Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. Lakhmi son of Sardara resident of Village Chausala and Ram Phal son of Giani resident of Village Panghal were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted by Sh. B.L. Singal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, vide judgment dated November 15, 1996 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Both the convicts Lakhmi and Ram Phal filed this appeal for their acquittal from the said case under First Information Report No. 115 dated May 16, 1994, under Sections 498-A/304-B/302 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police station Barwala by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated November 15, 1996 and sentence order dated November 18, 1996. 3. The Ld. counsel for appellant Ram Phal (who was husband of deceased Darshna) intimates that he has expired. So, the appeal stands abated qua him. Fine could not be imposed under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as there is no provision for imposing fine under this section. So far as the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, we do not deem it appropriate to implead his legal representatives to recover paltry sum of Rs. 500/- as fine from them. 4. This case was registered on the statement of PW-7 Raghbir, who is brother of deceased Darshna. It was recorded by Zile Singh, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station Barwala. Darshna was married with Ram Phal (deceased-appellant) on March 19, 1990 and she died under unnatural circumstances on May 15, 1994. Lakhmi (appellant) is husband of the sister of the father of Ram Phal (deceased-appellant). PW-7 Raghbir levelled allegations against both the appellants that they had given sufficient dowry to Darshna in her marriage. Darshna was married with Ram Phal (deceased-appellant) on March 19, 1990 and she died under unnatural circumstances on May 15, 1994. Lakhmi (appellant) is husband of the sister of the father of Ram Phal (deceased-appellant). PW-7 Raghbir levelled allegations against both the appellants that they had given sufficient dowry to Darshna in her marriage. Both the appellants and the womenfolk of the house of Ram Phal taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. Darshna used to complain about taunts of the appellants. A buffalo worth Rs. 10,000/- was then given to Ram Phal (deceased-appellant). After two months of the giving of the buffalo, both the appellants again started harassing Darshna. PW-7 Raghbir, accompanied by Prem, Bhaga and Chhailu, went to the house of Ram Phal (deceased-appellant) where Lakhmi (appellant) was also present. They requested them to maintain Darshna properly, but they accused them for having given insufficient dowry. On that day, Darshna was not present at her in-laws house. She had been sent by the appellants to Village Kalauda Khurd after harassment having been shown to her. Then, after about ten days of their going to Village Panghal, both the appellants came to the parents house of Darshna and demanded Rs. 10,000/- from them. They gave Rs. 10,000/- to Lakhmi (appellant) and sent Darshna with them. Thereafter, Darshna was killed in connection with the demand for dowry. A son was born to Darshna about a year before her death. At that time also, her parents had given her customary gifts including gold and cash. 5. On May 15, 1994, after receiving message through Shish Ram of Village Panghal at about 8 P.M. that Darshna had been killed, PW-7 Raghbir, his father Chhailu, his mother Chameli, Mani Ram and Niru Ram, went to the house of Ram Phal (deceased-appellant). Dead body of Darshna was lying on the floor inside a room. A rope was lying near the dead-body. There were scratches on the neck of Darshna. She had also injuries on her head and other parts of the body. Blood was oozing out of her wounds. PW-7 Raghbir went to Police Station Barwala and got this case registered. 6. Zile Singh, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station, Barwala recorded the statement of Raghbir, which is Exhibit PM and registered this case. He then went to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report (Exhibit PJ). Blood was oozing out of her wounds. PW-7 Raghbir went to Police Station Barwala and got this case registered. 6. Zile Singh, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station, Barwala recorded the statement of Raghbir, which is Exhibit PM and registered this case. He then went to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report (Exhibit PJ). Dead-body of Darshna was sent for post-mortem examination. The rope which was lying near the dead body was sealed into a parcel. Blood which had splitted on the floor was also sealed into a parcel. Pieces of broken bangle were picked up and were sealed into a parcel. Site plan (Exhibit PR) was prepared showing the place of occurrence. 