harbhajan Singh and Nirmal Singh had gone to Ghogra Mandi in the morning day prior to the date of death of Jaswinder Kaur, meaning thereby that Harbhajan Singh and Nirmal Singh had gone to Ghogra Mandi on the morning of 17.10.1995. In this regard the accused Jassa Singh alias Jaspal Singh has taken the plea that Nirmal Singh was sent to Ghogra Mandi in the early morning of 1.10.1995 with food for Harbhajan Singh who had gone there in the evening of 17.10.1995 to sell paddy. Accused Jaspal Singh belies the version of Jhirmal Singh accused about sending of Nirmal Singh to Ghogra Mandi with meal for Harbhajan Singh. The accused Nirmal Singh has not explained whether he went with food for his father to Ghogra Mandi on 17.10.1995. He has simply stated that he took food for his father Harbhajan Singh who went to Ghogra Mandi to sell paddy crop at the shop of Tilak Raj. Amarjit Kaur accused has taken the plea that on the morning of 18.10.1995 Jaswinder Kaur consumed celphas tablets of her own. They called Jaspal Singh from the fields outside. He brought Kulwant Kaur to his house and Sarbjit Kaur wife of Pargat Singh for the care of Jaswinder Kaur but she became unconscious and they tried to make her vomit poison. She has further taken the plea that father of Jaswinder Kaur came to their house and he removed Jaswinder Kaur from their house inspite of their requests and protests not to do so till the arrival of their men folk. No male member was present in their house at that time. Similar plea has been taken by the accused Surinder Kaur alias Sukhwinder Kaur. It was the duty of the accused Amarjit Kaur as well as Surinder Kaur alias Sukhwinder Kaur to arrange for the medical treatment of Jaswinder Kaur but instead of doing so, they were presenting Jarnail Singh, father of Jaswinder Kaur for taking Jaswinder Kaur for treatment this conduct of the accused is highly improbable. It was the duty of the accused Amarjit Kaur as well as Surinder Kaur alias Sukhwinder Kaur to arrange for the medical treatment of Jaswinder Kaur but instead of doing so, they were presenting Jarnail Singh, father of Jaswinder Kaur for taking Jaswinder Kaur for treatment this conduct of the accused is highly improbable. The case of the accused Harbhajan Singh also is that his son Nirmal Singh came to him at Ghogra Mandi in the early morning of 18.10.1995 with the food. It is not the case of the accused Harbhajan Singh that Nirmal Singh was with him on 17.10.1995 as stated by the accused Jhirmal Singh in his statement, when appearing as a witness in the Court. Sarbjit Kaur DW4 is alleged to have been called by the accused Amarjit Kaur and Surinder Kaur alias Sukhwinder Kaur to their house to take care of Jaswinder Kaur but this fact is not corroborated by DW 4 Sarbjit Kaur. DW4 Sarbjit Kaur was stated in her examination-in-chief that on the next day i.e. on 18.10.1995 at about 9 A.M. Kashmir Kaur daughter of Jhirmal Singh accused had passed stool. She went inside the room of Jaswinder Kaur deceased who asked her to wash her daughter Kashmir Kaur. She was lying on the bed and had vomited. The vomit material was lying on the ground close to her bed. She called her but she did not respond. She called Amarjit Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and Mohinder Kaur and when they came, they found her lying unconscious. From the vomit material the oozing smell indicated that she had taken wheat preserving pills. The case of DW4 Sarbjit Kaur is that she had called Amarjit Kaur and not Amarjit Kaur had called her. The plea of the accused Jhirmal Singh is that he was not present at the time when Jaswinder Kaur consumed pesticide. The plea of the accused Jhirmal Singh is that of alibi. Dasuya is at a distance of about four kilometer from Mian Da Pind which is the village of the accused Jhirmal Singh and Ghogra Mandi is about one Kilometer from Mian Da Pind. 30. The plea of the accused Jhirmal Singh is that of alibi. Dasuya is at a distance of about four kilometer from Mian Da Pind which is the village of the accused Jhirmal Singh and Ghogra Mandi is about one Kilometer from Mian Da Pind. 30. This Court is not base the conviction of the accused on the plea taken by the accused in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or on the basis of the defence evidence produced by the accused but the conduct of the accused is certainly relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, which reads "The conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject matter of any proceedings, is relevant, it such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. 31. Illustration (e) of Section 8 of the Evidence Act in this regard is relevant which reads "(e) A is accused in a crime, the facts that either before or at the time of, or after the alleged crime. A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself are relevant." 