Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1503 (RAJ)

Ameer Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-15

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants herein have been tried, convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 18/2008:- Appellant Offence u/s. Sentence Fine In default Ameer Chand 304B I.P.C. Life imprisonment Rs. 5000/- One year S.I. Smt. Malkeet Kaur 304B I.P.C. Life imprisonment Rs. 5000/- One year S.I. 2. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentences awarded to them, they have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted herein-below. 4. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur daughter of Tarachand (the complainant herein) was married to the appellant Ameerchand about 4 years prior to her unfortunate death in the matrimonial home. It is alleged that the matrimonial relatives i.e. the husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law started harassing and humiliating Smt. Gurmeet Kaur on account of demand of dowry soon after her marriage. Not only was she maltreated and beaten but many a times, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. The complainant convened numerous community panchayats so as to ensure that his daughters matrimonial life could be saved. He also used to give one item or the other to the accused but their greed was not satiated and they continued to harass and humiliate Smt. Gurmeet Kaur on account of demand of dowry. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur was carrying a child of 8 months in her womb and thus, on her request, the complainant had sent his younger daughter Sushri Malki aged 9 to 10 years, to live with Smt. Gurmeet Kaur so that she could help her out before and after her delivery. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur passed away on 11.6.2002. The complainant claims that he and his wife had gone to meet their other daughter Daljeet Kaur at the village 78 NP on 11.6.2002. The village 77 NP where Smt. Gurmeet Kaur used to reside with her husband, was at a distance of 1 km. and thus, the complainant and his wife, went there at about 10-11 O’clock in the morning to meet Smt. Gurmeet Kaur. They were shocked to find out that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur had died and her body had been cremated. They went to the house of the accused and inquired as to the reasons of Smt. Gurmeet Kaurs death. However, nobody gave them a proper reply. They were shocked to find out that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur had died and her body had been cremated. They went to the house of the accused and inquired as to the reasons of Smt. Gurmeet Kaurs death. However, nobody gave them a proper reply. One Sheodan Singh, Director was also sitting there, who told the complainant that discussion in this regard would be possible later on. With heavy heart, the complainant and his wife took their younger daughter Malki with them and returned to their home. When an inquiry was made from Malki, she divulged that on the previous night at about 11 O’clock, she was sleeping with Smt. Gurmeet Kaur when her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law came and started assaulting Smt. Gurmeet who prodded Malki to wake up. The accused caught hold of Malki and gagged her mouth. She was carried to another room and was tied up on a cot. The accused continued to assault Smt. Gurmeet Kaur brutally who was crying out in pain. Malki could not go to help her because she had been tied up. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur was beaten to death. The accused started making preparations for Smt. Gurmeet Kaurs cremation in the early morning. Some ladies bathed the dead body which was then taken away to be cremated. The complainant claims that on this disclosure being made by Sushri Malki, he and his wife started bearing a deep suspicion in their minds that the accused had killed Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and the child in her womb. The accused were allegedly demanding a gold chain and a colour television since long and they had threatened that if these articles were not given, Smt. Gurmeet Kaur would be turned out of her matrimonial home. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur had tried to pacify the accused saying that her father did not have the means to meet their demands. However, the accused did not relent and the deceased was allegedly kept hungry for two days and finally, she was killed. The complainant returned to the village 77 NP on 12.6.2002 and met Sheodan Singh and others. All of them agreed that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur had been killed by the accused as their greed for dowry was not satisfied. However, the accused did not relent and the deceased was allegedly kept hungry for two days and finally, she was killed. The complainant returned to the village 77 NP on 12.6.2002 and met Sheodan Singh and others. All of them agreed that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur had been killed by the accused as their greed for dowry was not satisfied. The persons present in the funeral of Gurmeet admitted that they had seen blood effusing from her nostrils and ears and numerous marks of injury were present on her entire body. The women who bathed the body, verified this fact. A panchayat was convened. The complainant claimed that he gave an application to the Panchayat alleging Smt. Gurmeet Kaur have been killed and that the accused and the members present in the Panchayat attested this document and a next date was assigned for deciding the future course