- (1.) Appellant was prosecuted for committing murder of his wife Amriko. They were married in the year 1983. Appellant was employed in the Army as a Naik. Indisputably, the parents of the deceased came from the lower strata of the society. They were very poor. The father of the deceased was working as a Mate in the Canal Department at Jaura Kothi. They were not in a position to give sufficient dowry to their daughter. At the time of marriage, they had given only few items, such as, utensils, beddings, clothes etc. After the marriage also, they had not been able to give anything to the deceased Amriko by way of dowry or otherwise. Allegedly, on the ground that insufficient dowry had been brought by the deceased, she was tortured. The harassment increased as she was unable to bear a child. She used to be thrown out of the house. However, she used to be sent back by her parents. Her visit to the matrimonial home, when appellant visited the village upon obtaining leave, was mandatory. Some disputes appeared to have arisen as to whether the appellant himself on all the occasions should visit her parents' house to bring her back to the matrimonial home. On most of the occasions, the father of the appellant used to go to their place and bring her back. A few days prior to the date of occurrence, appellant is said to have addressed a few letters, two of which were marked as Exhibit PJ & PH respectively; one of them was in 'Gurumukhi' language, the other being in English vernacular. One letter was addressed by the appellant to his father and another which is in Gurumukhi script was addressed to the brother-in-law of the deceased. The common thread in both the letters appears to be that the appellant was unwilling to keep the deceased with him. It was stated that during his visit she should come herself or her parents must get her there. Indisputably again, the deceased had mostly been residing with her parents. Ten days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased came to her house and disclosed that Tarsem Singh had written a letter to her parents asking them to turn her out of the house or otherwise he would kill her. However, as appellant was to come home on leave, Harnam Singh, father of the appellant, came to her parents' place. When asked to allow Amriko to go with her, an apprehension was expressed by PW-5-Dato (mother of the deceased) in regard to the said letter and expressed her unwillingness to allow Amriko to go with him. She insisted that she would send Amriko only with Tarsem Singh. However, on assurance by Harnam Singh that no such threatening letter had been received and he treats her as his own daughter, she was allowed to go with him. After a few days, Sukhwinder Singh, brother of the deceased was sent to enquire about the welfare of Amriko and to find out whether Tarsem Singh had come on leave or not. He left his house at 11.00 a.m. but he came back some time thereafter to inform his mother that Amriko had been murdered by her in-laws. At about 4.00 p.m., a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against Parmjit Kaur, Manjit Kaur, sisters of appellant, Mohinder Singh, cousin of appellant and Tarsem Singh, appellant.
(2.) Before the learned Sessions Judge, charges under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code were framed.
(3.) All the four accused were found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court, however, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of Parmjit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Mohinder Singh.;