32. The accused Jhirmal Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Nirmal Singh and Jassa Singh might not have been present but the accused Jhirmal Singh certainly came to know about the fact that his wife Jaswinder Kaur has either been administered pesticides or she has consumed pesticides but he has taken no steps for giving treatment to Jaswinder Kaur. In case Hardev Singh can send message to the in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur, then he could have certainly sent a message at that very time to the accused Jhirmal Singh or any of the accused so that steps would have been taken to save the life of Jaswinder Kaur. 33. In the light of the circumstances discussed-above, this part of the case of the prosecution stands proved on the file beyond any doubt that the accused Jhirmal Singh administered pesticides to his wife Jaswinder Kaur on the morning of 18.10.1995. The pesticide was certainly administered to her before 9 A.M. as DW4 visited the house of Jhirmal Singh accused at about 9 A.M. and before that the pesticide was administered to her and she has also vomited and vomit material was laying on the ground close to the bed of Jaswinder Kaur. The pesticide was certainly administered to her before 9 A.M. as DW4 visited the house of Jhirmal Singh accused at about 9 A.M. and before that the pesticide was administered to her and she has also vomited and vomit material was laying on the ground close to the bed of Jaswinder Kaur. It is not the case of the accused Amarjit Kaur or Surinder Kaur alias Sukhwinder Kaur that Jaswinder Kaur vomited and the vomit material was laying near the bed of Jaswinder Kaur. 34. In view of what has been said above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Jhirmal Singh beyond any doubt from the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused Jhirmal Singh. It has been recently held by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the ruling reported in 2000(3) Recent Criminal Reports 96(SC) that where accused on being asked, offers no explanation or explanation is found to be false, then that itself forms an additional link in chain of circumstances." The accused Jhirmal Singh committed the murder of Jaswinder Kaur deceased by administering her pesticide. I, therefore, convict the accused Jhirmal Singh under Section 302 of IPC." 18. We have heard Shri D.S. Pheruman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri S.S. Randhawa learned DAG, appearing on behalf of the State and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the statement of Jarnail Singh PW-2, Kulbir Singh PW-3, Harnek Singh PW-8 and Sukhwinder Singh PW-9. The counsel submitted that the trial Court has already disbelieved the story of the prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Meaning thereby that none of the accused including the appellant treated the deceased with cruelty. The trial Court has also acquitted five accused out of the six one. In these circumstances, the alleged dying declaration made by Jaswinder Kaur before Shri Jarnail Singh, Harnek Singh and Kulbir Singh, has also been disbelieved. In such a situation, the alleged statement of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur made before her father and other relations cannot be believed against Shri Jhirmal Singh appellant also. Counsel submitted that the deceased was being treated with love and affection. In such a situation, the alleged statement of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur made before her father and other relations cannot be believed against Shri Jhirmal Singh appellant also. Counsel submitted that the deceased was being treated with love and affection. There was hardly any occasion on the part of affection. There was hardly any occasion on the part of the accused Jhirmal Singh to treat the deceased with cruelty. He never caused any harassment to the deceased. The statement of Shri Jarnail Singh is a inspired one. After the death of his daughter he was out and out to involve the appellant and the family members. He remained unsuccessful in his mission with the acquittal of five accused by the trial Court and in such a situation, the testimony of Jarnail Singh, Kulbir Singh, Harnek Singh and Sukhwinder Singh should not be believed. More so the statement of Kulbir Singh PW-3 is totally based on hear-say evidence. The counsel submitted that the deceased was not in a position to make out a dying declaration as according to the prosecution Aluminium Phosphide was allegedly administered to the deceased at about 9.30 A.M. Keeping in view the nature of the poison the deceased must have become unconscious and she would not be in a position to make any statement either before her father or anybody else. This is an imaginary version given by the complainant Shri Jarnail Singh that the deceased had informed him about administering of the poisonous substance. The moment this part of the case is belied, the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. The counsel further submitted that the conduct of the accused is very consistent. The trial