of action. However, the complainant was not satisfied with the Panchayats decision because only a monetary fine was proposed and thus, he requested the Panchayat that a case should be registered against the accused. He was told that Police had come to the village and probably, they would take care of this issue. The complainant accompanied with Sheodan Singh, Charan Singh, Sukhinchand etc. went to the Police Station to make an enquiry and found that no case had been registered in relation to the death of Smt. Gurmeet. The complainant requested the Police Officers to register a case. He was assured that the requisite action would be taken. No concrete conclusion was forthcoming whereupon, the complainant claims to have forwarded a written complaint to the S.P. Sriganganagar by post but, he did not receive any response on which, he approached the S.P. in person on 26.6.2002 and submitted an application to him. The S.P. Sriganganagar forwarded the same to the Police Officer, Raisinghnagar vide outward No. 1689 but inspite thereof, neither the case was registered nor was any investigation contemplated. The complainant met the Police Officer conducting the inquiry who washed his hands off the matter saying that the body had not been subjected to post mortem and thus, no proof was available against the accused. The complainant allegedly submitted fresh applications dated 4.7.2002 and 16.7.2002 to the S.P. Sriganganagar but no action was taken. The complainant met the Police Officer conducting the inquiry who washed his hands off the matter saying that the body had not been subjected to post mortem and thus, no proof was available against the accused. The complainant allegedly submitted fresh applications dated 4.7.2002 and 16.7.2002 to the S.P. Sriganganagar but no action was taken. Being aggrieved by the total lack of concern shown by the Police officials to his grievances, the complainant proceeded to file a written complaint incorporating the above allegations against the accused on 20.7.2002 in the court of ACJM, Raisinghnagar for the offences under Sections 315, 304B, 120B and 498A I.P.C. The complaint was forwarded to the S.H.O. P.S. Raisinghnagar under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where, a formal F.I.R. No. 330/2002 dated 26.7.2002 was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 315, 304B, 498A, 120B and 201 I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. The Police conducted thorough investigation into the matter and filed an exhaustive negative Final Report in the court concerned. The complainant filed a protest petition wherein the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 200-202 Cr.P.C. The learned ACJM proceeded to pass an order dated 21.4.2004 whereby, the negative Final Report was rejected; cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and the accused Ameerchand and Malkeet Kaur were summoned through warrants of arrest in execution whereof, both of them were arrested. Since the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. was triable by court of Sessions, the case was committed and transferred for trial to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. 5. The learned trial court, framed charge for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. against both the accused, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents to prove its case. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. The witness Badriram was examined as a defence witness. 6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 7. The sentences awarded to Smt. Malkeet Kaur were suspended by this Court vide order dated 21.7.2010. 6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 7. The sentences awarded to Smt. Malkeet Kaur were suspended by this Court vide order dated 21.7.2010. Smt. Malkeet Kaur expired on 10.3.2013 and her death certificate has been placed on record in D.B. Cr. Temporary Suspension of Sentences Application No. 321/2013, Ameer Chand vs. State. Thus, the appeal abates to the extent of the appellant Smt. Malkeet Kaur. 8. Shri H.S.S. Kharlia learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Rishabh Handa, Advocate, representing the appellant Ameerchand vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The incident allegedly took place on 11.6.2002. As per Shri Kharlia, the death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur was because of natural causes. The complainant and his family members were duly informed regarding her death and they voluntarily participated in the funeral. However, soon thereafter, they started demanding money from the accused party. The accused did not have the means to satisfy the demand made by the complainant and who hatched a conspiracy with his family members and filed a patently false complaint against them after a significant delay of more than 1 month and 7 days of the incident. Shri Kharlia urged that the theory put forth in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that a Panchayat was convened wherein, the accused confessed to the murder of Gurmeet Kaur is nothing but a sheer piece of fabrication. The so-called panchayatnama (Ex.P3) was forged by the complainant with the aid of Sheodan Singh and Gyanchand. He contended that had there been any truth in the case put up by the complainant that the accused confessed to have killed the deceased in the Panchayat, then there was no occasion for him not to have presented the Panchayatnama (Ex.P3) alongwith the belated complaint or to the Investigating Officer during investigation. He contended that had there been any truth in the case put up by the