JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. 1. The appellant-accused as well as complainant has preferred respective appeals assailing the impugned judgment dated 27.6.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 5/2007, whereby the appellant-accused Vinod Puri has been convicted for the offences under Section 302 and 304-B coupled with Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced as under:- Under Section 498-A IPC – Three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine, further to undergo for one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 304-B IPC – Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine, further to undergo for one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine, further to undergo for six month simple imprisonment. The co-accused mother of the appellant-accused Smt. Mahakori has been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302, 304-B coupled with Section 498-A of IPC, appeal relating to the appellant-accused Vinod Puri bears D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 619/2013 and another appeal filed by the complainant agitating acquittal of the co-accused Mahakori bears D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 374/2014. 2. The co-accused mother of the appellant-accused Smt. Mahakori has been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302, 304-B coupled with Section 498-A of IPC, appeal relating to the appellant-accused Vinod Puri bears D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 619/2013 and another appeal filed by the complainant agitating acquittal of the co-accused Mahakori bears D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 374/2014. 2. In nutshell, the factual aspect relating to the FIR Ex.P.1 reads as under:- ^^lsok eas ,l-,p-vks Fkkuk gehjokl ftyk pw: fo"k;% nksgjk gR;kdk.M dh jiV ntZ djus ckjs esaA Jhekuth] eSa jkes'ojnkl iq= Jh lqjteku dkse xksLokeh lduk MCY;w uŒ- 10 flokuh eMh ftyk Hkhokuh dk jgus okyk gaw eSus esjh nks yMdh;ka dfork o fo|k xkao <k.kh eksuh r0 jktx< esa fouksn o efu"k ds lax vkt ls yxHkx 4&5 lky igys 'kknh dh Fkh eSus 'kknh esa esjh gSlh;r ls T;knk iSlk yxk;k Fkk ysfdu mijksDr <k.kh eksuh esa yMdh dks rax djrs o ngst dh ekax djrsA dHkh eksVj lkbZdy dh ekax djrs ysfdu yMdh dks ;s ekjrs fiVrs Fks o lky lky rd ykrs ugha FksA vkt fnukad 23-1-07 dks fnu ds 12 cts Jh [kseiqjh o ,d yMdk muds lkFk vkSj Fkk us ges crk;k dh vkidh yMdh dfork o mlds NksVs yMds dk dRy fouksn ds ifjokj okyks us dj fn;k gSA geus eksds ij tkdj ns[kk rks dfork o mlds NksVs cPps dk 'ko tehu ij iMk gqvk Fkk 'ko Nr ij pkdjs esa Fkk o dfork dk gkFk iSj rst /kkj gfFk;kj ls o cPps dk xyk ?kksV dj ekj j[kk Fkk cPps dh thHk ckgj fudyh gqbZ Fkh tuko ls gekjh vtZ gS fd nks"kh;ku ds f[kykQ gR;k o ngst dk eqdnek ntZ fd;k tk;s nks"kh;ku esa fouksn iq= izHkqjke tks e`rd dk ifr gS o euh"k iq= izHkqjke o izHkqjke dh ?kjokyh] o pkj yMdh o muds ifr bl nksgjs gR;k dk.M "kM+;a= ds rgr fd;k gSA ,l-Mh- jkes'oj nkl iq= lqjtHkku xksLokeh MCY;w uaŒ 10 lhokuh eaMh HkhokuhA ih-,l- gehjokl ;g fjiksVZ vkt fnukad 23-1-07 dks le; 4-40 ih-,e- ij Jh jkes'oj nkl iq= Jh lqjtHkku tkfr xksLokeh mez 47 lky is'kk ljdkjh uksdjh fuoklh okMZ uaŒ 10 flokuh eaMh Hkhokuh us ekSdk ij is'k dhA etequ fjiksVZ ls tqeZ /kkjk 304&ch] 498&, vkbZ-ih-lh- dk ?kfVr gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA vr% gkykr mPpkf/kdkjh;ksa dks fuosnu fd;s tk jgs gSA vkbZUnk Fkkuk igqap dj vfHk;ksx iathc) gksxk vkse izdk'k ,l-,p-vks- gehjokl dSEi ?kVuk LFky ekstk <k.kh eksth^^ gejkg yk;k ftl ij ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- 12@07 /kkjk 304&ch] 498&, vkbZ-ih-lh- esa ntZ dj ewy fjiksVZ dk udy ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- vuqlU/kku gsrq Jheku lh-vks- lkgc jktx< dks izsf"kr dh tk jgh gSA fnukad 23-1-07 ,lMh@& ,l-,p-vks- ih-,l- gehjokl^^ And it is a case of double murder, in which appellant-accused Vinod Puri has allegedly killed his wife Smt. Kavita and his seven months old infant Aditya, whereas appellant-accused Vinodi Puri has taken a plea that deceased Kavita was audacious and under frenzy of mental disorder, she strangulated her infant and inflicted blade injuries on her own body as well as on the body of the baby Nitin and assaulted upon the appellant-accused with blade causing injuries to him as well and a defence under Section 97 coupled with Section 100 of I.P.C. has also been pleaded vide contentions of memorandum of appeal as mentioned in para g(ii). 3. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned judgment, story of the prosecution is totally false and twisted the story of suicide into alleged killing falsely, ignoring the fact that the accused-appellant was assaulted by his mentally depressed wife with blade and badly injured him. FIR of the prosecution is ante-date and there is no evidence in respect of demand of dowry soon before the crime and the couple was having two kids Aditya and Nitin and was living happily. Deceased and her sister were married in the family of the accused with two real brothers with full understanding in a very simple customary way, where dowry was not a consideration, neither it was demanded, evidence of the prosecution is nothing but a plethora of concocted falsehood, While referring the evidence of several witnesses, learned counsel has submitted that almost all important witnesses have made improvements in their evidence by contradicting the Parchabayan. The appellant-accused was badly injured by his deceased wife and after sustaining severe blade cuts, the appellant-accused became unconscious, who was later found in an unconscious state, so the story of the prosecution that the appellant-accused is guilty of killing his wife and small kid are false and are not trustworthy. Relying upon the verdicts R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Vishwesaraswami, AIR 2003 (1) SC 4548, Javed Masood & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 Cri.L.J. 2020, L/Nk. Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. 1995 Cri.L.J. 457, Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 Cri.L.J. 705, Tarsem vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 (1) SC 1454, Paulmeli & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2014 AIR SCW 3634, Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. 2014 AIR SCW 5695, Devinder @ Kala Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, 2012 AIR SCW 5731, Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 773, Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, 2013 Cri.L.J. 3140, Joydeb Patra & Ors. vs. State of W.B. AIR 2013 SC 2878 , Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2500 , learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish aspect of demand of dowry. Appellant-accused is innocent. vs. State of W.B. AIR 2013 SC 2878 , Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2500 , learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish aspect of demand of dowry. Appellant-accused is innocent. He tried his level best to protect his small son, but under frenzy of depression, deceased Kavita did not listen and badly injured his son with blade and attacked upon appellant-accused, who too was inflicted with serious blade injuries and subsequently became unconscious and Kavita choked herself, so there was no involvement of the appellant, neither that aspect could be contemplated against the appellant, because appellant-accused is innocent and learned trial Court has committed grave injustice in passing the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside and has further requested to acquit the appellant-accused after reversing the impugned judgment. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant Rameshwardass, while pressing the appeal preferred by him against the acquittal of co-accused Smt. Mahakori, has contended that there is enough incriminatory evidence against the co-accused mother-in-law of the deceased, but the learned trial court has committed error, while acquitting her, whereas she is liable to be convicted because her role was apparently there in committing the offence of double murder by killing her daughter-in-law and grand-son, so the appeal presented by the complainant be accepted and the respondent Mahakori be also convicted with same sentence. Learned public prosecutor representing the State has contended and has fortified the view expressed by the counsel of the complainant, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has said that the acquittal of respondent Smt. Mahakori is correct but the learned trial court has wrongly convicted respondent Vinod Puri without any positive evidence, deceased Kavita killed her child under mental disorder and even inflicted blade injuries upon Vinod Puri and throttled herself, so the impugned judgment, requires to be modified to the extent of acquitting respondent Vinod Puri and judgment relating to Smt. Mahakori needs to be affirmed being correct. 