7. PW-5 Dr. Daya Nand on May 16, 1994, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Darshna. He was assisted by Dr. K.L. Jaggal. They found a ligature mark over her neck. It was dried, hard and reddish brown. The maximum width of ligature mark was 2.5 cms. The sub-cutaneous tissues under the ligature mark were ecchymosis. They found the following injuries on the dead- body :- "1. There was lacerated wound with contusion of size 1.0 cm x 0.8 cm x bone deep over right side of scalp 2 cm above the upper border of forehead. Size of contusion 5 cm x 4 cm. On cut section clotted blood was present and infiltration of adjacent tissues. 2. There was contusion over middle of forehead of size 6 cm x 4 cm. 3. There was abraded contusion over lateral aspect of right eye-brow. Size was 2 cm x 1.5 cm. 4. There were two abraded contusions over right cheek bone and each was of size 1.5 cm x 1.2 cm. 5. There was abrasion over nape of neck lying in middle of it and of size 5 cm x 1.5 cm. 6. There was abraded contusion over superior aspect of right shoulder joint of size 4 cm x 2.5 cm. 7. There was contusion over back of right shoulder joint size was 6 cm x 5.5 cm. 8. There was abraded contusion over sub-clavicular region of chest on right side size was 4 cm x 2.5 cm. 9. There was contusion over supra clavicle region of left side of size 8 cm x 6 cm. 10. There was contusion over mucosal surface of lower lips of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm. 11. 8. There was abraded contusion over sub-clavicular region of chest on right side size was 4 cm x 2.5 cm. 9. There was contusion over supra clavicle region of left side of size 8 cm x 6 cm. 10. There was contusion over mucosal surface of lower lips of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm. 11. There was contusion over upper lip over mucosal surface size was 1 cm x 0.8 cm. 12. Abrasion over dorsal surface of left ring finger of size 2 cm x 1 cm. 13. There was abraded contusion over lateral aspect of left hip joint size 4 cm x 3 cm. 14. There was abrasion over anterior aspect of right leg in middle of it size was 4 cm x 1.5 cm." 8. In all the injuries, there was infiltration of blood and ecchymosis was present, that is to say all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of strangulation, which was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Exhibit P-1 Salwar, Exhibit P-2 `Jamper and Exhibits P-3 to P-9 ornaments of the deceased were sealed into separate parcels after post-mortem examination. Exhibit P.K. is copy of the post-mortem report. Exhibits P.K./1 and P.K./2 are the pictorial diagrams showing the seats of the injuries. 9. On completion of the investigation, challan was put in against the appellants. 10. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and charge was framed on October 25, 1994, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Then, on July 20, 1995 charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against the appellants. They did not plead guilty to the charge and had claimed trial. 11. The prosecution, at the trial, had examined as many as twelve witnesses, namely, PW-1 Shamsher Singh, PW-2 Ram Asra, PW 3 Constable Dharam Pal, PW-4 Satish Kumar, PW 5 Dr. Daya Nand, PW 6 Biru Ram, PW-7 Raghbir, PW-8 Prem Chand, PW-9 Surja, PW-10 Sub Inspector Som Raj, PW-11 Chhailu and PW-12 Sub Inspector Zile Singh. 12. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of both the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Daya Nand, PW 6 Biru Ram, PW-7 Raghbir, PW-8 Prem Chand, PW-9 Surja, PW-10 Sub Inspector Som Raj, PW-11 Chhailu and PW-12 Sub Inspector Zile Singh. 12. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of both the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They both had denied the prosecution allegations and had complained of their false implicity in this case. Lakhmi (appellant) had stated that he did not attend the marriage of Ram Phal (deceased-appellant) with Darshna due to his hostility with Baldeva and Roshan. He never demanded dowry from the parents of Darshna. He was not even on visiting terms at Village Panghal. He lived separately from deceased appellant Ram Phal at a different village, namely, Chausala in District Kaithal. He did not harass Darshna. He had no concern with the demand of dowry. 13. The appellants, in their defence, had examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, DW-1, Jeeta, DW-2 Dharambir, DW-3 Hukam Chand, DW-4 Ishwar Dass, DW-5 Ram Dhari, DW-6 Sardara, DW-7 Nanu Ram and DW-8 Ram Singh. 14. The Ld. counsel for appellant Lakhmi argued that he has been roped in this case with deceased appellant Ram Phal, who was husband of deceased Darshna. He is husband of the sister of the father of Ram Phal (deceased-appellant). He lived separately from Ram Phal at a different Village, namely, Chausala in District Kaithal. He was not even on visiting terms to Village Panghal whereat deceased appellant Ram Phal lived with Darshna. He did not harass Darshna. He had no concern with demand of any dowry from her or her parents. There was no common intention between him and deceased appellant Ram Phal. He was not to be benefited with any dowry given to Ram Phal. The Ld. counsel further argued that no particulars of time and date of harassment meted out by Lakhmi (appellant) have been given. The allegations are general in nature. No complaint was made to police or to any other responsible officer when dowry was allegedly demanded by Lakhmi (appellant). He argued that Lakhmi (appellant) deserves to be acquitted in this case. 15. A reference here to the statements of PW-7 Raghbir (brother of deceased Darshna), PW-8 Prem Chand (maternal uncle of Darshna) and PW-11 Chhailu (father of Darshna) is inevitable. PW-7 Raghbir deposed that both Lakhmi and Ram Phal taunted Darshna for bringing insufficient dowry. He argued that Lakhmi (appellant) deserves to be acquitted in this case. 15. A reference here to the statements of PW-7 Raghbir (brother of deceased Darshna), PW-8 Prem Chand (maternal uncle of Darshna) and PW-11 Chhailu (father of Darshna) is inevitable. PW-7 Raghbir deposed that both Lakhmi and Ram Phal taunted Darshna for bringing insufficient dowry. He further deposed that they gave a buffalo worth Rs. 10,000/- to Ram Phal. His statement reveals that when he along with Prem, Bhaga and Chhailu visited the house of Ram Phal (deceased-appellant), Lakhmi (appellant) was also there. They again raised demand for dowry. Further that after about ten days of their going to village Panghal, they both came to his house and they were paid Rs. 10,000/- and then Darshna was sent with them. The particulars of time and date are missing in his statement. Statement of PW-8 Prem Chand also reveals general allegations against both Ram Phal and Lakhmi. He deposed that they both used to harass Darshna for demand of more dowry. He deposed that Ram Phal came to the house of Chhailu, father of Darshna, and he paid him Rs. 5,000/- in his presence. Again, no demand was made by Lakhmi (appellant). PW-11 Chhailu is the father of deceased Darshna. He deposed that Lakhmi (appellant) mostly used to reside with Ram Phal (deceased-appellant) in those days in Village Panghal. They both used to harass Darshna. According to PW-11 Chhailu, a buffalo was given and then two bullocks were also given to deceased-appellant Ram Phal. Lakhmi (appellant) was not to be benefited with all the articles which were given to Darshna or which were demanded from her. He lived in a separate village and was merely a relative of Ram Phal (deceased-appellant). Lakhmi (appellant) was implicated in this case on account of his intimacy with Ram Phal (deceased- appellant). 16. The Ld. counsel for Lakhmi (appellant) also referred to a few cases in which under similar circumstances, the appellants were acquitted from the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 17. In the case of Shanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 717, conviction of the husband was upheld. It was alleged that they demanded scooter. Conviction of mother-in-law was set aside observing that she was not at all the beneficiary and that the scooter was to be used exclusively by husband. 17. In the case of Shanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 717, conviction of the husband was upheld. It was alleged that they demanded scooter. Conviction of mother-in-law was set aside observing that she was not at all the beneficiary and that the scooter was to be used exclusively by husband. In the case of Dod Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 485, the mother and married sister of the accused (husband) were acquitted. Conviction of husband and his father was upheld, holding that no demand of dowry had been made by the mother and married sister of the accused (husband), although they may have been party to harassment to bride. In the case of Nachhatar Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 580, the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code in the following grounds :- "(1) None of the PWs stated as to when, in which year, date and month, any act of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry was committed. (2) Not even a single witness had given any specific instance in that regard. (3) Regarding demand of dowry and cruelty no complaint was made to the police or any other responsible officer." 18. In the case of Gora Lal and others v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 698, the uncle of accused (husband) was living separately. It was held that he would not have been a beneficiary of any of the goods that might have come to accused or his family. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code giving benefit of doubt. In the case of Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 508, there were general allegations of demand of dowry and harassment. No evidence was there to indicate any date, month or year when such demand was raised. Conviction was set aside. 19. In view of the above-discussed facts and circumstances of the case, charges against Lakhmi (appellant) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian penal Code are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, his appeal is accepted and he is acquitted of these charges by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated November 15, 1996 and sentence order dated November 18, 1996.