complainant that the accused confessed to have killed the deceased in the Panchayat, then there was no occasion for him not to have presented the Panchayatnama (Ex.P3) alongwith the belated complaint or to the Investigating Officer during investigation. He further urged that if at all had there been any truth in the allegation of complainant that the accused were indulging in meting out harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry, then the close relatives of the deceased who were present at the house of the accused would definitely not have allowed the dead body of Smt. Gurmeet to be cremated without raising any kind of protest whatsoever. In this regard, Shri Kharlia drew the Courts attention to the statement of Saleena PW-3, who happens to be the maternal aunt of the deceased and urged that the witness admittedly reached the house of the deceased in the morning of 11.6.2002 and claims to have seen the dead body of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur with a large number of injuries but despite that, she made no attempt whatsoever to inform the parents of the girl regarding the incident. As per Shri Kharlia, this omission on the part of Smt. Saleena proves that her conduct was absolutely unnatural and that she has given out a totally cooked up version of the incident. The witness Gyanchand PW-4 who was the prime witness of the alleged Panchayat is the brother-in-law of Tarachand, the complainant (mama of the deceased). The witness admitted that he was present at the house of the accused when the preparations for the funeral of Smt. Gurmeet were being made. He thus urged that had there been something amiss in the death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, then the witness who is her maternal uncle would not have kept silent and was expected to delay the funeral and inform the Police and the parents of the girl. He urged that as a matter of fact, the complainant Tarachand was present in the funeral and that is why, Gyanchand and Saleena did not state anything in this regard when they were examined in the court. He urged that as a matter of fact, the complainant Tarachand was present in the funeral and that is why, Gyanchand and Saleena did not state anything in this regard when they were examined in the court. For criticizing the evidence of Gyanchand, Shri Kharlia referred to that part of his cross- examination, where the witness disowned his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. during the inquiry of the Final Report. He also pointed out from the statement of Gyanchand that the witness stated that he, Tarachand and his wife Prakash Kaur went to the house of the accused for offering their condolences. Shri Kharlia further submitted that neither Tarachand, Gyanchand nor Smt. Prakash Kaur could disclose the exact date of marriage of the accused appellant with Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and thus, as per him, there is no material whatsoever by which can the Court be satisfied that the marriage of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur was solemnized with the accused appellant within a period of seven years of her alleged unnatural death. 9. Shri Kharlia pointed out the following excerpts from the Police Statement (Ex.D3) of Smt. Prakash Kaur with which, she was confronted during her evidence at the trial:- ^^¼v½ ,d fnu lqcg 7 cts djuSy flag ds ?kj Qksu vk;kA mlus esjs ifr rkjkpUn dks crk;k fd rsjh yM+dh chekj gS] 77 ,uŒihŒ ls Qksu vk;k gSA fQj eSa o esjk ifr 77 ,uŒihŒ pys x,A ¼c½-------------- ¼l½ esjh yM+dh xqjehr dkSj dks vkaxu esa lqyk j[kk Fkk] mldks ns[krs gh] eSa csgks'k gks xbZA vkSj mldks ogka ls dc mBk;k] dc laLdkj ds fy, ys x,A eq>s ?kj dc vkSj dSls ys x, FksA esjs dks dqN ekywe ughaA** 10. With reference to these admissions appearing in the investigational statement of Prakash Kaur, Shri Kharlia urged that the complainant as well as Smt. Prakash Kaur have given false evidence on the aspect of them not being informed of the death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and that they did not participate in the last rites. 11. He also drew the Courts attention to the statement of Sushri Malki PW-5, the younger sister of Smt. Gurmeet, who was admittedly present in the house besides the deceased during the fateful night. 11. He also drew the Courts attention to the statement of Sushri Malki PW-5, the younger sister of Smt. Gurmeet, who was admittedly present in the house besides the deceased during the fateful night. He urged that had there been any pith or substance in the claim of this witness that she saw the accused assaulting and murdering her, then there was no reason for the complainant not to have taken legal action against the accused once the girl returned to his house and disclosed these facts to him. Shri Kharlia also drew the Courts attention to the evidence of Sukhinchand PW-7 and Charansingh PW-8 being the brother-in-law and maternal uncle respectively of the deceased Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, who admitted in their examination in chief that they received information regarding the death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and participated in her funeral. He pointed that both these witnesses claimed that Ameerchands uncle made an admission regarding the deceased having been murdered. However, as per him, the conduct of these witnesses in not taking steps to get the funeral deferred and in not reporting the matter to the Police or at least to the parents of the deceased, makes their testimony doubtful. He also drew the Courts attention towards the statement of Yogesh