4. Perusal of the records discloses that two daughters of complainant Rameshwar Das namely Vidhya and Kavita were married on 30.1.2001 with Munesh and Vinod sons of Prabhu Ram Goswami. 4. Perusal of the records discloses that two daughters of complainant Rameshwar Das namely Vidhya and Kavita were married on 30.1.2001 with Munesh and Vinod sons of Prabhu Ram Goswami. It is worthy to observe that the evidence available on record reveals that Vidhya and her husband Munesh were also not enjoying amicable life so, Vidhya was subsequently divorced by Munesh and nothing has come on record that deceased Kavita and her sister Vidhya were having any congenital mental disorder. There is no prescription or any kind of treatment, which would have been giving to Vidhya or deceased Kavita soon after their marriage in November 2001 and even for years together Kavita was not treated for any such ailment, defence has only relied upon that prescription Ex.D.13 which relates to deceased Kavita of October 2006. Cumulative appreciation of the evidence discloses that the deceased Kavita developed depression after birth of her son and evidence led by the prosecution also establishes that perverse attitude of her husband and demand of persistent dowry and non-affectionate conjugal atmosphere, triggered transitory depressive discomfort for which she was treated in city hospital Hisar under the treatment of Dr. Sumati Choudhary as an O.P.D. patient and defence has produced this physician in evidence, who too has said that she was recovered of her ailment, there were no suicidal sign. Evidence led by the prosecution has got and leads towards a converse perception that due to unpleasant conjugal relations and indiscreet attitude of her husband her ailment had erupted after the birth of baby. 5. Perusal of evidence adduced by the prosecution suggests that both the daughters of PW 1 Rameshwar Das, Vidhya and Kavita were married with two sons of Prabhu Ram namely Munesh and Vinod Puri on 30.11.2001 at Dhani Mouzi. 5. Perusal of evidence adduced by the prosecution suggests that both the daughters of PW 1 Rameshwar Das, Vidhya and Kavita were married with two sons of Prabhu Ram namely Munesh and Vinod Puri on 30.11.2001 at Dhani Mouzi. Rameshwar Das has said that whenever his daughter Kavita came to her parental home, she made complaint of taunting and of being harassed because of deficient dowry and he has said that Prabhu Ram was called and was made to understand not to harass his daughters for dowry, then Prabhuram had assured that same kind of problem, would not emerge in future, he has also said that Vinod Puri severally left Kavita at his home after beating her and has said that after birth of first child of Kavita namely Aditya, he had been to the house of Kavita with largesses of ‘Chucchak’ (a kind of gift rendered to a married daughter and her in-laws on getting an issue born) at the time of birth of Aditya, then her husband Vinod became angry, feeling as gifts were insufficient and demanded motorcycle, then he said that he was not in a position to arrange motorcycle and said to feel satisfied with the gifts rendered. After that whenever Kavita came to his home, she complained that owing to demand of dowry, her in-laws used to harass and beat her and also threatened to kill her, he has further said that he along with Mahaveer went to there village Dhani Mauzi for Panchayati Negotiations and has said that it was made clear to them that if they continued to harass his siblings, then he would not permit to stay his daughters there in the house of in-laws, then Vinod and his family members assured them that such complaint will not come to them again, assuring so they asked to send his daughters, he has further said that for some days, their treatment was complacent but when Kavita was teemful of six months, she was left to his home by Vinodpuri, where she begot a son Nitin they informed her in-law over telephone, but her in-laws did not express any happiness, he repeatedly asked them to take Kavita and it was pressed upon them through relatives as well, only after that post nine months, Vinodpuri came to us on 9.1.2007 in the evening and they all persuaded him not to harass or beat their daughters. 6. PW-1 Rameshwar Das, father of the deceased women has narrated a significant utterance that while, on 10.1.2007 Kavita was bidding adieu, he gave Rs.20,000/- to Vinod for purchasing scooter but at the time of departure, this amount of Rs.20,000/- was returned by Vinod protesting that even scooter could not be purchased out of that meager amount of Rs.20,000/- and angrily he took Kavita along with. He has also said that Kavita was crying, when she talked to him on 19.1.2007 on telephone and said, “papaji fetch me from here else these people will kill me” and has said that on 23.1.2007, he had gone somewhere for urgent work, where he received a telephone of Rohtash that her daughter Kavita and grand son Nitin were assassinated by Vinod, so he rushed there, where he found both wrists of Kavita cut with sharp edged weapon and Chunni strangulating her by neck, Nitin was also lying dead there and he has further said that because of dowry demand Kavita’s husband Vinod, Munesh and mother-in-law Mahakori murdered them after conspiring, he has also said that Ex. P.1 is an application for FIR, on which FIR No. 12/2007 was registered and he has further accepted his signature on Exs.P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5, P.6, P.7, P.8, P.9 and P.10, in his cross-examination, he has said that Prabhu Ram was not involved, so he was not named in the FIR and has again repeated that Vinodpuri used to beat and harass Kavita and has said that on 10.1.2007, he had sent Kavita with Vinod and has denied the allegation that Kavita was under depression and has said that when we arrived there, then Vinod did not meet. He has also disclosed that a dowry case of Vidhya was there against Munesh and Munesh has also accepted that further divorce was adjudicated in that case. He has also disclosed that a dowry case of Vidhya was there against Munesh and Munesh has also accepted that further divorce was adjudicated in that case. PW-2 Rohitash Kumar, brother of Rameshwar and paternal-uncle of deceased Kavita has said that marriage of Kavita and Vidhya were solemnized on 30.11.2001 and dowry befitting to status was rendered, he has also said that this marriage relation was accomplished through Shri Mahaveer S/o Sheesh Ram and has further said that whenever Kavita came, she used to apprise us that her husband and members of her in-laws family used to demand motorcycle and perperate cruelty upon her so, they used to persuade Kavita by saying that they will give motorcycle, whenever capacitated and has also uttered an important thing that Prabhu Ram was requisitioned through marriage mediator Mahaveer and was persuaded upon, then on assurance that there will be no repetition, Kavita was permitted to go there. He has also said that when on the birth of Aditya his brother Rameshwar went there with “Chucchak” then, her in-laws became unpleasant because of alleged dearth of gift and has said that whenever Kavita visited us, she informed us that her in-laws were causing harassment and persistently demanded motorcycle. He has also said that while Kavita was having pregnancy of six months, she was left to us at Siwani, where daughter Aditya born, later we informed to Vinod’s family, who did not express any happiness. He has also said that his brother, middle man Mahaveer went to Dhani Mauzi with him and when Prabhu Lal and their family members were pressed upon there to call Kavita, then it was told to us that they will not repeat anything alike and subsequently sent Vinod to Shivani, we all persuaded and made Vinod understand not to harass their daughter for sake of dowry, he has further said that Vinod became prepared to take Kavita along with on 10.1.2007, then his brother Rameshwar gave Rs.20,000/- to Vinod for purchase of scooter, which were returned by Vinod, saying, that money was insufficient, even to buy an old scooter, so motorcycle could not be bought out of that money and almost similar kind of statements as made by his brother Rameshwar has been made by this witness. He has also confirmed his signatures on Exs.P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5, P.10A, P.11, P.6, P.7, P.8 and P.9 and further Exs.P.12, P.13, P.14 have been ratified by this witness as well. 7. The evidence of PW 8 Mahaveer is very crucial because he as well as his father are stated to be the marriage intermediary through whom Nuptial relations were settled and on emergence of discontents, this witness was summoned to settle down marital dispute arisen, because of demand of dowry and cruel treatment with brides. He has said that about 10 to 11 years back Rameshwar Lal asked for suitable grooms, because both his daughters had attained marriageable age, he has also said that he had suggested sons of Prabhu Lal, observing that both his sons were studying and family was congenial and acting upon his counselling Rameshwar Das married both of his daughters Kavita and Vidhya with Prabhuram’s sons. He has also narrated scene of occurrence and status of both the corpse lying dead over there and has also disclosed that settlement ‘panchayat’ was organised, in which Bhai Rameshwar had submitted before the “panchayat” that his daughters were being harassed in their marital home, he has also said that Rameshwar and brother-in-law of Rameshwar as well as he went to Dhani Mauzi for the same, where Prabhu Ram and his wife were persuaded and asked not to harass the brides and masterji (Prabhu Ram) had assured that nothing of that nature would happen again. He has also said that he is acquainted with accused Vinod Puri and his mother Mahakori, in cross-examination, he has also repeated the factum that he was instrumental in getting Nuptial of Kavita and Vidhya settled and has further said that his Tau was instrumental in settling the relations, nothing abnormal has emerged in cross-examination. PW-3 Anil Kumar is brother of deceased Kavita, who too has reiterated the same kind of evidence, which has been narrated by father of the deceased. PW-3 Anil Kumar is brother of deceased Kavita, who too has reiterated the same kind of evidence, which has been narrated by father of the deceased. He has also said that at the time of delivery of baby, Kavita was with them and at the insistence of his uncle and his father and pressure built upon by their relatives, Vinod Puri on 10.1.2007 took away his sister Kavita and at that time, he was given Rs.20,000/- for purchase of scooter, which were returned by saying that the money was of not worth, on 23.1.2007, he had been to school and in the evening his father apprised about the murder of Kavita and Nitin, in his cross-examination, he has reiterated that Vinod Puri was insisting upon the demand of motorcycle, he has denied allegation that Kavita was ailing of depression, he has also said that after litigation Vidhya was divorced. He has also said that Kavita was given beatings and he had witnessed beating scars on her and demand of motorcycle was made even in front of him. 8. PW-4 Kelapati, mother of deceased has said that they had given enough towards dowry but Mahakori, Munesh and Vinod were not pleasant with dowry and because of demand of dowry, her daughters were given beatings and were often ousted, they repeatedly called ‘panchayat’ to persuade them in order to deter beating, she has also said that her daughter Vidhya had given birth to a female baby five years back and three months later to her birth, Vidhya and Kavita were left by their in-laws to them. This witness has made a candid utterance that because of cruelty perperated upon “Vidhya” and beatings giving to her, she had developed tension and was got treated at Rohatak, she has also said that after taking away Nitin and Kavita, they were killed, in cross-examination, she has also said that at the time of birth of Aditya, dowry demand was made also and motorcycle was demanded and “Chucchak” was returned and at the time of birth of Nitin, they had given Rs.20,000/- which were returned by him. When Kavita came to us, she was not left there in happy condition, but was left to our home after dispute and after the birth of Nitin, ‘Panchayat’ was organized five to six times. When Kavita came to us, she was not left there in happy condition, but was left to our home after dispute and after the birth of Nitin, ‘Panchayat’ was organized five to six times. She has also said that Vidhya was subjected to cruelty, which is why, she had developed mental tension and was got treated from Rohatak. She has also said that after birth of Nitin, Kavita was taken by Vinod after nine months stay at her parental home and soon after she was killed there. She has also said that on hearing the unpleasant, husband went to Village Dhani Mauzi, in her cross-examination, she has also said that at the time of birth of Aditya, demand of dowry was raised and motorcycle was demanded, even “Chucchak” was returned. She has also pointed out that after Nitin’s birth, Rs.20,000/- were rendered, which were returned by Vinod. She has also said that Kavita was not taken away happily, but after dispute, she was taken by Vinod. She has also said that after Nitin’s birth, Panchayat had taken place for five to six times and Mahaveer Chanana, Mahaveer Basara, Satveer and Rohtash and her husband were present at the time of first panchayat. She has also said that after obtaining loan, marriages of Kavita and Vidhya were solemanized. She has also said that because of beatings with Vidhya, she developed sickness. She has also said that for harmonizing and settling the home of Vidhya, report pertaining to her beatings was avoided. She has denied, the allegation that any congenital or genetic mental ailment was there in their family with respect to mental disorder. She has also said that they could not gift motorcycle in marriage, so it was the reason of discontent, anything causing adversity to the testimony has not emerged from the cross-examination of this witness. PW-5 Suresh Kumar has also given similar kind of evidence regarding factual aspect of the matter and has added that Kavita and Vidhya were married on 30.11.2001 with Vinod and Munesh respectively and Jijaji had spent much than to his capacity. Two kids were born to Kavita. PW-5 Suresh Kumar has also given similar kind of evidence regarding factual aspect of the matter and has added that Kavita and Vidhya were married on 30.11.2001 with Vinod and Munesh respectively and Jijaji had spent much than to his capacity. Two kids were born to Kavita. Whenever he used to visit Sivani, her sister Kailashji and brother-inlaw Jijaji used to convey him that Kavita was being harassed by her in-laws because of dowry demand and they demanded motorcycle and his Jijaji and sister always replied that whenever they will be capable, the demand will be made. He has also said that ‘panchayats’ were organized, when “panchayat” people assured that hitherto girl would not be harassed, so she was permitted to go and after her departure, communication to her demise was received on 23.1.2007, so Jijaji had gone there with some relatives, in his cross-examination, he has also said that about 2 to 2½ lakhs were spent in marriage and some of the expenditure was born after taking loan and borrowings. He has also denied that Kavita was ailing of mental disorder. PW-6 Satveer maternal uncle of the deceased has said, almost similar kind of narrations. He has also said that on getting the information of Kavita’s demise, he had visited to Dhani Mauzi with Rameshwar, Rohatash together with four to five another individuals, the police was there, Kavita’s dead body and body of infant were lying there. Blood was scattered, observations of the dead body suggested that they were murdered and for post mortem, bodies were brought to Rajgarh, post mortem could not be conducted on that day and was performed on next day and the bodies were given to Rameshwar, which were taken to Siwani for last rituals. He has also said that discontent was there because of dowry demand and both the girls were being harassed, in his short cross, nothing adverse has emerged. PW 9 Bheem Singh has said that Kavita and Vidhya were married with Vinod and Munesh, almost for most of the time Vidhya was staying at Siwani and Kavita used to visit off and on. PW 9 Bheem Singh has said that Kavita and Vidhya were married with Vinod and Munesh, almost for most of the time Vidhya was staying at Siwani and Kavita used to visit off and on. On 21st January, 2007, we were informed about the murder of Kavita and her kid, so he had been there to Dhani Mauzi with Subhash, Chairman Hamid Aamshi, Rameshwar, Rohtash, Krishna and others, blood was scattered there, body of Kavita and Nitin were there having cuts on veins, he has also said that Kavita and her son were killed by Vinod Puri and his family because of dowry, he has further corroborated Exs.P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5, P.6, P.7, P.8, P.10 and P.11 and has admitted his signatures on these exhibits. PW-10 Krishna Kumar, a neighbour of Rameshwar Das has also narrated almost identical factual aspect and has said that before death, Kavita was there in her village for 8 to 9 months, Rohtash conveyed about the murder of Kavita, he has said that he had been to Dhani Mauzi with some persons, police was there, dead bodies of Kavita and Nitin were lying there on the floor, blood was there, a chunni was tied on the neck of Kavita and the veins of arms of Kavita and kid were cut. The bodies were carried to Rajgarh hospital, they had become late, which is why, the post mortems could be conducted in next morning. He has also said that Kavita and Nitin were assassinated by Vinod and Mahakori because of dowry, in cross-examination, he has also said that he was having good relations with Rameshwar, so Kavita and his sister, whenever visited to her parental home, used to meet him as well. 9. PW-11 Dr. He has also said that Kavita and Nitin were assassinated by Vinod and Mahakori because of dowry, in cross-examination, he has also said that he was having good relations with Rameshwar, so Kavita and his sister, whenever visited to her parental home, used to meet him as well. 9. PW-11 Dr. R.K. Saraf is a medical jurist conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased persons and injuries of accused Vinod Puri has observed in his examination which reads as under:- ^^eSa fnukad 23&1&07 dks lh ,p lh jktx< esa dk;Zjr Fkk ml fnu ih ,l gehjokl ds izfrosnu ij lqcg 9-30 ,-,e- ij eSus fouksn iq= izHkqjke mez 28 o"kZ tkfr xksLokeh fuoklh <k.kh ekSth dk eqvk;uk dj mlds 'kjhj ij fuEu pksVs ikbZ FkhA pksV la- 1 dVk gqvk ?kko Ms< bap bUVw 1@3 bap xq.kk peMh rd xgjk ckbZ vxz Hwktk ds mrjh ,d frgkbZ fgLls ij ihNs dh vksj] pksV la- 2 rhu xq.kk dVs gq;s ?kko Ms< bap bUVw 1@3 bap xq.kk peMh rd xgjs ckbZ vxz Hkqtk ij chp esa ihNs dh vksj] pksV la- 3 ikap lh/kh [kjksap Ms< bap yEch ckbZ vxz Hkqtk ds uhpys vk/ks fgLls ij vkxs dh vksj pksV la- 4 nks lh/kh [kjksaps ,d bap yEch ck;sa gkFk ij ihNs dh vksj] pksV la- 5 dVk gqvk ?kko nks bap bUVw 1@3 bap xq.kk peMh rd xgjk nkfguh vxz Hkqtk ds uhpys 1@2 fgLls ij vkxs dh vksj] pksV la- 6 dVk gqvk ?kko 1 bap xq.kk 1@3 bap xq.kk peMh rd xgjk nkfguh vxz Hkqtk ds uhpys 1@2 fgLls ij ihNs dh vksj] pksV la0 7 ikap lh/kh [kjksaps Ms< ls nks bap yEch ,d nwljs ds iSjYy nkfguh vxz Hkqtk ds chp esa lkeus dh vksj ;s Hkh pksVsa lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh Fkh pksV la0 1] 2] 5 ,oa 6 /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls dkfjr Fkh pksV la- 3] 4 ,oa 7 dqUnkyk ls dkfjr Fkh pksVksa dh vof/k pksVks dk eqvk;uk djus ls 12 ?kaVs dh Hkhrj dh FkhA pksV izfrosnu izn'kZ ih&19 eSus iqfyl rgjhj fnukad 23&1&07 dks lk;a dks 6 cts feyus ij izn'kZ ih&19 rS;kj dh FkhA izn'kZ ih&19 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj RkFkk lh ls Mh et:c dk igpku fpUg vafdr gSA fnukad 24&1&07 dks lh vks jktx< }kjk nh xbZ rgjhj ds vuqlkj rhu MkDVjksa ds esfMdy cksMZ us ftlesa esjs vykok MkDVj t; y[kVfd;k ,oa MkDVj mEesn flag Fks ds cksMZ us lqcg 9-30 ,-,e- ij e`rdk Jhefr dfork iRuh fouksn fxj mez 27 lky tkfr dk xkslkab fuoklh <k.kh eksth ds 'ko dk iksLVekVZe fd;k FkkA ftldh e`R;q dh vof/k iksLVekVZe djus ls 24 ls 48 ?kaVs dh iwoZ dh FkhA e`rdk ,sojst fcYV dh Fkh iksLVekVZe fofyfofMVh 'kjhj ds fiNys fgLls ij Fkh] jkbxj eksfVZl fMLvih;fjax Qst esa Fkh] vka[ks ,oa eqag can Fkk psgjs [kwu ls luk gqvk FkkA psgjk uhyk iMk gqvk FkkA datVkbok datsLVhM Fkh isV Qqyk gqvk Fkk nkfgus gkFk lw[ks gq;s tesa [wku ls Hkjk gqvk FkkA fuEu fyf[kr pksVsa FkhA pksV la- 1 dVk gqvk ?kko ikSus nks bap xq.kk 1@3 bap xq.kk peMh rd xgjk ckbZ dykb ij vkxs dh vksj] pksV la- 2 dVk gqvk ?kko <kbZ bap xq.kk 1@3 xq.kk peMh rd xgjk nkfguh dykb ij vkxs dh vksj] pksV la- 3 dVk gqvk ?kko nks bap xq.kk 1@3 bap xq.kk peMh rd xgjk nkfgus gkFk ij QLVZ eSVkdkiZy {ks= ij ihNs dh vksj] pksV la- 4 dVk gqvk ?kko Ms< bap xq.kk 1@4 bap xq.kk peMh rd xgjk nkfgus gkFk ij lsds.M esVkdkiZy {ks= ij ihNs dh vksj] pksV la- 5 rhu lh/kh [kjksaps Ms< bap yEch pksV la- 3 ,oa 4 ds iklA mijksDr pksVas e`R;q iwoZ dh Fkh rFkk budh vof/k e`R;q ls iwoZ dh rktk FkhA xnZu ij can dk fu'kku tks fd iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ds ykLV ist ij fy[kk gSA xnZu ij dkys jax dh pqUuh nks QksYMl esa xnZu ds pkjksa vksj Fkh xnZu ds nkfguh vksj vkxs dh rjQ xkaB ca/kh Fkh pqUuh dk gVkus ds ckn ,d bap pkSMk oSyfMQkbaM fyxspj ekdZ FkkA tks fd xnZu esa FkkbjkWbM dkVhZyst ds tLV uhps Fkk xnZu dks iwjh rjg ,oa gkfjtksUVyh ,ulfdZy FkkA xqzo dk csl lkSQV ,oa jsfM'k Fkk fyxspj ekdZ ds ,stst ds ikl ,czstu ,oa bdkbeksfll Fkk bl xzwao ds vk/kk bap mij ckbZ rjQ xnZu esa ,d vyx [kjksp vk/kk bap xq.kk vk/kk bap Fkh fyxspj ekdZ dks dks fMlsDV djus ij fyxspj ekdZ ds uhps lCD;wVsfu;l fV';w ,oa eLyl esa CyM dk ,DLVªk ost'ku Fkk gkbvksbM cksu QsDpj Fkh vkSj QsDpj lkbM ds ikl ds fV';w esa gSejst FkkA diky dh f>fYy;ka dUtLVhM Fkh cszu datLVhm Fkk o{kLFky dh f>Yyh ,oa daB ,oa nk: okfguh datLVhM Fkh nksuks QsQMs ekdZ ,sMyh datLVhM Fks ftudks dkVus ij xgjk nzo [kwu ckgj vk jgk Fkk g`n;koj.k gSYFkh Fkk fny dk ck;ka rjQ dk pSEcj [kkyh Fkk ,oa nkfguh rjQ MkdZ xgjk QywM CyM ld Hkjk Fkk cMh okfgdk datLVhM Fkh mnj dh fHkfr;ka Ik;wZn'kh eaqg xzluh] xzkl uyh NksVh ,oa cMh vkars gSYnh Fkh isV ,oa n m buds vax gSYnh Fks isV esa v/k ipk QwM eSfVfj;y Hkjk Fkk ,oa xSlst Fkh ftxj] Iyhgk] xqnsZ datLVhM Fksa ew=k'k; [kkyh FkkA ;wVªkbu dSosVh uksjey lkbt dh ,oa [kkyh Fkh ,DLVªuy tsusVsfy;k gSYnh FksA esfMdy cksMZ dh jk; esa e`rdk Jhefr dfork dh e`R;q ,lfQDfl;k ls gqbZ Fkh tks fd LVsªxwys'ku ls dkfjr Fkh tks e`R;q iwoZ dk Fkk ,oa izd`fr ds lkekU; Øe esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy;s Ik;kZIr FkkA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&20 gS ftl ij , ls ch LFkku ij esfMdy cksMZ dh jk; vafdr gS] lh ls Mh LFkku ij esjs gLrk{kj gSa] b ls ,Q LFkku ij MkDVj t; y[kVfd;k ,oa th ls ,p LFkku ij MkDVj mEesn falg ds gLrk{kj gS ftUgsa esa esjs lkFk dk;Z djus ds dkj.k buds gLrk{kj igpkurk gwa fyxspj ekdZ vkbZ ls ts ds LFkku ij vafdr gSA fnukad 24&1&07 dks mlh jkst 10-40 ,-,e- ij esfMdy cksMZ us e`rd fufru iq= fouksn fxj mez uks ekg tkfr xkslkab fuoklh <k.kh ekSth ds 'ko dk iksLVkekVZe fd;k Fkk ftldh e`R;q dh vof/k iksLVekVZe djus ls 24 ls 48 ?kaVs dh iwoZ dh FkhA e`rd ,sojstfYV dk Fkk iksLVekVZe fyfofMVh 'kjhj ij ihNs dh vksj dh Fkh jkbxj eksfVZ'k fMLvih;fjax Qst esa Fkh vka[ks can Fkh eaqg vk/kk [kqyk Fkk ftlds chp esa thHk fn[k jgh Fkh psgjk ,oa vksV lkbZuksTM Fks datVkbok daTLVhM Fkh isV Qqyk gqvk FkkA xnZu ij lkeus dh vksj FkkbjkbM dkfVZyst ds :V uhps ckbZ rjQ ,oa chp esa vczstu ,oa czwLV rhu bap bUVw ,d bap dk Fkk ftldk csl lksQV ,oa jsfM'k Fkk fll fMlsD'ku djus ij blds uhps ckbZ rjQ xnZu ij elLyl ,oa lcD;wVsfu;e fV';w esa CyM dk ,DLVªk osts'ku Fkk vk gkbMksbM cksu ÝsDpj Fkh ,oa ÝsDpjlkbM dk ds ikl dk fV';w bdkbeksTM FkkA diky dh f>fYy;ka datLVhM Fkh czsu datLVhM Fkk o{kLFky dh fHkfr;ka gSynh Fkh o{k LFky dh f>Yyh ,oa daB ,oa nk: okfguh datLVhM Fkh nksuksa QsQMs ekdZ,sMyh datLVhM FksA ftudks dkVus ij MkdZdyj QY;wM CyM vk jgk Fkk g`n;koj.k gSYnh Fkk fny ds ck;ka rjQ ds pSEcj [kkyh Fks nkfguh rjQ MkdZ jax dk [kwu ls Hkjk Fkk fcMh okfgdk datLVhM Fkh mnj dh fHkfr;ka i;wZn'kh ,oa eqg xzluh] NksVh cMh vkars gSYnh Fkh isV gSynh Fkk ,oa mlesa fcuk ipk gqvk fyDfoM eSVsfj;y Fkk ,oa xSlst Fkh ftxj Iyhgk xqnsZ datLVhM Fks eq=k'k; [kkyh Fkk tsuksbVyl gSYnh FksA esfMdy cksMZ dh jk; ds vuqlkj e`rd fufru dh e`R;q dk dkj.k ,lfQDfl;ka Fkk tks fd LVwys'ku ls dkfjr gqvk Fkk tks e`R;q iwoZ dk Fkk ,oa izd`fr ds lkekU; Øe esa e`R;q djus gsrq Ik;kZIr FkkA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih 21 gS ftl ij , ls ch LFkku ij esfMdy cksMZ dh jk; lh ls Mh LFkku ij esjs gLrk{kj gSa] b ls ,Q LFkku ij MkDVj t;y[kVfd;k ,oa th ls ,p LFkku ij MkDVj mEesn flag ds gLrk{kj gSa ftUgsa esa lkFk dke djus ds dkj.k muds gLrk{kj igpkurk gwaA** PW-14 Bhanwar Singh is press photographer who has ratified Exs.P.29 to Ex.P.37 photographs snapped by him of bodies and of the venue. 