JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral).:- Tejinder Kaur daughter of Surjit Singh was married on 21.6.1992 with Ranbir Singh. This fact has been proved by brother of the complainant Gurmeet Singh PW.3 from marriage card Ex.P1. Tejinder Kaur died on 11.7.1996 in her matrimonial home. The cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 2. The present appeal has been filed by Ranbir Singh, husband of Tejinder Kaur, father-in-law Mohinder Singh, and mother-in-law Harnam Kaur. These three appellants were tried along with Manjit Kaur, sister of the husband, in case FIR No. 128 dated 11.7.1996, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, under Section 304-B IPC. The trial Court acquitted Manjit Kaur, however, found appellants guilty of offence under Section 304-B IPC. Ranbir Singh, appellant, was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 304-B IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Mohinder Singh and Harnam Kaur were sentenced for eight years each and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for offence under Section 304-B IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 3. Before this Court advert to the facts of the case, it will be necessary to formulate the questions which require attention of the Court. It is not disputed that Tejinder Kaur died within seven years. Her death was unnatural and she died in her matrimonial house where the accused were living. Therefore, the only question which this Court is required to determine is “whether the death of Tejinder Kaur was prompted due to demand of dowry and harassment caused by the accused? 4. For arriving at answer to above question, facts can be noticed as under:- “Surjit Singh, father of Tejinder Kaur, made statement Ex.PA before Hardeep Singh, Sub Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station Tripri. On the basis of statement Ex.PA, formal FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded. In Ex.PA, Surjit Singh stated that he is a resident of Kharar and he is engaged in the labour work. He has got four daughters and one son. One daughter Tejinder Kaur was married with Ranbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh, Scheduled Caste, resident of New Mehar Singh Colony, Patiala, about four years ago. In Ex.PA, Surjit Singh stated that he is a resident of Kharar and he is engaged in the labour work. He has got four daughters and one son. One daughter Tejinder Kaur was married with Ranbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh, Scheduled Caste, resident of New Mehar Singh Colony, Patiala, about four years ago. His daughter had given birth to two children, son aged three years and the daughter born from the wedlock, died after one and a half months of the birth. The complainant had given dowry to Tejinder Kaur, at the time of marriage according to his capacity. However,the dowry articles were not to the liking of Mohinder Singh and Harnam Kaur, parents of his son-in-law. Therefore, Tejinder Kaur was subjected to taunts and beating and harassment for bringing insufficient dowry. They had also restrained Tejinder Kaur from visiting her parents. They were not allowing the complainant family to meet their daughter. Once when such an attempt was made, they were insulted. They had shared this grievance with their relatives. They had initiated dialogue with Mohinder Singh, but family of Mohinder Singh had not bothered about the same. On 6.7.1996, for bringing more dowry, Tejinder Kaur, daughter of the complainant, was sent to her parental house where she disclosed that she is harassed by Mohinder Singh, father-in-law, Harnam Kaur, mother-in-law, husband Ranbir Singh and sister-in-law Manjit Kaur, for bringing Scooter, Fridge and Colour Television. She was also told by the accused that in case articles demanded were not brought, she would not be rehabilitated in her matrimonial home. The complainant could not satisfy their demand, therefore, had sent his daughter back to Patiala. On 11.7.1996 at 6.30 A.M., a message was received from Kuldip Kaur, niece of accused that Tejinder Kaur is seriously ill and they should reach Patiala. The complainant, on receipt of message, along with Atma Singh Master, Harbans Singh, Amar Singh and his son Gurmeet Singh, reached at the house of accused. There he found that his daughter had expired and her dead body was lying on the floor of the verandah. It was found that the daughter of complainant died due to hanging. The complainant made grievance that his daughter was killed by Mohinder Singh, father-in-law, Harnam Kaur, mother-inlaw, Ranbir Singh, husband, and Manjit Kaur, sister-in-law. There he found that his daughter had expired and her dead body was lying on the floor of the verandah. It was found that the daughter of complainant died due to hanging. The complainant made grievance that his daughter was killed by Mohinder Singh, father-in-law, Harnam Kaur, mother-inlaw, Ranbir Singh, husband, and Manjit Kaur, sister-in-law. After leaving Atma Singh Master, Harbans Singh and his son Gurmeet Singh at the spot, complainant along with Amar Singh went to Police Station to lodge report when he met the Investigating Officer in the way and got recorded his statement. The complainant had requested that legal action be taken against the accused. The above said statement Ex.PA was recorded on 11.7.1996 at 1.15 P.M. Formal FIR was registered at 1.35 P.M. Special report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 11.7.1996 at 5.30 P.M.” 5. The above said FIR was investigated. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. 6. The case along with the accused was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Patiala, but was entrusted for trial to Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who charged the appellants along with acquitted accused Manjit Kaur, for offence under Section 304-B IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Prosecution commenced its evidence and examined Surjit Singh as PW.1. He reiterated what was stated in the FIR, however, a few improvements have been made. He stated that at the time of marriage, he had spent Rs.80,000/-. He further stated that he had disclosed to his relatives that accused were demanding more dowry articles. In cross-examination, this witness stated that from the last one year, he was not doing any work. At the time of examination of this witness, he disclosed his age as 78 years. He further admitted that he and his son were working as labourers. He further stated that Tejinder Kaur was employed as Clerk in Ropar when she was engaged with Ranbir Singh. She was getting Rs.3,000/- per month as salary. It was further stated in the cross-examination that at that time, Ranbir Singh was posted as Clerk in Girls School and was drawing salary of Rs.1,800/1,900/- per month. Much cross-examination was advanced to prove argument that the complainant was dependent upon the salary of his daughter Tejinder Kaur and, therefore, marriage had not succeeded. It was further stated in the cross-examination that at that time, Ranbir Singh was posted as Clerk in Girls School and was drawing salary of Rs.1,800/1,900/- per month. Much cross-examination was advanced to prove argument that the complainant was dependent upon the salary of his daughter Tejinder Kaur and, therefore, marriage had not succeeded. The vigour with which this argument was pursued had cut no ice and had fallen on the ground flat. The defence failed miserably to strengthen this argument. However, this witness admitted that he had not stated to the police that he had given almirah and he had spent Rs.80,000/- on the marriage. What is pertinent to be noticed in the cross-examination is the admission made by the witness that before 6.7.1996, no demand was raised about the articles. 8. PW.2 Amar Singh had identified the dead body at the time of inquest. 9. Gurmeet Singh, son of the complainant and brother of the deceased, appeared as PW.3. He corroborated the testimony of his father PW.1 Surjit Singh. However, this witness produced following material documents on record:- “i) Marriage Card Ex.P1. ii) A letter written by Tejinder Kaur as Ex.P2. iii) A letter written by Harjit Kaur as Ex.P3. iv) A letter written by Randhir Singh as Ex.P4. 10. Letters Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are material documents, which will be relied by this Court during course of analysis of the facts and discussions. In cross-examination Gurmeet Singh was confronted with his previous statement Ex.DA as he had not stated to the police that 6.7.1996, four days before the occurrence, the accused had demanded Fridge, Television and Scooter. 11. Atma Singh appeared as PW.4. He had also identified the dead body. He further stated that he had learnt from Surjit Singh, complainant, that the accused were demanding dowry and were maltreating his daughter. 12. Lal Singh, Head Constable, appeared as PW.5. He was present along with the Investigating Officer when the dead body was sent to Mortuary for conducting post mortem examination. He has further stated that on 26.7.1996, Gurmeet Singh, witness, had produced before Hardip Singh, Station House Officer, letters Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. 13. Indresh Khanna, Draftsman, appeared as PW.6. He proved scaled site plan Ex.PD. 14. Dr. S.S. Oberoi appeared as PW.7. He was posted as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Forensic Medicines, Government Medical College, Patiala. He has further stated that on 26.7.1996, Gurmeet Singh, witness, had produced before Hardip Singh, Station House Officer, letters Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. 13. Indresh Khanna, Draftsman, appeared as PW.6. He proved scaled site plan Ex.PD. 14. Dr. S.S. Oberoi appeared as PW.7. He was posted as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Forensic Medicines, Government Medical College, Patiala. He had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Tejinder Kaur on 11.7.1996 at 3.00 P.M. He found a ligature mark 0.75 cm broad above the level of thyroid cartilage. According to the opinion of doctor, cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that no marks of violence were present on the dead body. 15. PW.8 Kuldeep Kaur had relayed information to Surjit Singh on receipt of telephone from the accused. 16. PW.9 Narinder Singh, Constable, had delivered the special report. 17. Hardip Singh, Investigating Officer, appeared as PW.10 and proved various aspects of the investigation. 18. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 19. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded innocence. However, letters Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 were also denied by the accused. 20. In statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Randhir Singh, appellant, projected his version as under:- “The financial position of Surjit Singh and his family was weak and they had been demanding money from me. He was not in a position to do any physical work from the last many years. He used to ask me to live with him in his house and same demand was being made by the deceased. I did not agree to that proposal. My parents were living separate from me as they wanted that we should live independent. One of our daughter died and the deceased had been suffering from depression on that account. She used to say that she would commit suicide. On that account she committed suicide”. 21. The other appellants also adopted the statement made by Randhir Singh, husband. 22. No defence witness was examined. Only documents were tendered in defence. 23. As stated earlier, deceased had died within seven years of her marriage. She was subjected to cruelty. She used to say that she would commit suicide. On that account she committed suicide”. 21. The other appellants also adopted the statement made by Randhir Singh, husband. 22. No defence witness was examined. Only documents were tendered in defence. 23. As stated earlier, deceased had died within seven years of her marriage. She was subjected to cruelty. Her death had taken place in her matrimonial home and the same was unnatural. 24. From the evidence of witnesses, it is apparent that both the complainant and accused were not belonging to affluent section of the society. Surjit Singh, father and Gurmeet Singh, brother of the deceased worked as labourers. Tejinder Kaur, deceased was employed as Clerk and was drawing salary of Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas her husband Randhir Singh, appellant, was also employed as Clerk in a Private School and was drawing salary of Rs.1,800/1,900/- per month. Surjit Singh further stated in his examination-in-chief that before 6.7.1996 there was no demand of dowry and on this date for the first time, articles like Fridge, Television and Scooter were demanded. Date of marriage was 21.6.1992. 25. In the present case, information regarding the death of Tejinder Kaur was received by Surjit Singh on 11.7.1996 at 6.30 A.M. At about 10.00 A.M., the complainant party had reached at the matrimonial home of their daughter where she was found dead. Statement of Surjit Singh was recorded at 1.15 P.M. The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 5.30 P.M. after the case was registered at 1.35 P.M. Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, is closely situated from the place where special report was to be delivered. Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and the residence of the Magistrate are in the same town. Police is well equipped with vehicles. So there is possibility that the demand of dowry was introduced after consultations and deliberations. This inference is fortified from the perusal of letters Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. Ex.P3 is a letter addressed to deceased by one Harjit Kaur. This letter has been relied by the prosecution as the same was produced by Gurmeet Singh PW.3 immediately after the occurrence on 26.7.1996 to the Hardip Singh, Investigating Officer PW.10. This inference is fortified from the perusal of letters Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. Ex.P3 is a letter addressed to deceased by one Harjit Kaur. This letter has been relied by the prosecution as the same was produced by Gurmeet Singh PW.3 immediately after the occurrence on 26.7.1996 to the Hardip Singh, Investigating Officer PW.10. In this letter, Harjit Kaur has written to Tejinder Kaur, deceased, that she was an unfortunate lady and her body was sexually abused by the accused Randhir Singh, who after having sexually exploited her and had not kept the promise of marriage, instead he married Tejinder Kaur. Therefore, Harjit Kaur conveyed to Tejinder Kaur, deceased, that in the life of Randhir Singh, accused, there was a third woman. Harjit Kaur had brought to the notice of Tejinder Kaur that accused had not kept the promise of marriage with her. The letter also says that earlier Tejinder Kaur could not be informed as Harjit Kaur was not able to get her address. Letter Ex.P2 was addressed by Tejinder Kaur to her father Surjit Singh, PW.1. From the tenor of letter, it can be inferred that this letter was written in July 1993. It is before the occurrence. This letter shows that she was proceeding on leave from 7.7.1993 to 18.7.1993. She would return to the office on 19.7.1993 and thereafter, she would proceed on leave from 30.7.1993, for six months leave commencing from August. Therefore, she would not be able to visit her father as she was not keeping good health. Regarding the fact that she should be brought to her parental house, it was stated that on 14.7.1993 Wednesday her father should come and should be accompanied by Principal madam or uncle of Mohali. The in-laws should not be informed that they had visited in pursuance of her suggestion, as behaviour of in-laws is not good. It further says that whatever talks take place, they should take place in front of the uncle so that everything could be clarified at Patiala. This letter further states that families of the daughters are always on the receiving end as the daughters have to adjust. She had left her fate in the hands of future. 26. Letter Ex.P4 is written by accused Randhir Singh. This letter says that he can tolerate everything but not “Bewafai” (Infidelity). This letter further states that families of the daughters are always on the receiving end as the daughters have to adjust. She had left her fate in the hands of future. 26. Letter Ex.P4 is written by accused Randhir Singh. This letter says that he can tolerate everything but not “Bewafai” (Infidelity). This letter further reveals that he had disclosed everything to his wife as he thinks that nothing should be kept concealed and hidden from the life partner. But this belief of his has proved him wrong. It further says that he considered his wife to be his own but she considers him stranger. 27. From these letters relied by the prosecution, it is apparent that relationship of the husband with Harjit Kaur before the marriage was the cause of discord. It is other woman in the life of husband, which was simmering, as sorrow in the mind of wife. It had ruffled the matrimonial relations. Tejinder Kaur could not accept the fact that his husband was having relations with any woman before the marriage. The husband also revealed in the letter Ex.P4 that he had committed folly by disclosing his life before the marriage. It can be safely inferred that this is the reason which prompted the deceased to commit suicide. Once demand of dowry is ruled out, offence under Section 304-B IPC is not made out. In the present case, death had taken place within seven years. The husband could not make his wife adjust and understand that life before marriage is not going to make difference and he had buried his past. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, raises presumption that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC alone is made out against the husband. In view of the discussion made above, conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 304-B IPC is set aside. However, appellant Randhir Singh is found guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. He is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal of Mohinder Singh and Harnam Kaur is accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded upon appellants Mohinder Singh and Harnam Kaur is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. Appeal disposed of in view of observations made above. -------------