Court ought to have give the weightage to the statement of the DWs. The conviction has been based on surmises and conjectures with the aid of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The learned trial Court has fumbled too much on the conduct of the accused Jhirmal Singh little realising that the initial burden is always upon the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Pheruman also submitted that it has come in evidence that the deceased was the sensitive lady. The learned trial Court has fumbled too much on the conduct of the accused Jhirmal Singh little realising that the initial burden is always upon the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Pheruman also submitted that it has come in evidence that the deceased was the sensitive lady. In fact she was insulted and humiliated by her own brother as a result of which she returned to the house of her in-laws and complained to her husband and also to Sarbjit Kaur DW-4 that she was insulted by her brother and his wife and so much so her brother declared to the deceased not to visit his house in future. She felt ashamed and insulted. In these circumstances, the deceased who was a sensitive lady must have taken the poison in order to commit the suicide. Since the deceased has taken the poison at the house of the appellant, therefore, to fix in the crime, he has been falsely implicated. 20. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the deceased made the dying declaration to her father. She was conscious. The acquittal of five accused does not mean that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the present appellant. The offence under Section 302 IPC is proved. Mr. Randhawa further submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was not in a position to make a dying declaration to her father still the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 21. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out in this case. Rather of offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code stands fully proved by the evidence led by the prosecution. 22. First of all, we would like to divulge upon whether Smt. Jaswinder Kaur made a dying declaration before PWs. The case set up by the prosecution in the statement Ex. Rather of offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code stands fully proved by the evidence led by the prosecution. 22. First of all, we would like to divulge upon whether Smt. Jaswinder Kaur made a dying declaration before PWs. The case set up by the prosecution in the statement Ex. PG was that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 18.10.1995 in the morning, Kulbir Singh son of Harbans Singh resident of village Chak Kassom who is the brother-in-law (Sandhu) of the brother of the complainant, told that the in-laws of Jaswinder Kaur had administered poison to Jaswinder Kaur and on hearing it the complainant along with Harnek Singh rushed to village Mian Da Pind where Jaswinder Kaur was lying on a cot at about 10.0 A.M. On inquiry, Jaswinder Kaur told that in the morning her husbands brothers Nirmal Singh and Jassa, Surinder Kaur wife of Jassa, Amarjit Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh and her father-in-law Harbhajan Singh caught hold of her by the arms and they were saying that daily bickering should be finished. Then Jhirmal Singh appellant forcibly poured the tablets of sulphide in her mouth and thereafter, the water was poured in her mouth. The trial Court has also disbelieved the first part of the version when Nirmal Singh, Jassa Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur, Amarjit Kaur and Harbhajan Singh have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302/149 IPC and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 23. Let us now further probe whether the remaining part of the dying declaration with regard to the present appellant that he allegedly put the tablet of sulphide in her mouth and gave water is believable. We all know that the poison which was noticed from the viscera of the deceased is very repugnant in nature. It has a very peculiar smell. It is very difficult for a person to swallow. Allegedly the force has been used by the present appellant when he gave sulphide by putting it in the mouth of the deceased. In such a situation we expect some injury on the lips or on the mouth of the deceased. The case of the prosecution further is that this poison was allegedly given at about 9.30 A.M. because as per the statement Ex. In such a situation we expect some injury on the lips or on the mouth of the deceased. The case of the prosecution further is that this poison was allegedly given at about 9.30 A.M. because as per the statement Ex. PG, the complainant reached village Mia-Da-Pind after receiving information about administering of the poison at about 10.00 A.M. It is also the case of the complainant that the water was poured in the mouth of the deceased. In such a situation, there should be some vomit