JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Gurmail Singh, Paramjit Singh and Bhajan Kaur, the appellants have brought this appeal against the judgment dated 13.2.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which they have been held guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC and also the order on sentence of the same date vide which the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each with further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in default of payment of fine. 2. Sarwan Singh, the complainant has filed the connected Criminal Revision No. 664 of 2003 against the convicts seeking reappraisal of evidence of the prosecution and converting the conviction to one under section 304-B IPC or for enhancing the punishment awarded to the convicts. 3. The case against the appellants, as set up by Police Station, Hariana, District Hoshiarpur, vide FIR No. 58 dated 21.5.2000, is as under:- Rajwinder Kaur (deceased) had been a daughter of Sarwan Singh, complainant. She was married with Paramjit Singh accused. Sarwan Singh gave dowry in the marriage as per his capacity. For one year, Rajwinder Kaur stayed at her matrimonial home comfortably. After that, Paramjit Singh, her husband, Bhajan Kaur, her mother-in-law and Gurmail Singh, her father-in-law, started pressing her for arranging marriage of Sharanjit Kaur, her sister’s daughter with Dilbag Singh alias Bagga, younger brother of Paramjit Singh. Rajwinder Kaur talked to her father Sarwan Singh in this regard. Sarwan Singh alongwith Rajwinder Kaur went to village Purhiran and met Gurmit Kaur and Gurdev Singh, the parents of Sharanjit Kaur and held talks in this regard with them. They did not agree for the marriage of Sharanjit Kaur with Dilbag Singh alias Bagga saying that Sharanjit was studying in the college while Dilbag Singh had been a drop-out from school in 5th or 7th standard and was practically illiterate and that they did not make a good match. As it was not a matter of happiness for Rajwinder Kaur at her matrimonial home, Sarwan Singh made further efforts to pursuade the parents of Sharanjit Kaur to marry her with Dilbag Singh alias Bagga but they did not agree. On this, Sarwan Singh and Rajwinder Kaur told the accused that parents of Sharanjit Kaur were not agreeable to the proposal. On this, Sarwan Singh and Rajwinder Kaur told the accused that parents of Sharanjit Kaur were not agreeable to the proposal. The accused, however, did not give up the idea. They kept compelling Rajwinder Kaur for this relationship. About a month earlier to the occurrence, Paramjit Singh, Bhajan Kaur and Gurmail Singh pushed out Rajwinder Kaur from her matrimonial home. They told her that they would keep her at her matrimonial home only if she arranged the marriage of Sharanjit Kaur with Dilbag Singh. Thus, turned out of her matrimonial home, Rajwinder Kaur came to the complainant. The complainant called his father-in-law Pritam Singh from village Phuglana and told him in this regard. The said Pritam Singh took a few persons from village Ramu Thiara and took Rajwinder Kaur to her matrimonial home at Muradpur Guruka and with the request to the accused not to maltreat her, he left her there. The accused were still putting pressure on Rajwinder Kaur to arrange the said marriage. Rajwinder Kaur kept telling her father Sarwan Singh and mother Tarsem Kaur on telephone about the ill treatment which she was receiving in this regard. On 21.5.2000 at about 10.00 AM, Rajwinder Kaur made a telephone call to her father telling him that she was alone at the home and that the accused had gone to the fields and before leaving for the fields, they had an altercation with her . She also told Sarwan Singh that they would kill her on their return. Sarwan Singh told his daughter that he was to attend his duty at Jalandhar and that he would come with his wife on the next day. Rajwinder Kaur, however, kept crying and told Sarwan Singh that they should reach on that very day. At about 2.00 PM on the same day, Sarwan Singh received telephone call that Rajwinder Kaur had suddenly fallen ill and that her condition had deteriorated. Sarwan Singh and Tarsem Kaur along with their son Harvinder Singh were about to start for village Muradpur Guruka but in the meanwhile, a telephone call was received from Gurmail Singh telling him that Rajwinder Kaur had died. On this information, Sarwan Singh, alongwith Gurbachan Singh, member panchayat, Pargat Singh and his wife Tarsem Kaur went to village Muradpur Guruka and there, he found his daughter lying dead on a cot. On this information, Sarwan Singh, alongwith Gurbachan Singh, member panchayat, Pargat Singh and his wife Tarsem Kaur went to village Muradpur Guruka and there, he found his daughter lying dead on a cot. Claiming that the accused had murdered Rajwinder Kaur, Sarwan Singh lodged a report with Chajju Ram, SI/SHO at bus stand of village Bhikowal. Chajju Ram,SI made his endorsement on the statement of Sarwan Singh and had sent the same to the police station, on which the case was registered for an offence punishable under section 302 and 34 IPC. Chajju Ram then went to the spot and prepared inquest report. He had sent the body of Rajwinder Kaur to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where a board of doctors consisting of Dr.Ram Parkash Saroa and Dr. P.P.S.Sandhu conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur. The viscera was also sent for chemical examination, but no common poison was detected therein. The doctors conducting post-mortem examination did not give the casue of death. On 20.7.2000, a supplementary statement of Sarwan Singh was recorded in which he had claimed that the accused were demanding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him for purchase of a tractor. He claimed that though, the tractor had already been purchased, yet the balance sale consideration was to be paid by them. He has also claimed that he had applied for loan from G.P.F. for a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 13.5.2000 and the loan was sanctioned and paid to Sarwan Singh on 22.5.2000, but Rajwinder Kaur had already died on 21.5.2000. 4. After due investigations, challan was presented against the accused for an offence punishable under section 304-B read with section 34 IPC. Charge for an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC was framed against the accused vide orders dated 8.11.2000 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses and closed its evidence. The accused were examined thereafter in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C. They had denied the truth of the prosecution evidence put to them in the shape of questions. They denied having ever demanded dowry or harassed Rajwinder Kaur in any connection. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses and closed its evidence. The accused were examined thereafter in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C. They had denied the truth of the prosecution evidence put to them in the shape of questions. They denied having ever demanded dowry or harassed Rajwinder Kaur in any connection. They claimed that they had purchased the tractor on 17.4.2000 on payment of full consideration to Sarwan Singh son of Naranjan Singh and Surinder Kaur wife of Sarwan Singh, from whom they purchased it after withdrawing the money from the bank account. It was also claimed that Rajwinder Kaur was living separately with Paramjit Singh. They further claimed that on 27.11.2000, Sarwan Singh, complainant alongwith Pritam Singh, Paramjit Singh and others came to see them in the District Jail, Hoshiarpur and demanded a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs from them for resiling from their statements. They have further claimed that they declined to meet this demand. The supplementary statement made by the complainant is also said to be false. In defence, the accused have examined one witness and closed their defence. 6. Hearing learned public prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the defence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hosharipur found the accused guilty for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC instead of section 304-B IPC and consequently convicted them for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC. Hearing on quantum of sentence was given on the same day and the sentence, as detailed above, was awarded to the convicts. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the convicts have brought this appeal. 8. On the other hand, aggrieved by the conviction of the accused under section 306 IPC instead of section 304-B IPC, for which the charge was framed and on quantum of sentence, the above mentioned revision petition has been filed by Sarwan Singh, complainant. 9. I have heard Mr. Bipin Ghai, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants (respondents in Criminal Revision No. 664 of 2003), Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. J.B.S.Gill, learned counsel for the complainant/revision petitioner. I have gone through the record carefully. 10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the cause of death of Rajwinder Kaur is not ascertainable in this case. Amandeep Singh Rai, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. J.B.S.Gill, learned counsel for the complainant/revision petitioner. I have gone through the record carefully. 10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the cause of death of Rajwinder Kaur is not ascertainable in this case. According to him, in the absence of the same, it cannot be said as to whether it is a natural or unnatural death. He has submitted that originally, the case was registered for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC, but since no common poison was detected in the viscera report, the challan was presented for an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC. He has submitted that after trial, learned trial court acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under section 304-B but convicted them for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. 11. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that marriage of Rajwinder Kaur was solemnized with Paramjit Singh on 7.5.1997. According to him, her death has occurred on 21.5.2000. He has submitted that the prosecution has examined three main witnesses, who are Sarwan Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased; Pritam Singh (PW-2), father-in-law of Sarwan Singh and maternal grand father of the deceased and Dr. Ram Parkash Saroa (PW-5), who alongwith Dr. P.P.S.Sandhu conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rajwinder Kaur. He has submitted that Dr. Ram Parkash Sarao could not give the cause of death and, therefore, it cannot even be said that it is unnatural death or even suicide. 12. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in the FIR, there is no allegation of demand of dowry. He has submitted that when no common poison was detected in the viscera by the chemical examiner, the complainant came out with a supplementary statement in which he introduced the story of demand of dowry and consequent harassment of Rajwinder Kaur. 13. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that leaned trial court did not believe the story of harassment in connection with demand for dowry. According to him, what the case is left then is that the appellants were building pressure upon Rajwinder Kaur for arranging the marriage of Sharanjit Kaur with Dilbag Singh, a brother of her husband. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that leaned trial court did not believe the story of harassment in connection with demand for dowry. According to him, what the case is left then is that the appellants were building pressure upon Rajwinder Kaur for arranging the marriage of Sharanjit Kaur with Dilbag Singh, a brother of her husband. He has submitted that the death in this case is not proved to be unnatural death and, therefore, even section 306 IPC would not stand attracted. 14. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. According to him, there is no reason to disagree with the findings of learned trial court. 15. Learned counsel for the complainant drew my attention to the post-mortem report (Ex. PD) to highlight the injuries found on the person of the deceased. According to him, the injuries themselves suggest violence and on account of the violence, Rajwinder Kaur committed suicide. He has further submitted that even compelling Rajwinder Kaur to bring the proposal of marriage of Sharanjit Kaur, her sister’s daughter for Dilbag Singh also amounts to torture and it would amount to instigating her for committing suicide. He has further submitted that the deceased was having a son and she was happy with her lot. He drew my attention to the statement of Dr. Ram Parkash Sarao (PW-5), who has stated that from the injuries in the post-mortem report, he was of the opinion that cause of death in this case was shock due to the injuries mentioned in the report. Despite it, learned counsel for the complainant maintains that it is a case of suicide. 16. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant has not made any submissions claiming the case in hand to be covered by section 304-B IPC. Learned trial court has not found the evidence of the prosecution believable to prove the charge under section 304-B IPC. For the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC, the bride should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection of any demand for dowry soon before her death. Learned trial court has not found the evidence of the prosecution believable to prove the charge under section 304-B IPC. For the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC, the bride should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection of any demand for dowry soon before her death. The allegations of demand of dowry were not there in the FIR and it is a fact that the supplementary statement making a claim in this regard was made on 20.7.2000 and that too, after the viscera was found to have no common poison. 17. Appearing as PW-1, the complainant has stated that his daughter told him a week earlier to her death that the accused were demanding a sum of Rs.1.00 lac for purchase of tractor. He added in the very next sentence that the tractor they had already purchased but they wanted to pay the balance amount from the money asked from him. The complainant has further stated that he told his daughter that he would arrange the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac and would fulfill the demand. He has further stated that he could not arrange the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac. According to him, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was with him and he applied for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from his GPF account on 13.5.2000. According to him, the amount was payable to him on 22.5.2000. This amount could not be paid because before the complainant could get the said amount from his GPF account , his daughter had died. 18. The complainant could not give any reason as to why he did not make this allegation in the FIR. Had there been any such demand of Rs.1.00 lac for which he had to look to various persons for arrangement and finally apply for withdrawal from GPF, the allegation in this regard should have been there in the FIR. In his cross-examination, the complainant has failed to affirm or deny the fact that the accused had made full payment of the price of the tractor purchased by them on 17.4.2000. He also could not tell if the accused were having any account in the bank and that they paid the price of the tractor by withdrawing the amount from the bank. He also could not tell if the accused were having any account in the bank and that they paid the price of the tractor by withdrawing the amount from the bank. The accused have claimed that they had purchased the tractor on 17.4.2000 for Rs. 1,51,000/- and the full payment was made to the sellers after withdrawal of a major portion of this amount from the bank. Dharam Pal (DW-1) is the Secretary of the Muradpur Sainia Cooperative Agr. Service Society of village Muradpur Guruka who has stated that the accused had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1,15,500/- for purchase of tractor. 19. The marriage had taken place on 7.5.1997. The demand of Rs. 1.00 lac is said to have been made by the accused upon the deceased, a week earlier to her death. It can be said that the demand was allegedly made on or about 13.5.2000, after a period of complete 3 years of the marriage. There is no allegation that any demand was made in between. This demand of Rs. 1.00 lac even if believed to have been made by the accused upon the deceased, cannot amount to demand of dowry. It is sort of help asked from the parents of Rajwinder Kaur for purchase of a tractor. One important fact is yet to be mentioned here and the same is that no allegation of cruelty or harassment is there in the statement of Sarwan Singh recorded as PW-1 for or in connection with any demand for dowry. So, taking from any angle, the case in hand does not stand covered by the provisions of section 304-B IPC and learned trial court has rightly found the said offence to have not been committed by the appellants. 20. For holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under sections 302, 304, 304-B or 306 IPC, the death of the victim has to be proved to be unnatural. In case of section 306 IPC, this unnatural death is to be further proved as suicide. So, to maintain conviction under section 306 IPC itself, the court has to reach the conclusion that the death of the victim amounts to suicide. No other type of death is covered by the provisions of section 306 IPC. The evidence of the prosecution has to be examined in this regard to find out as to what type of death it has been. 21. No other type of death is covered by the provisions of section 306 IPC. The evidence of the prosecution has to be examined in this regard to find out as to what type of death it has been. 21. The evidence of Dr. Ram Parkash Sarao is the only evidence on this point. Learned counsel for the complainant/revision petitioner has referred to the following part of his statement :- “From the injuries in the post mortem report, I am of the opinion that cause of death in this case was shock due to the injuries mentioned in the report.” 22. If this part of the statement of Dr. Ram Parkash Sarao (PW-5) is considered, then it would be a case of culpable homicide. He, however, himself proves in his statement that this part of his statement cannot be relied upon. 23. Dr. Ram Parkash Sarao in his cross-examination has stated that he and the other doctor associated in the post-mortem examination were not sure about the cause of death and for that reason, viscera had been sent for chemical analysis. He has further stated that there were scratches at the site of injuries described in the post-mortem examination at No. 1 to 3. Regarding the scratches, he has further specified that those scratches were superficial. When asked as to whether superficial scratches could be cause of congestion of the vital organs, which resulted in death in this case, he has answered in the negative. His statement in this regard is that superficial scratches could not be cause of congestion in this case. 24. Ex. PF is the opinion of Dr. P.P.S.Sandhu with regard to this death. Dr. P.P.S.Sandhu has not been examined in this case and as appears in the statement of Dr. Ram Parkash Sarao, the opinion of Dr. Sandhu is that injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report have no relation to the cause of death. Dr. Ram Parkash Sarao has adopted this opinion of Dr. P.P.S.Sandhu. 25. The injuries are two dimensional. Their length is quite large and their breadth is 0.2 cm. They have no depth. All the parallel curved scratches of the width of 0.2 cm with no depth are found in the front of the chest of the deceased. Dr. Ram Parkash Sarao has adopted this opinion of Dr. P.P.S.Sandhu. 25. The injuries are two dimensional. Their length is quite large and their breadth is 0.2 cm. They have no depth. All the parallel curved scratches of the width of 0.2 cm with no depth are found in the front of the chest of the deceased. As has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant/revision petitioner, these injuries were caused by the accused and on account of these injuries, which suggest violence, Rajwinder Kaur committed suicide. Even if it is taken that these injuries were caused by the appellant and they amounted to violence still the mode of committing suicide is not ascertainable in this case. She has not consumed poison, fallen in a well or pond for drowning, jumped before a running train or hanged herself. So, the submission of learned counsel for the complainant, in this regard, cannot be accepted. 26. The three injuries described as superficial scratches on the chest of Rajwinder Kaur were not found by the doctors to be the cause of her death. They were not even found to be the cause of congestion of the vital internal organs. In these circumstances, from the medical evidence, the death of Smt. Rajwinder Kaur cannot be said to be unnatural death in any manner. Therefore, by no stretch of reasoning, the death of Rajwinder Kaur can be taken as suicide and once it is found that the death of the victim is not suicidal, section 306 IPC would have no application. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 306 IPC cannot be sustained in this case. Consequently, accepting the appeal, I set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13.2.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and acquit the appellants of the charge. The bail/surety bonds of the appellants shall stand discharged. Criminal Revision Petition No. 664 of 2003 is, therefore, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------