Goyal PW-9, the Investigating Officer, who filed the negative Final Report in the case. Shri Kharlia urged that the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not find the case proved and that the complainant and his relatives continued to come to the house of the accused for offering their condolences after the untimely death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur. As per Shri Kharlia, this conduct of the witnesses indicates their acquiescence in the fact that the death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur was natural. He further pointed out that the fact regarding participation of Tarachand in the funeral is clearly stated by the defence witness Badriram who could not be shaken in cross-examination. Thus, Shri Kharlia urged that the prosecution has failed to lead cogent and convincing evidence so as to satisfy the court of the fact that the accused harassed or humiliated Smt. Gurmeet Kaur on account of demand of dowry or that she was assaulted and murdered in the matrimonial home. He thus craved acceptance of the appeal and implored the Court to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant Ameerchand of the charge. 12. He thus craved acceptance of the appeal and implored the Court to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant Ameerchand of the charge. 12. In the alternative, Shri Kharlia urged that looking to the wavering and uncertain nature of prosecution evidence, the gross delay of more than one month in filing of the complaint; even if the Court is satisfied that the conviction of the appellant should be affirmed, as per him it is not a case warranting upholding of the life sentence awarded to the accused appellant for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and urged that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by him which is more than 11 years. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants counsel and urged that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses more particularly that of the child witness Sushri Malki is cogent and convincing and that the prosecution has proved beyond the pale of doubt that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of bringing less dowry within a period of seven years of her death and that the accused is responsible for her homicidal death by a brutal assault. He urged that the duty to inform the Police about the untimely and unnatural death of Smt. Gurmeet was that of her matrimonial relatives more particularly the husband Ameerchand who failed to do so and thus, he was rightly convicted by the trial court. He thus craved dismissal of the appeal in entirety. 14. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar, have gone through the impugned judgment and minutely sifted the evidence available on record. 15. It is not in dispute that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur met with an unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that the accused cremated her dead body without informing the Police. Having concluded so, we are now required to assess and weigh the rival claims; one made by the prosecution that the homicidal death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage and the other of the defence that her death was natural. 16. Having concluded so, we are now required to assess and weigh the rival claims; one made by the prosecution that the homicidal death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage and the other of the defence that her death was natural. 16. Malki PW-5 appears to be the star witness of the prosecution because she being the sister of Gurmeet was staying with her so that she could help her out during the last stages of her pregnancy. In her evidence, Malki alleged that Ameerchand and his relatives used to quarrel with her sister in relation to demand of colour T.V. and a gold chain. She was beaten up right at the time of marriage and continuously thereafter. On the day of the incident, she was sleeping with her sister when Ameerchand and Malkeet Kaur came around. They forcibly took her sister to the Kothi. While going, her sister prodded her to wake up. She tried to save Gurmeet on which Ameerchand gave her slaps and fist blows. Ameerchands father Likhmichand was standing at the gate. The witness claimed that she was tied up to the cot and thus, she became helpless. On the next day, she saw her sister lying dead in the room. Ameerchand threatened her that if she told to anybody of the incident, then she would be killed. Her father came and took her away. She divulged these facts to her father upon reaching home. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that when the dead body of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur was subjected to the final bath ritual, her aunt (Masi) Saleena was present there. She did not tell Smt. Saleena about the assault. She herself did not receive any injuries because of being beaten or because of being tied to the cot. She was released from the binds in the night time but she did not raise any hue and cry because she was afraid of the threat given to her. Her uncle Harphool resident of 77NP (same village as that of the accused) had come to the house of Ameerchand in the night. She did not tell anything about the incident to Harphool. When her parents came to the house of the accused in the evening after the incident, they did not ask her anything about the incident. Her uncle Harphool resident of 77NP (same village as that of the accused) had come to the house of Ameerchand in the night. She did not tell anything about the incident to Harphool. When her parents came to the house of the accused in the evening after the incident, they did not ask her anything about the incident. She was confronted with her previous statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D5) wherein, there was no allegation that the accused threatened her of dire consequences when they were assaulting Smt. Gurmeet Kaur. She also admitted the allegation regarding Ameerchand having given her fist and kick blows was not mentioned in her previous statements (Ex.D5 and Ex.D6). She came to know about the demand of colour T.V. when she was living at village 77NP because the spouses used to quarrel with each other over this issue. On an overall appraisal of the statement of this witness, it is clear that her version is full of embellishments and exaggerations. The fact that Malki claimed to have seen her sister being beaten to death and that she divulged these facts to her parents on the very next day but despite that, no legal action was taken, brings the entire prosecution case and the evidence of Malki under grave suspicion. The prosecution did not prove the numerous applications which were allegedly made by the complainant with the Police Officials before filing of the formal complaint in the court. However, photostat copies thereof are available on the record. We find that in the complaint which was purportedly submitted to the S.P. on 26.6.2002, there is not even a whisper of an allegation that the accused used to demand a gold chain and a colour T.V. from the deceased. This allegation appears to have been introduced in the subsequent complaints which bear the date 4.7.2002 and 16.7.2002. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that none of these complaints bears any note of presentation. Manifestly thus, allegations made by the prosecution witnesses regarding the harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry is not palpable in view of the fact that the theory of demand appears to have been developed subsequently. 17. Manifestly thus, allegations made by the prosecution witnesses regarding the harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry is not palpable in view of the fact that the theory of demand appears to have been developed subsequently. 17. If we believe the statement of Malki, obviously, the case would be of murder plain and simple and the trial court ought to have framed charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused. The first and the foremost aspect which adversely affects the prosecution case is the gross and undue delay occasioned in the filing of the complaint. From the statements of PW-4 Gyanchand, PW-7 Sukhinchand and PW-8 Charan Singh all of whom are close relatives of the complainant and the deceased, it is clear that they candidly admitted their presence at the house of the accused when the dead body of Smt. Gurmeet was being prepared for funeral. The complainant, of course has tried to portray that he reached the house of the accused only after the body had been cremated. Gyanchand, Sukhinchand and Charan Singh all alleged in their evidence that they saw numerous marks of injuries on the dead body of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and suspected some foul play in her death but inspite thereof, these persons, who are close relatives of the deceased admittedly made no efforts to delay the funeral or to inform the Police or Tarachand of these circumstances. This conduct of the witnesses makes their testimony highly doubtful. It is inconceivable that the maternal uncles of the girl would not raise any protest and casually permit the accused to cremate the body of their pregnant niece despite noticing numerous marks of the injuries upon her dead body. On the contrary, these witnesses participated in the funeral without a demur. Thus, we are absolutely convinced that the conduct of these witnesses was highly unnatural and that their evidence is unworthy of reliance. These witnesses and even the complainant Tarachand admitted that they continued to participate in the condolence meetings held at the house of the accused. This approach and behaviour brings the evidence of the complainant and the other related prosecution witnesses under a grave shadow of doubt. These witnesses and even the complainant Tarachand admitted that they continued to participate in the condolence meetings held at the house of the accused. This approach and behaviour brings the evidence of the complainant and the other related prosecution witnesses under a grave shadow of doubt. Had there been an iota of truth in the allegations attributed to the accused, the father and other close relatives could not be expected to casually attend the condolence meetings arranged at the house of the accused rather than taking steps to prosecute them immediately. 18. In addition to the fact that we have noticed from the statement of Smt. Prakash Kaur that the prosecution is trying to hide/cover up the fact that the complainant and his wife were present in the funeral of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, the defence also led evidence of witness Badri Ram, who categorically stated that he received information regarding something untoward having happened in the house of the accused in the night at about 11 O’clock. He went to the house of Ameerchand. Charandas who is closely related to Tarachand was present there. He requested the witness (Badri Ram) to take his Maruta (a transportation contraption used by the villagers) to go to Baruwala for bringing the girls parents. He took his Maruta and went to the village Baruwala where Tarachand and his family members were already greiving because they had received the information that Gurmeet had expired. He took Charandas, Tarachand and some females and carried them to the village 77NP in his Maruta. The dead body was cremated on the next day at about 12 O’clock. About 250 to 300 villagers were gathered in the funeral. The girls father was also present and he set the fire to pyre. He specifically stated that he did not hear anything about Gurmeet Kaur being harassed or humiliated on account of demand of dowry. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-examination of the witness which can persuade us to discard the theory put forth by him in the examination in chief. 19. The contention of Shri Kharlia that the marriage of Smt. Gurmeet with the accused appellant was solemnized more than 7 years before her untimely death in the matrimonial home is not tenable when we consider the statements of the father, mother and sister of the girl viz. 19. The contention of Shri Kharlia that the marriage of Smt. Gurmeet with the accused appellant was solemnized more than 7 years before her untimely death in the matrimonial home is not tenable when we consider the statements of the father, mother and sister of the girl viz. Tarachand, Prakash Kaur and Malki all of whom alleged that the deceased was married to the accused about 10 years ago and that she died 4 years after her marriage with the accused appellant Ameerchand. The statements of these witnesses were recorded almost 6 years after the incident and thus, the corresponding period of marriage of the deceased Gurmeet Kaur vis-a-vis her unnatural death works out to 4 years only. Therefore, this contention of Shri Kharlia is repelled. 20. Hence, we are of the view that the prosecution failed to lead cogent evidence so as to satisfy the Court that the accused appellant and the deceased were married within a period of 7 years of her unnatural death. 21. The complainant Tarachand averred in his complaint and evidence that he filed numerous complaints to the S.P. Sriganganagar but not a single of these so-called complaints were exhibited on the record either during the course of inquiry or trial. Thus, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the complainant failed to lodge a timely report to the Police despite claiming to be aware that the death of his daughter was homicidal/unnatural. 22. Manifestly, the theory which has been portrayed by Tarachand, Prakash Kaur and Sushri Malki is that Ameerchand and his parents, killed Smt. Gurmeet Kaur by assaulting her. On the other hand, Charan Singh PW-8 alleged in his statement that Ameerchand approached him and stated that his wife had committed suicide. Thus, there is a serious contradiction in the prosecution evidence regarding the manner of death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur which is shrouded in a grave cloud of doubt. If at all, the prosecution was desirous of proving the allegations to the hilt, then charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. ought to have been framed against the accused. However, neither was the complaint filed in this manner nor was any charge framed against the accused to this effect. If at all, the prosecution was desirous of proving the allegations to the hilt, then charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. ought to have been framed against the accused. However, neither was the complaint filed in this manner nor was any charge framed against the accused to this effect. That apart, the allegations of the material prosecution witnesses regarding the so-called harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry are uniformly attributed to Likhmichand, Malkeet Kaur and Ameerchand. Likhmichand was not charge-sheeted by the Police nor did the complainant implead him as an accused in the complaint. In this background, we are of the opinion that there are no grounds to differentiate the case of the accused appellant and Smt. Malkeet Kaur from that of Likhmichand so far as the charge for offence under Section 304B I.P.C. goes. 23. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to lead cogent and convincing evidence, sufficient to satisfy the Court beyond all manner of doubt that the accused murdered the deceased or that the deceased was harassed and humiliated for demand of dowry soon before her death or that she met with an unnatural death in the matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage. At the same time, it is true that the accused appellant should have informed the Police about the untimely death of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur as, the young lady was carrying a child in his womb and was hale and hearty. However, the failure to do so would make him liable only for the offence under Section 176 I.P.C. which provides for imprisonment of six months. The accused has been behind the Bars in this case since 8.4.2008 and thus, he has undergone custodial period of more than 11 years. 24. As Smt. Malkeet Kaur has expired, the appeal abates to her extent. 25. As an upshot of the above discussion, the appeal of the accused Ameerchand succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No. 18/2008 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 304B I.P.C. He is in custody. He shall be released from custody if not wanted in any other case. 26. The impugned judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No. 18/2008 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 304B I.P.C. He is in custody. He shall be released from custody if not wanted in any other case. 26. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.