either present at the spot or it should be on the bed or on the clothes of the deceased. The doctor who conducted the post mortem examination did not notice anything of such a nature which rules out the theory that the force was allegedly used by Shri Jhirmal Singh in the process of administering poison to the deceased. The entire statement of Shri Jarnail Singh as contained in Ex. PG is either derived or from his personal knowledge when Smt. Jaswinder Kaur allegedly told to her father about the treatment of the accused. To probe further let us switch over to the statement of Kulbir Singh son of Harbans Singh who allegedly informed the complainant. This witness appeared as PW-3 and according to this witness on 18.10.1995 he went to village Mia-di-pind in connection with a Akhand Path ceremony. There he came to know from the ladies assembled in the village that Jaswinder Kaur was administered poison by her in-laws. The testimony of Kulbir Singh, thus, is a hear say evidence and is not admissible. Moment it is held that the testimony of Kulbir Singh is inadmissible the statement of Jarnail Singh loses much of its importance and significance. It is not the case of Kulbir Singh that he contacted Smt. Jaswinder Kaur personally. Rather his case is that he went to village Kotli Khurd in order to inform Shri Jamail Singh. 24. Now we will switch over to the statement of Shri Harnek Singh PW-8. His source of information is Shri Jarnail Singh. Harnek Singh deposed that on 18.10.1995 his uncle Jarnail Singh told him that Jaswinder Kaur had been administered poison by her in-laws. The evidentiary value of the statement of Harnek Singh to this extent again does not carry much weight. His source of information is Shri Jarnail Singh. Harnek Singh deposed that on 18.10.1995 his uncle Jarnail Singh told him that Jaswinder Kaur had been administered poison by her in-laws. The evidentiary value of the statement of Harnek Singh to this extent again does not carry much weight. His source of information is Jarnail Singh and Jarnail Singhs source of information is PW-3 Kulbir Singh who never met Smt. Jaswinder Kaur. In other words to this extent, the statement of Harnek Singh will also be held as inadmissible like that of Shri Kulbir Singh and Jarnail Singh. The story of the prosecution further goes that Harnek Singh with Jarnail Singh and Kulbir Singh went to village Mia-da- pind and when they reached the house of the accused they saw Jaswinder Kaur lying unconscious on a cot and on their asking she told that in the morning her in-laws had administered poison to her and Amarjit Kaur and Surinder Kaur had caught hold of her and that Jhirmal Singh had put the tablet of Aluminium Sulphide and Jhirmal had also poured water in her mouth while Jassa Singh and Harbhajan Singh had also caught hold of her at that time. This suggests that a violence was used upon the lady before Jhirmal Singh actually put the tablet of Aluminium Sulphide in the mouth of the deceased. It is true that the deceased was in advance stage of pRegulation ncy of 8 months and in such a situation, her resistance may be less but nevertheless there must be some resistance on the part of a person irrespective of the fact that he or she has been incapacitated. There is no sign of violence on the part of the deceased either on her lips, jaw or on any other part of the body. Moreover, after taking the vital dose of aluminium sulphide within minutes the condition of the patient must have become bad and in our opinion, the deceased was not in a position to make any statement either to her father or to anybody else. In this regard, we will like to refer to the statement of Shri Jarnail Singh PW- 2. This witness deposed that he reached Civil Hospital Dasuya at about 10.00 A.M. Jaswinder Kaur was unconscious at that time. She was also unconscious at the time of her admission as indoor patient. In this regard, we will like to refer to the statement of Shri Jarnail Singh PW- 2. This witness deposed that he reached Civil Hospital Dasuya at about 10.00 A.M. Jaswinder Kaur was unconscious at that time. She was also unconscious at the time of her admission as indoor patient. She became unconscious after about 15 minutes of her making the statement. A specific suggestion was put to the witness that the deceased was unconscious when he reached the house of her in-laws and she never regained consciousness till her death. The prosecution has not been able to get any explanation from the doctor that if a person takes sulphide, for how much period he or she would be in a position to make a statement. The statement of the deceased to her father Jarnail Singh and PW-8 Harnek Singh, has already been disbelieved by the trial Court with regard to the role of five accused and also with regard to the role of alleged cruelty. In such a situation, it is difficult for us to rely upon the oral dying declaration of the deceased which too has been made before relation witnesses who naturally would be interested to implicate more and more persons of the family of the in-laws of the deceased. The learned trial Court while basing the conviction under Section 302 IPC, has given too much importance to the conduct of the accused Jhirmal Singh and in our opinion, the learned trial Court was not justified in recording the conviction under Section 302 IPC as it is well settled that prosecution is obliged to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt at the first instance and the prosecution has to stand on its own legs. Accused can take a false defence. If the defence of the accused is found to be false, it is an additional link and not a complete prosecution evidence as relied upon by the learned trial Court. 25. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the conviction of the appellant, recorded by learned trial Court, under Section 302 IPC. 26. Now, the point which survives for determination is whether the offence under Section 304-B as argued by the State Counsel in the alternative is made out or not. 27. 25. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the conviction of the appellant, recorded by learned trial Court, under Section 302 IPC. 26. Now, the point which survives for determination is whether the offence under Section 304-B as argued by the State Counsel in the alternative is made out or not. 27. In order to prove this part of the offence, we will have to depend upon Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code which defines dowry death. According to this Section 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 of dowry, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. As per the explanation, the dowry shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 28. The reading of the above provision would show that the main ingredient to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304-B IPC is unnatural death of a woman within seven years of the marriage and this part of the case is not being disputed either by the accused or by the prosecution. Otherwise also it is established from the medical evidence that the death of the deceased Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was an unnatural death due to Aluminium Phosphide and this death had taken place within seven years of the marriage. The second ingredient of the offence under Section 304-B IPC is that the deceased must be subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry and such cruelty or harassment should be soon before her death. 29. Now let us examine the evidence of Jarnail Singh at the first instance. The complainant has alleged in his statement Ex. PG and also stated in his statement on oath while appearing as PW-2 that his daughter Jaswinder Kaur was married with Jhirmal Singh three years prior to the date of the occurrence. 29. Now let us examine the evidence of Jarnail Singh at the first instance. The complainant has alleged in his statement Ex. PG and also stated in his statement on oath while appearing as PW-2 that his daughter Jaswinder Kaur was married with Jhirmal Singh three years prior to the date of the occurrence. Further, the witness deposed that immediately after six months of the marriage the accused started harassing his daughter to bring more money as dowry. The demand was for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in order to send Jhirmal Singh abroad. He gave Rs. 15,000/- to Jhirmal Singh. After some time again a demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made but this time he expressed his inability to pay the said amount. It has also come in the statement of this witness that his daughter Jaswinder Kaur was sent to the house of her parents. So much so, the deceased had complained to him that effort was made to kill her with electric shocks, as a result of which he organised a Panchayat by calling Sarpanch Sukhwinder Singh who had gone to the in-laws of his daughter and they were made to understand to treat his daughter nicely. 30. Relations in such like offences are the best witnesses to depose. Jarnail Singh is none-else but the father of the deceased. If his daughter is not happy in the house of her in-laws she will naturally complain to her father about the behaviour of her husband. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that it has come in the evidence of Shri Jhirmal Singh that he had no passport and, therefore, the question of making a demand of Rs. 15,000/- in order to go abroad does not arise. His submission cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the prosecution that the flight of Jhirmal Singh was to take place on a particular day and for that reason he was asking for Rs. 15,000/-. We all know that youths of this Doaba area in Punjab are very much interested in going abroad. We may not be wrong if we say that majority of Doaba area people in Punjab, have gone abroad in order to earn money. Accused was a truck driver. In order to fulfil his desire to go abroad and earn more, if the