10. PW 13 Sumer Singh is a Constable through whom, the FSL has been deposited and he has said that he was posted at thana Hamirwas on 5.2.2007 and was given five packets by Constable Bharat Singh to deposit in F.S.L. after obtaining forwarding letter from S.P. office on 6.2.2007, same were deposited with F.S.L. and its receipt was given to Head Constable Bharat Singh, which is Ex.P.16 and its carbon copy is Ex.P.17. 11. PW-12 Dinesh Agarwal is a Circle Officer, who has conducted investigation of the case after obtaining Ex.P.3 FIR and he has confirmed all the documents relating to the investigation and has said that Exs.P.7, P.8, P.9. P.10, P.11, P.12, P.13, P.17 and P.16 were prepared, which have got his signatures and Ex.P.18A is replica of Malkhana register and he has further ratified Ex.P.18, P.19, P.20, P.21, P.22, P.23, P.24, P.26, P.26, P.27, P.28, P.29 to P.37, P.38 and P.39 and with respect to recovery and blade, he has explained that at the instance of accused, the blade used in causing injuries was recovered. Elucidating entire method and chronology of investigation, he has further said that on the basis of investigation, case under Section 302, 304-B, 498-A and 308 I.P.C. was found established against Vinod Puri and Mahakori, so the case was transmitted to S.P. for necessary charge sheet, in his cross-examination, he has explained that Chunni encircling neck of Kavita was having a round and knot was found tied over it. He has also said that when villagers pushed forwarded the door it opened and we saw Vinod lying on the cot and it is wrong that he was unconscious, he has also said that he did not find any blade on 26.1.2007 on the site of occurrence, when he visited and witnessed the spot for the first time. He has also denied a suggestion that deceased Kavita was involved in causing strangulation to her baby and in inflicting blade injuries to herself and to accused Vinod. It is pertinent to mention that I.O. Dinesh Kumar has categorically stated that on the basis of his investigation, a case was found to have been made out under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 309 against Vinod Puri and Mahakori. It is pertinent to mention that I.O. Dinesh Kumar has categorically stated that on the basis of his investigation, a case was found to have been made out under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 309 against Vinod Puri and Mahakori. PW-15 Om Prakash Godara is S.H.O., who has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons and he has said that he was the S.H.O., Hamirwas on 23.5.2007, when Ex.P.1 report was presented by Suraj which contains his signature and FIR No. 12/2007 was registered and the matter was sent to C.O. for investigation, its FIR is Ex.P.22. It is also said that photographs of the site were got done through Bhanwar Singh and the investigation was conducted by the then C.O. Dinesh Kumar and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by him under Orders of S.P. against Vinodi Puri and Smt. Mahakori under Section 302, 304-B, 498-A and 309 I.P.C. It is pertinent to observe that PW 15 Om Prakash Godara is not an investigator of the matter and same was conducted by C.O. Dinesh Agarwal. 12. Under explanation tendered by accused Vinod Puri, while examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has said that:- ^^dfork & dk fnekx Bhd ugha jgrk Fkk bykt pyrk Fkk chekjh mlds ihgj ls feyh FkhA og ckr ckr ij mxz gksdj Hk;adj gks tkrh FkhA ml jkst Hkh cPps ds jksus o pqi djkus dh ckr ij Hk;adj gksdj cksyus yxh vkSj cPps ij CySM pyk nhA eSa cpkus chp esa x;k rks esjs Hkh nksuksa gkFkksa ij CySM yxk nh cPps ds xys dks pqUuh ls nck;k vkSj Lo;a Hkh ejus yxh eSus pqUuh [khapdj vyx djuk pkgk rks mlus pqUuh dks [khapk eq>s /kDdk nsdj fxjk fn;k eSa csgks'k gks x;kA eSa funksZ"k gwWaA^^ Likewise, accused Mahakori has also said which reads as under:- ^^eSus dksbZ vijk/k ugha fd;k gSA eSa uhps okys dejs esa lks jgh FkhA vkB cts rd fouksn iqjh o mldh iRuh uhps ugha vk;s rks eSaus tkdj njoktk [kV[kVk;k njoktk vUnj ls cUn Fkk eSus esjs ifr dks txk;k vkSj fQj xkao okyks dks cqyk;k vkSj njokts dh fpVduh /kDdk nsdj [kksyh fouksn iqjh csgks'k iMk Fkk esjs iq= o/kq dfork o NksVk ikSrk uhfru ejs gq;s iMs FksA eq>s >wBk Qalk;k x;k gSA^^ 13. Defence has also produced three witnesses DW-1 Jaipal, DW 2 Dr. Sumati Choudhary and DW-3 Vinod Puri. Defence has also produced three witnesses DW-1 Jaipal, DW 2 Dr. Sumati Choudhary and DW-3 Vinod Puri. Vinod Puri while producing himself in defence has said that:- ^^vkfnR; ds tUe ds ckn dfork xqelqe jgus yxh^^ He has also said that ^^nwljh lUrku fufru dk tUe flokuh esa lu~ 2006 esa gqvk FkkA^^ He has also narrated that ^^dfork dh fMyhojh gksus okyh Fkh rFkk llqjky esa mldh lkj laHkky <ax ls ugha gks ldus dk dg dj dfork ds firk dfork dks tqykbZ 2006 esa flokuh ys x;s FksA^^ He has also said that ^^esjs dks firk th dks vDVwcj 2006 esa jkes'oj yky th us crk;k dh dfork dh fnekxh gkyr Bhd ugha jgrhA dfork ds lhVh vLirky esa ysMh MkDVj lqefr pkS/kjh ls pSdvi djok;k rFkk mls bykt fnyok;kA^^ He has also said that ^^eS dfork dks fufru gksus ds ckn <k.kh ekSth fnlEcj 2006 esa yk;k FkkA^^ He has further said that:- ^^jkf= ds yxHkx lok ukS cts dfork uhps xbZ rks fufru jksus yxk dfork dkQh nsj ugha vkbZ rks eSaus vkokt yxkbZ vkokt yxkus ds ckn Hkh dfork mij ugha vkbZ eSa dejs ls ckgj vk;k uhps >kad dj ns[kk dfork vkaxu esa vius gkFk viuk ,d twrk fy;s mls ejksM jgh Fkh dHkh Q'kZ ij iVd jgh FkhA esjs uhps vkdj mls mij tkus ds fy;s dgus ij og >Vds ls mBh mij xbZ eSa Hkh mlds lkFk&lkFk mij x;k eSus dgk dh cPpk jks jgk gS vkl iMkSl ds yksx lks jgs gSA dqN gks'k esa jg dj dke fd;k djksa ftl ij dfork xqLlk gks xbZ rFkk og dejs esa rst&rst ?kweus yxhA eSus dfork dk xqLlk 'kkar djus ds fy;s xksyh nhA fQj Hkh dfork us cPps dks pqi ugha djok;k eSa mls FkksMk MkaVk dfork us pkSckjs dk vUnj ls can dj fn;k rFkk cPps dks ysdj Q'kZ ij cSB xbZ rFkk u tkus dgka ls vius gkFk esa idMh CysM ysdj cPps dh dykbZ ij CysM ls okj dj cPps dh dykbZ dh u'ks dkV nh RkFkk mldk xyk nckus yxh rc eSus dfork dks ihNs ls idM dj cPps dks NqMkuk pkgk rks mlus cPps dks NksM dj esjs nksuks gkFkksa dh dykbZ;ksa ij CysM ls okj fd;k ftlls [kwu fudyus yxk fQj Hkh eSus mls idMuk pkgk rks og dkQh mxz gks xbZ dgus yxh dh lc [kRe gks x;k lHkh yksx eq>s ikxy dgrs Fks rqeus gh eq>s ikxy fd;k gSA ,slk dgrs gq;s vius gkFk dh dykbZ ij CysM dk okj fd;k ml le; dfork ds xys esa mldh pqUuh fyiVh gqbZ Fkh ftlds nksuksa fljks ij xkaB yxh tc eSus mls idMuk pkgk rks mldh pqUuh dk ,d fljk esjs gkFk esa vk x;kA tc eSus pqUuh ds ,d fljs dks [khapk rks mlus nwljk fljk idM fy;k rFkk mlus eq>s /kDdk fn;k rFkk ikl gh iMsa iyax ij eS fxj x;k rFkk csgks'k gks x;kA eq>s nwljs jkst vLirky esa gks'k vk;kA eSus dfork ls rFkk mlds ifjokj okyks ls ngst dh ekax dh rFkk uk gh eq>s esjs llqjky okyks us nl gtkj :i;s eksVjlkbdy ds fy;s fn;sA NqNd ij ihgj okys viuh yM+dh dks diMs&yrs o migkj HksaV nsrs gSA^^ In his cross-examination, he has observed that after Aditya’s birth, Kavita was being observed to be sluggishly perplexed but he did not take her to Doctor. He has also said that except Dr. Sumati Choudhary, none other Doctor was consulted. He has also said that except Dr. Sumati Choudhary, none other Doctor was consulted. He has also said that:- ^^dfork tc uhps vkbZ Fkh rFkk eSa cqykus uhps vk;k Fkk tc yxHkx lk<s ukS cts dk le; gqvk FkkA eSus dfork dks ml fnu ls igys dHkh ugha MkaVkA dfork tc uhps ls mij xbZ Fkh rc eSa eSus mls gkFk esa CysM ugha ns[kh FkhA eSa vius ?kj esa CysM j[krk gwaA eSa CysM pkSckjs esa vyekjh esa j[krk gwaA tc dfork rFkk esjs chp esa >Mi gqbZ Fkh rc dejs dk lkeku ugha fc[kjk FkkA gekjs dejs esa mRrj dh lkbM esa 'kh'kk Fkk rFkk mRrj esa FkksMh txg NksMdj pwYgk ,oa flys.Mj j[kk FkkA nf{k.k dh lkbM vyekjh esa flQZ fufru ds diMs iMs FksA gekjs ifr iRuh ds diMs uhps ds dejs esa iMs jgrs Fks uhps gekjs dCtk esa ,d dejk vkSj gSA vkSj lkjk lkeku Hkh uhps gh jgrk FkkA mij okys dejs esa ?kVuk ds le; ,d iayx Fkk ,d cSM Fkk tks flaxy FkkA mij VkaM ij fØdsV ds iSM oxSjg Fks] dqN fdrkcs FkhA pkSckjs esa [kkus ds crZuksa Fkkyh] ,d nks dVksjh] pEep Fks] ,d ijkr vkVk xwanus dh FkhA esjs ikao esa lkr uEcj dk twrk vkrk gSA eq>s gkLihVy esa gks'k vk;k FkkA tc eq>s gkLihVy esa nwljs fnu fnu ds X;kgj&ckjg cts gks'k vk;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd dfork rFkk fo|k ds firk ljdkjh ukSdjh esa tks okVj oDlZ foHkkx esa Fks tks fdl iksLV ij Fks eq>s irk ughaA MkDVj us iksLVekVZe ?kVuk ds fdrus le; ckn fd;k eq>s irk ughaA eq>s vLirky ls fnukad 24&1&07 dks NwVVh feyh FkhA** He has also said that Kavita was not accustomed to keep her Chunni knotted and in reply to a Court query Vinod Puri has answered, which reads as under:- ^^geus fo|k dk Hkh bykt djok;k FkkA tks MkDVj Mh-vkj- iwjh jksgrd ls bykt djok;k FkkA chp esa chdkusj ds ,d MkDVj ls bykt djok;k FkkA MkDVj Mh-vkj- iwjh euksjksx fo”ks’kK Fkk rFkk chdkusj dk MkDVj Hkh euksjksx fo”ks’kK FkkA fo|k ds bykt dh ifpZ;k eSus i=koyh esa is'k ugha dhA esjs ifjokj okys Hkh fo|k dk bykt djokrs FksA eS fo|k ds fy;s ,d nks ckj jksgrd nokbZ ysus x;k FkkA geus MkDVj lqefr pkS/kjh dks mipkj ifpZ;k fn[kkbZ Fkh dfork dh txg geus fo|k dks MkDVj lqefr pkS/kjh dks ugha fn[kk;k FkkA fo|k ls geus dHkh dksbZ ngst ugha ekaxk rFkk uk gh dfork ls dksbZ ngst ekaxkA^^ 14. Another witness which has been produced in defence is DW-2 Dr. Sumati Choudhary is a Doctor, who has given treatment to Kavita vide Exs.D.13 and D.14. Perusal of these prescriptions denotes that patient Kavita was examined on 31.10.2006 and further on 7.11.2006, 14.11.2006, 29.11.2006, 20.12.2006 and 9.1.2007 and Dr. Sumati has said that she had treated Kavita and Exs.D.13 and D.14 are her prescriptions. She has also said that ailment of Kavita might have been erupted after delivery and could be post portum and she has said that patient was treated as outdoor patient and she was ailing of depression. It is mentioned on Ex.D.14 on 9.1.2007 “reports with husband, is doing well except for sadness, when she is alone” and in respect of this noting, Dr. Sumati Choudhary has said that at the time of examination on 9.1.2007, and her statement reads as under:- ^^09&1&07 dks mls dsoy vo'kkn Fkk tks og rc eglwl djrh Fkh tc og vdsyh FkhA vkf[kj esa ejht tc mipkj ysdj xbZ rc mlds izd`fr ds vuqlkj mlesa vkRegR;k djus okys fopkj ugha FksA tks eSus izn'kZ Mh&14 esa ugha fy[kkA** And has further said that reasoning of patient Kavita became alright after treatment and has also said that on 7.1.2006 deceased had informed that she does not want to die and has also said that deceased was not suffering from specified psychosis but was ailing of non-specified psychosis. She has also said that Kavita was not ailing with genetic mental disorder. 15. She has also said that Kavita was not ailing with genetic mental disorder. 15. DW-1 Jaipal has said that he participated in marriage of Kavita and Vinod, 60 to 70 persons were present at the time of marriage, he has also said that Kavita became aghast and non-vigilant after two to three months of her delivery and has 31 further said that:- ^^?kVuk ds jkst lqcg 7%30 cts izHkqjke us vkdj esjs dks dgk fd fouksn dks eSus vkokt nh rks vUnj ls dksbZ vkokt ugha vk jgh gS vkSj u gh xsV [kksy jgk gSA fQj eSus Hkh mij tkdj vkokt nh rks vUnj ls dksbZ gjdr ugha gqbZA rc xkao ds 5&7 vkneh cqykdj yk;k ftues izrki] egkohj] [ksekjke] }kjdkizlkn] /keZiky vkfn 'kkfey FksA fQj ge lHkh us izHkqjke ds mij okys dejs ds xsV ds /kDds fn;s ftlls vUnj okyk dqaVk eqM x;k o xsV [kqy x;kA dejs esa ge vUnj x;s rc uhps Q'kZ ij dfork] NksVk cPpk iMs gq, Fks [kwu fc[kjk gqvk Fkk nkfgus gkFk dh rjQ CysM iMh gqbZ FkhA fQj geus csM ij lks;s gq, fouksn dh rjQ ns[kk rks og csgks'k Fkk [kwu ls fcLrj Hkjk gqvk FkkA fouksn ds nksuks gkFkksa ls [kwu fudy jgk FkkA mDr fLFkfr ns[kdj eSa o izrki xkMh ysdj gehjokl Fkkus x;sA Fkkusnkj th dks mDr gdhdr crkbZ rc Fkkusnkj th 5&7 feuV esa gh viuh xkMh ysdj gekjs lkFk jokuk gks x;sA** He has also said that Kavita visited to her in-laws’ home after four to five months of second baby’s birth and Prabhuram had apprised him regarding treatment of Kavita. He has said that it is wrong that father of Kavita would have ever visited him with “Panchayat” and dispute never arisen. He has said that it is wrong that father of Kavita would have ever visited him with “Panchayat” and dispute never arisen. He has also said that:- ^^?kVuk ds tc izHkqjke eq>s cqykdj ysdj x;k rc igys ls ogka dksbZ ugha FkkA njoktk [kksydj dejs esa eSa] izrki] lqjs'k] galjkt] egkohj o cgqr vkneh x;s FksA dejs ds Q'kZ ij yxk gqvk [kwu esjs ikao esa ugha yxk FkkA dfork dk eqag mrj dh rjQ fQj dgk mrj dh rjQ ikao Fkk flj nf{k.k dh rjQ Fkk fufru dk Hkh blh izdkj dk FkkA CysM dfork ds gkFk esa ugha Fkh cfYd nkfgus gkFk ds ikl [kwu esa iMh FkhA uhfru dh vka[k [kqyh Fkh ;k cUn Fkh ugha crk ldrkA dfork dh vka[k [kqyh Fkh ;k cUn Fkh /;ku ugha gS eSus bl vksj /;ku ugha fn;k FkkA** He has also uttered a very important thing that he has heard about the ailment of Kavita from Prabhulal and he does not know whether Kavita was having any mental sickness before marriage or not. 16. Ex.P.2 Fard relating to the position of dead body of Kavita reads: ^^xys esa dkys jax dh js'keh pqUuh ls QUnk yxk;k gqok o xkaBs yxh gS^^ Ex.P.4 Panchayatnama does also have a recital ^^rks lHkh ipkau us jk; e'kohjk dj e`rdk dfork dh e`R;q xyk ?kksVus o gkFkks dh u'ks dkVus ls cgs [kqu ds dkj.k e`R;q gksuk crk;kA^^ and vide Ex.P.5 Panchayatnama of deceased baby Nitin the recital says that ^^e`rd fufru dh e`R;q ne ?kqVus o nksuks gkFkks dh u'ks dkVus ls [kqu cgus ds dkj.k gksuk crk;kA^^ 17. Ex.P.6, site map, which is drawn on 23/1/2007 does not disclose, presence of any blade over there but the same is recovered after the arrest and on the information and at the instance of accused Vinod Puri vide Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.25 and per vide Ex.P.27 on 30/1/2007, IO PW.12 has said that on the information of Vinod Puri blood stained blade was recovered vide Ex.P.27, which bears signatures of witnesses as well as I to J is his signatures. FSL Ex.P.42 discloses that Jamfar, Salwar, Chunni, Bra, Sweater and Underwear from A, Sweater and Baniyan from B, blood stained floor pieces from C, blood stained blade from F, have been found with human blood and blade as well as Jamfar, bra and sweater of deceased have been found stained with “B” group of blood. 18. Ex.P.21 postmortem report of baby Nitin discloses that the cause of death of Nitin is opined to be asphyxia resulted from strangulation and Dr. R.K. Saraf PW.11 has said that body of the Nitin was not having any other injury except injury on the neck and has also said that neck of Kavita was throttled by Chhuni, which is referred in Ex.P.21. He has also said that except the injury of neck, the other five injuries found on the body of Kavita were not sufficient to cause her death and so far as injuries found on the body of accused Vinod are concerned they were simple vide Ex.P.19 and Doctor R.K. Saraf has also said that he had examined Vinod on 23/1/2007 and all the injuries which were found on his body were simple and injury Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 were sharp and injury Nos.3, 4 and 7 were caused by blunt object and has said in his cross examination that I cannot say that whether Vinod Puri was sleeping at the time of incident or not and Ex.P.19 was prepared on 23/1/2007 at 9:30 a.m. On the basis of the afore-discussed evidence, it is apparent that family of Vinod Puri was joint and his all family members were living together, this aspect has been averred by accused Vinod Puri in his defence evidence by saying that he and his wife Kavita and Aditya were living with his parents and Vinod Puri was residing at upstairs Choubara portion, whereas his brother Munesh and his parents were living in the lower portion. Ex.D4 description relating to spot-map delineates that the said Choubara is a room situated upstairs, which is also shown in snaps and could be perceived by observing the photographs. Accused Vinod Puri has explained fateful in his defence evidence as DW.3 and has said that his mother was sleeping in a downstairs room and father was there in Baithak. Ex.D4 description relating to spot-map delineates that the said Choubara is a room situated upstairs, which is also shown in snaps and could be perceived by observing the photographs. Accused Vinod Puri has explained fateful in his defence evidence as DW.3 and has said that his mother was sleeping in a downstairs room and father was there in Baithak. Aditya was sleeping with his mother Mahakori and the room in which Aditya was sleeping was situated ten to fifteen rungs downstairs about twenty steps ahead and has said that Kavita had come downstairs at about half past nine p.m. and when Kavita went upstairs “blade” was not observed in her hand, he has also said that when Kavita went downstairs and Nitin started crying, then he went downstairs after peeping from upper side and followed Kavita to upstairs, he has also said that to control her anger, he gave her a pill and scolded her, she shut the door from inside and after clutching baby, sat down on the floor and nicked her wrist veins with blade, he tried to get baby released after gripping Kavita from back, then she left Nitin and assaulted upon him on wrist of his arms with blade, which resulted injuries and blood started oozing.... 19. It is strange that no such blade injuries or cut injuries have been found on the body of the deceased Nitin. Vinod has accepted that he had given a “pill” to control anger of his wife, which indicates that the things were not out of control, only then “pill” was accepted by Kavita and it could be given to her. Dr. Sumati Choudhary has opined that Kavita was normally well, except feeling loneliness, in such conditions, a lady, who is accepting tablet from her husband, cannot be in a position to overpower her husband and could succeed in strangulating his small baby and herself altogether after inflicting injuries to her husband. Doctor examining, accused Vinod Puri has explicitly said that the injuries found on the body of accused Vinod Puri, were simple. So, except simple injuries on his non-vital parts of arms, no other injury of such a nature was there on his body, which could lead stupor or unconsciousness to him. Doctor examining, accused Vinod Puri has explicitly said that the injuries found on the body of accused Vinod Puri, were simple. So, except simple injuries on his non-vital parts of arms, no other injury of such a nature was there on his body, which could lead stupor or unconsciousness to him. So, upon a thrust, story of his (Vinod Puri’s) being unconscious for about twelve hours i.e. right from about nine p.m. of previous night to next day morning, is not plausible and acceptable at all. It is also suspicious as to why the downstairs living parents could not hear the cries of scuffle, it becomes more doubtful, when deceased Kavita was allegedly gone downstairs, acting awkwardly and Vinod Puri asking her to look after her crying kid upstairs and then both going upstairs, even without notice of their parents. Parents of normal prudence always remain vigilant to the prevailing indoor circumstances and would attend crying babies with promptness and would always come forward to quell the probable couple dispute but nothing of this kind has happened, which makes the entire defence story to be more untrustworthy. While tendering explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Vinod Puri has also said that in protest to calm down crying baby, she became furious and attacked kid with blade, had it been so, the child ought to have sustained injuries of sharp and cutting nature, which are surprisingly absent on the body of the baby and alleged uncontrolled furious and noisy speech has also not been heard by father and mother of the accused. It is also unbelievable that three blunt simple injuries have also been found on body of Vinodpuri, but how those blunt injuries were sustained has also not been explained, which makes the defence theory more shrouded with clouds and hints to be rather mysterious and a tale of concocted fable. The factual aspect discloses that the FIR belongs to 23.1.2007, day on which the crime was detected, so nothing suggestive, it being ante-time comes out and same is not established. 20. The factual aspect discloses that the FIR belongs to 23.1.2007, day on which the crime was detected, so nothing suggestive, it being ante-time comes out and same is not established. 20. Entire story as explained by evidence demonstrates that Vinodpuri was not having congenial and harmonious relations with his wife Kavita because most of the time, she was staying with her parents at Siwani, even during pregnancy, she was there at her parental house and after birth of Nitin, she was not taken to her in-laws home, even the tidings of birth of Nitin was not relished. Kavita's in-laws were unpleasant with quantum of dowry rendered, even Chucchak, the gifts given at the time of birth of Aditya were not happily accepted and her in-laws were bit unpleasant. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that Kavita had informed her parents that she was being harassed and cruelty was being perperated upon her and a persistent demand of motorcycle was also there. All the family members of deceased “Kavita” have categorically and repeatedly disclosed such evidence. The prosecution evidence also divulges that Rs.20,000/-were somehow arranged and rendered for purchase of scooter to Vinod Puri but that amount was angrily returned by saying that the same was not capable to buy a motorcycle and such evidence has also been repeatedly narrated by all family members of the deceased. Scrutiny of evidence also suggests that Kavita was not ailing by specified mental disorder, the kind of depression, which was developed was postpartum to birth of baby and the same was not intense. Doctor Sumati Choudhary has also said that on 9/1/2007, she was feeling loneliness only and there were no suicidal notions. 21. Vinodpuri has himself accepted that the kind of mental problem suffered by Kavita was an eruption after the birth of baby. He has also said that when he tried to catch her, the end margin of her “Chunni” came in his hand and when he pulled that end of her “Chunni”, she caught hold of other end of it and further pushed him. He has also accepted that when she assaulted him, “Chunni” was encircled on her neck, and if it was so, then a person caring and loving his wife will never normally pull the end of “Chunni” when it is found encircled on the neck of his spouse with knot. He has also accepted that when she assaulted him, “Chunni” was encircled on her neck, and if it was so, then a person caring and loving his wife will never normally pull the end of “Chunni” when it is found encircled on the neck of his spouse with knot. The act of pulling the end of “Chunni” is itself culpable in nature. Vinodpuri has also said that apart from Sitkani (latch), the door was having Kunda and iron “saankal” but the said iron saankal was not bolted from inside and sitkani is stated to be latched by Kavita, which was unlatched, while pushed from outside, this is also not probable because a latch bolted from inside will lay broken and door may not be unlatched from outside push. 22. It has delineated by the evidence that ‘Vidhya’ as well as ‘Kavita’ both were harassed by their in-laws. Vidhya was divorced and Kavita was harassed. Middleman Mahaveer instrumental in getting the marital relation settled has also made specific utterances that both the brides were regularly harassed and their stay was unpleasant in their in-laws home, so number of ‘Panchayats’ were organized and sat to resolve the dispute, where Prabhuram and his son Vinodpuri assured that the parental family of brides, will not hear anything of like nature in future. Unnatural death of deceased ‘Kavita’ has taken place in the night of 22 and 23/1/2007 and she was married on 13/11/2001, which is indicative enough that Kavita died an unnatural death within a period of seven years of her marriage under persistent dowry demands. 23. Explanation tendered by her husband under Section 313 CrPC as well as, while producing himself as a defence witness as DW.3 is not plausible at all, so the rebuttal available under Sections 113-B and 106 of Evidence Act does also appear not to have been discharged. A stout and young person like Vinod Puri can never go to stupor or unconsciousness by simple injuries on non-vital parts of arms for over night of twelve hours and such a defence is nothing but a flimsy drama. A stout and young person like Vinod Puri can never go to stupor or unconsciousness by simple injuries on non-vital parts of arms for over night of twelve hours and such a defence is nothing but a flimsy drama. There is a positive evidence that ‘Kavita’ was constantly under pangs of unpleasant atmosphere and she was repeatedly harassed and was under threat of dowry, her in-laws were not complacent with dowry, her husband was also repeatedly and continuously demanding a motorcycle, when an amount of Rs.20,000/- was rendered to him, he declined to accept and returned it with a protest that by such a meager amount, even scooter was not capable to have been bought. Gifts given at the time of birth of baby were also not relished, so the entire scenario suggests that there was a constant and continuous demand of dowry, bride Kavita was not genetically sick and because of discontent and non-congenial in-laws atmosphere and continue dowry demands with beating and harassments, a depressive phase was experienced and she had almost recovered from the depression, while examined by the doctor on 9/1/2007. It has also come in the evidence that Kavita was not complacent and bit unpleasant when her elder son Aditya was regularly sleeping with her grand mother downstairs, so she was concerned and asked her husband for the same and this aspect has been disclosed by Vinodpuri himself by saying that Kavita used to say to him that Aditya was staying with his grand-mother for most of the time and for trite time was staying with his mother Kavita, so such a lady, who was conscious and concerned on her son’s stay with his grand-mother could be cruel and so can never be able to kill her own baby by strangulation, after injuring. 24. 24. Provisions of Section 304-B and its related presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act defines as under:- Section 304-B in The Indian Penal Code 304-B. Dowry death:— (1) 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 for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] Section 113B in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 113B. Presumption as to dowry death.— 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. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860). In catena of judgments Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the provisions of dowry death and presumption thereto and in Durgaprasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 (7) SRJ 306, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 304-B, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage, it has also to be 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 for dowry in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2010 (10) SRJ 68. State of Haryana, 2010 (10) SRJ 68. It has been observed that harassment for non-payment of dowry-there was specific demand of Rs.5000/- twenty days prior to death-Dowry is not restricted to agreement or demand for payment of dowry before and at the time of marriage but even include subsequent demands-Argument that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in registering the FIR is without any substance-Incident occurred at 4 P.M. on 16.05.1988 whereafter the family of the deceased was informed-It is a normal conduct of a normal person that the entire concentration would be upon looking after and saving the deceased rather than to run up to the police or other persons instantaneously and in another case, while discussing dowry death in Rajbir @ Raju and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, 2011 (2) SRJ 505 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed serious view in the matters of crimes against women should be taken and harsh punishment should be awarded and in Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (3) SRJ 143, the Apex Court has held pertaining to circumstantial evidence-strangulation-death within 1½ years of marriage-Evidence of parents that appellant's continuous harassing and beating the deceased in connection with demand of dowry-Victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives-Ten ante mortem bodily injuries, which were found on her body at the time of her death-If death is unnatural, either homicidal or suicidal, it would be death, which can be said to have taken place in unnatural circumstances and the provisions of Section 304-B would be applicable, so conviction under Section 302 set aside and was confirmed under Section 304-B. 25. Interpreting concept of “soon before her death” Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Udai Chakraborty & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 Criminal LJ 3862 that Expression 'soon before her death'-Legislature has not specified any time which would be the period prior to death-Concept of reasonable time would be applicable and in one another precedent Apex Court, while deciding Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan with State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 Criminal LJ 3862 that Expression 'soon before her death'-Legislature has not specified any time which would be the period prior to death-Concept of reasonable time would be applicable and in one another precedent Apex Court, while deciding Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan with State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 3391 has observed that statements by mother and brother of deceased that deceased was taunted by husband and in-laws for not bringing dowry-Made month prior to incident-Relates to cause of her death-Is admissible in evidence-Harassment for dowry soon before incident thus stands proved-Presumption of dowry death therefore arises-No evidence led to rebut presumption-Accused husband liable to be convicted and Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR 2000 SC 2324 Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., wherein in head note 'D' definition of "soon before death" has been interpreted and it has been held-continuous harassment connected with demand of dowry shown to be in existence till date when deceased reported to have met parents two days before her death-No intervening circumstance showing settlement regarding demand of dowry brought on record Existence of harassment would be deemed to be "soon before her death"-Accused liable to be convicted and in head note 'F' definition of "otherwise than under normal circumstances"-Would mean the death not in usual course but apparently under suspicious circumstances, if not caused by burn or bodily injury-Death of wife by suicide occurring within seven years of marriage-cannot be stated to have occurred in normal circumstance. 26. In Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1204, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry and has upheld the conviction accordingly. 27. 26. In Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1204, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry and has upheld the conviction accordingly. 27. Accused-appellant has committed double murder of his wife and of his little baby, blade by which the injuries were inflicted has also been recovered at the instance of the accused vide Ex.P.27, so there appears no error or reason to interfere with the findings of learned trial Court, as such, it is candid that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against Vinodpuri beyond the confines of reasonable doubt, hence learned trial Court has unerringly passed the impugned judgment, defence has relied on several authorities dwelt above, but because of distinct facts and circumstances of the case in hand, those are not of support to accused-appellant. 28. Constant, and continuous demand of dowry was there, when Kavita was brought by Vinod from her parental home, in order to pacify him and to satisfy his demand, twenty thousand were paid to him to meet his demand, to some extent, within confines of paying capacity on 9/1/2007, which were taken and further returned by accused Vinodpuri, indignantly, with a say that amount was meager and was not capable of buying a motorbike besides, even on 19/1/2007 deceased Kavita spoke to her father and requested him to fetch her back, apprehending her elimination, which has specifically been narrated by Rameshwar Das in his evidence and subsequently on 22/1/2007, she was eliminated alongwith her little baby by accused Vinodpuri in a formidable manner. 29. As such, we are of the view that the appeal is bereft of any substance. 30. Complainant Rameshwar Das has also filed a separate appeal No. 374/2014 seeking conviction of Mahakori, mother-in-law of the deceased, but totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and discussed above, there appears no involvement of Mahakori in committing the crime, since she was sleeping downstairs with another kid of the deceased. 31. So, we feel that the appeal filed by the complainant Rameshwar Das does also not have got any force, therefore, findings to this effect for her acquittal, need not warrant interference. 32. 31. So, we feel that the appeal filed by the complainant Rameshwar Das does also not have got any force, therefore, findings to this effect for her acquittal, need not warrant interference. 32. In view of the above, appeal filed by the accused appellant bearing No. 619/2013 and another appeal filed by the complainant Rameshwar Das against acquittal of Mahakori lacks merit and so, both are hereby dismissed.