JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Appellants Narender Kumar (A1) and Bimla (A2) along with Ram Singh, Radha and Mahabir were put to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 304-B/201/34 IPC. It was allegation against them that they had committed murder of Smt. Geeta (aged 20 years) wife of Narender Kumar in the intervening night of 29 and 30th January 2003 by giving her injuries and then made an attempt to dispose of her body with a view to screen the commission of crime. After trial, A1, A2 and Radha were convicted vide judgment dated 1.12.2007. In the meantime, Radha accused moved an application that she was a juvenile and her case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board at Faridabad. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide order dated 21.12.2007. Ram Singh father-in-law of the deceased and Mahabir were acquitted of the charges framed against them vide judgment mentioned above. 2. At the time of arguments, it was brought to our notice that after trial, Radha was also acquitted of the charges framed against her by the Juvenile Justice Board at Faridabad. 3. The trial Court has noted the following facts regarding case of the prosecution:- “Brief facts of the case are that on 30.1.2003, Hari Singh son of Hira Lal, resident of Chandhat moved an application before the police interalia alleging that he had married his daughter Geeta 20 years old with accused Narender on 17.4.2002. He gave sufficient dowry and daughter of the complainant used to tell him that her mother-in-law (accused Bimla), her husband (accused Narender) and her sister-in-law (NANAD) used to torture her and harass her. Motor cycle, golden chain was also demanded from her. On 26.1.2003, his son-in-law had taken Geeta from Chandhat to village Banswa. On 26.1.2003, itself accused Narender, his son-law demanded dowry in presence of him and his wife and he made him to understand. On the day of occurrence i.e. 30.1.2003, around 8.00 AM, he received a telephonic message from Bhagirath resident of village Banswa that his daughter Geeta has been murdered by her husband and some other persons. On this information, complainant along with Sohan Lal, Kishan and Kehri, residents of village Chandhat reached in village Banswa. They verified about the facts and circumstances of death of Geeta. On this information, complainant along with Sohan Lal, Kishan and Kehri, residents of village Chandhat reached in village Banswa. They verified about the facts and circumstances of death of Geeta. He came to know that husband of Geeta namely Narender had murdered Geeta with knife blow on her chest, abdomen in the night in a room for want of dowry. Complainant further disclosed before the police in this application that his daughter was murdered by accused Narender on the instigation of his mother and sister. The complainant left Sohan Lal son of Nanhey, Kishan son of Hira Lal and Kehri son of Hira Lal, all residents of village Chandhat with dead body of Geeta and reported the matter in police station Hassanpur.” 4. On receipt of above complaint/ application (Ex.PA), an FIR No.32 (Ex.PJ) was recorded against the above named accused on 30.1.2003 at 2.15 pm. Special report reached the concerned Magistrate at 4.15 pm on the said date. The investigating officer Amarjit Singh SI (PW9) went to the spot, got prepared the site plan (Ex.PK) with correct marginal notes, conducted inquest proceedings (Ex.PL) on the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. He also recorded statements of the witnesses. A1 was arrested on 30.1.2003. On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement (Ex.PD), which led to the recovery of a knife (Ex.P3). Dowry articles were also recovered against recovery memo (Ex.PB) dated 1.2.2003. In the meantime, other accused were also arrested. 5. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court. All the accused were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 14 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. 6. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence, convicted the appellants, however, Ram Singh and Mahabir were acquitted, case of Radha, after conviction, was transferred to Juvenile Justice Board, where, as per information supplied, after trial, she was acquitted. 7. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the prosecution has failed to make out a case for dowry death. The demand of dowry, immediately before death, is not proved on record. 7. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the prosecution has failed to make out a case for dowry death. The demand of dowry, immediately before death, is not proved on record. He further argued that even as per the prosecution witnesses, no gift items were demanded/ given at the time of engagement/ marriage. Further real sister of the deceased is also married to a real brother of A1 and she had not come in the witness box to state that she and her deceased sister were being harassed on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Counsel further submits that Bagirath (PW6) had specifically stated that the deceased was not harassed on account of bringing less dowry articles. He further specifically argued that against A2, there is no specific allegations by any of the prosecution witnesses that she had participated either in harassing the deceased or at the time when murder was committed. It is stated that A2 is an old lady of more than 55 years of age and she had nothing to do so far as demand of dowry is concerned. Counsel prayed that appeal be allowed, conviction and sentenced awarded to the appellants be set aside. 8. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel, who by making reference to the statements made by PW1, PW2, PW3 coupled with medical evidence on record, argued that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants and upon not meeting out that demand, murder of Smt. Geeta was committed by them. He argued that only on account of some minor discrepancies here and there in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the appellants cannot be acquitted in this case. Death has occurred within nine months of the marriage, it was unnatural and it had happened in the house of the appellants, as such, it is their duty to state as to how and under what circumstances, Smt.Geeta had died. He prayed that appeal, having no substance, be dismissed. 9. As per admitted facts on record, marriage between A1 and Smt. Geeta was solemnized on 17.4.2002. It is also on record that on the said date, marriage of a real sister of the deceased, namely, Gianwanti was also solemnized with Mahender brother of A1. 10. He prayed that appeal, having no substance, be dismissed. 9. As per admitted facts on record, marriage between A1 and Smt. Geeta was solemnized on 17.4.2002. It is also on record that on the said date, marriage of a real sister of the deceased, namely, Gianwanti was also solemnized with Mahender brother of A1. 10. The process of law was initiated on a statement (Ex.PA) made by father of the deceased, which led to recording of an FIR against the accused on 30.1.2003. In the said statement, PW1 has made specific allegations against A1, whereas vaguely it has been mentioned that mother-in-law (A2), father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were also harassing the deceased and Gianwanti for bringing less dowry. No specific instance has been mentioned as to when the deceased was mal-treated by A2. To the same effect is the statement of PW2 Kehari uncle of the deceased. He has also levelled specific allegations against A1, whereas against A2, the accusation, that she had been harassing the deceased for dowry, is very vague and unspecific. It is stated by PW1 Hari Singh – father-in-law of A1 that marriages of his two daughters i.e. the deceased and Gianwanti were solemnized with A1 and his brother by Bagirath (PW6) on 17.4.2002. This witness has also levelled allegation of committing murder of his daughter against A1. However, he has specifically stated that no CRA-D 324-DB of 2008 6 dowry articles were given at the time of engagement ceremony and thereafter. He has further stated that at no time, demand of dowry was raised by A2 and other family members neither there was any allegation of harassment to the deceased by them. 11. Death of Smt. Geeta has occurred on account of injuries caused to her by A1 on vital parts of her body. The post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr.Sanjiv Bhagat (PW5) on 30.1.2003 at 2.15 pm. This witness has found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- “1. Incised stabbed wound of the size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x viscera deep on the umbilicus transversely situated. 2. Incised wound of the size 1.5 x 0.5 cm x viscera deep on the left coastal region, in the middle part. 3. Incised wound of the size 1.0 x 0.5 cm in middle of epigastrum. 4. Incised stabbed wound of the size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x viscera deep on the umbilicus transversely situated. 2. Incised wound of the size 1.5 x 0.5 cm x viscera deep on the left coastal region, in the middle part. 3. Incised wound of the size 1.0 x 0.5 cm in middle of epigastrum. 4. Incised stabbed wound of the size 1.05 x 0.5 cm on the right costal margins on the medial 1/3rd On opening wound haemota was found present spreading from the muscle to deep viscera and extending to deep viscera. Description of ligature on the neck-there was bruised mark on the throat of the size 8 cm x 1.05 cm, red in colour lower down in the neck below thoirad. There was fracture of larynx and trachea.” 12. As per opinion, death was the result of asphyxia as a result of strangulation and internal visceral haemorrhage due to stabbing. All the injuries were found ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. A1 and deceased Geeta were residing together in the same house. Their marriage was solemnized on 17.4.2002. Death has occurred in a house owned by in-laws’ family of the deceased. Under the circumstances, it is for A1 to disclose the circumstances under which death of Smt. Geeta had occurred. He has failed to do so. No explanation has been given, on the basis of which, any benefit can be extended to A1 in this case. Weapon of offence was also recovered on a disclosure statement made by A1. The recovery was proved on record by PW9 SI Amarjit Singh and ASI Jai Krishan (PW7). 13. The above facts lead this Court to a conclusion that murder of Smt. Geeta was committed by the appellants-accused. Looking at the injuries caused and the manner in which deceased was strangulating, prayer of counsel for the appellants for decrease of sentence is rejected so far as A1 is concerned. 14. Regarding A2 Bimla mother-in-law of the deceased, it is noted that she is an old lady of 55 years of age, against her in statement (Ex.PA) made by Hari Singh (PW1), no specific allegation regarding harassment to the deceased has been attributed. Similar is the statement made by PW2 Kehari–uncle of the deceased. 14. Regarding A2 Bimla mother-in-law of the deceased, it is noted that she is an old lady of 55 years of age, against her in statement (Ex.PA) made by Hari Singh (PW1), no specific allegation regarding harassment to the deceased has been attributed. Similar is the statement made by PW2 Kehari–uncle of the deceased. PW6 Bagirath has specifically stated that no demand of dowry was made by family members of A1 at the time of marriage and thereafter. Otherwise also, the articles/ appliances alleged to have been demanded by A1 were of house-hold use, to be used by the husband and wife. The facts on record indicate that accusation against A2 was not justified. 15. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324, while dealing with similar facts and circumstances had opined that relatives of the husband cannot be involved in cases, relating to demand of dowry, merely on the basis of conjectures unless an overt act is attributed to them. To the same is the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Salamat Ali and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1863. In this case also, as has been discussed in earlier part of this order, allegations against A2 are not specific, rather those are vague. 16. In view of above, appeal is partly allowed. It is dismissed qua Narender Kumar son of Ram Singh (A1), however, it is allowed qua Bimla wife of Ram Singh (A2). To that extent judgment is modified.