appellant has made a demand of Rs. We may not be wrong if we say that majority of Doaba area people in Punjab, have gone abroad in order to earn money. Accused was a truck driver. In order to fulfil his desire to go abroad and earn more, if the appellant has made a demand of Rs. 15,000/- through his wife, the story of the prosecution does not look to be improbable. We are conscious of the fact that with the death of Jaswinder Kaur, it will be the anxiety on the part of Jarnail Singh to implicate many persons including his son-in-law for the murder of his daughter Smt. Jaswinder Kaur but the fact remains that Shri Jarnail Singh is a natural witness who can depose whether the deceased was happy in the house of her in-laws or not. Otherwise, it does not look probable that deceased Jaswinder Kaur who was at the advance stage of pRegulation ncy and was to deliver a child would adopt extreme step of suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide of her free will not only to kill herself but also to kill the child which was yet to come in this world. The fact is that the deceased was not treated nicely. She was subjected to harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. So much so, her father gave Rs. 15,000/- to the present appellant who was still not satisfied and was making a demand of Rs. 20,000/- again. If a poor father-in-law is not in a position to meet the demand of his son-in-law in order to keep his daughter happy, it will amount to an harassment which is separately understood from the world cruelty. Merely that the appellant and his companions have been acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it does not mean that the evidence of the prosecution with regard to harassment is wanting or lacking. The offence under Section 304-B IPC has to be read along with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act which lays down that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon, before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 31. 31. In this case it is established on the record that deceased was subjected to harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry and this demand had taken place soon before her death an this factum is further proved from the natural statement of Shri Jarnail Singh PW-2 coupled with the statement of PW-9 Shri Sukhwinder Singh Sarpanch of village Kotli Khurd who categorically deposed before the trial Court that prior to the present occurrence Jaswinder Kaur had informed him that her in-laws were harassing her and were making a demand of dowry. He along with Shangara Singh uncle of deceased went to the house of the accused where a Panchayat was convened at the Dera of Amarjit Singh in village Mia-da-pind. Both the parties gathered there and it was settled that the deceased will not be harassed in future. So much so on account of the settlement he took Jaswinder Kaur to the house of the appellant in the company of Shangara Singh and about one month thereafter, he came to know that the deceased has been given poison. One month prior to the date of occurrence the relations between the deceased and the appellant were not cordial on account of the demand of dowry. This demand certainly causes harassment to a woman who was to deliver a child. We all know that women by nature are very sensitive and they can react differently to a different situation. The deceased must have taken into heart that she is being subjected to harassment by her husband who has not been able to give her love and affection but the demand of dowry. Further the statements of PW-2 Jarnail Singh and PW-9 Sukhwinder Singh are corroborated by PW-8 Harnek Singh who also deposed that Jaswinder Kaur was his cousion sister from the brotherhood and soon after her marriage, her in-laws started harassing her and made a demand of dowry. Panchayats were convened many times in this regard. 32. Thus, we are of the opinion that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC in this case are fully made out though the offence under Section 302 IPC looks to be doubtful. 33. There is no legal impediment on our part to convert the offence under Section 302 to 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 34. 32. Thus, we are of the opinion that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC in this case are fully made out though the offence under Section 302 IPC looks to be doubtful. 33. There is no legal impediment on our part to convert the offence under Section 302 to 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 34. Resultanty, we partly allow the appeal of Jhirmal Singh, set aside his conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC. However, he is convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code for causing dowry death of his wife Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Let intimation about the passing of this judgment be sent to the jail authorities and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur.