- (1.) Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused under Section 304-B IPC and conviction of accused Sushil Kumar alone under Section 498-A IPC, the State has preferred the present appeal.
(2.) It is relevant to point out, at this stage itself, that accused Sushil Kumar, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 498-A IPC preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No.1245-SB of 2002 and the same was decided by this Court on 23.9.2008, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence imposed on him.
(3.) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution relevant for disposal of this case is as follows:- a) PW6 Sohan Lal was the father of deceased Sushma Rani. Sushma Rani was given in marriage to accused Sushil Kumar, the 1st respondent herein. Accused Pawan Kumar, 2nd respondent herein and accused Rajinder Kumar, 3rd respondent herein are the brothers of the 1st respondent and accused Sudarshan Sood and accused Sonia Sood, the 4th and 5th respondents are the respective wives of respondents No.2 and 3. PW6 Sohan Lal set the law in motion by lodging a complaint. He had alleged that soon after the marriage, all the respondents started harassing his daughter for having brought insufficient dowry. They also used to harass her for not bringing T.V. and refrigerator. PW6 retired in the month of July, 1997. Accused demanded Rs. 4 lakh. The deceased informed him of such a demand made by the accused. PW6 visited the house of accused Sushil Kumar and advised him not to harass his daughter. In the month of February 2000, accused Sushil Kumar raised a demand of Rs. 4 lac for purchase of a flat in Chandigarh. On 27.3.2000, PW6 received a phone call that Sushma Rani had been killed. PW6 alleged that accused had compelled his daughter to die on account of demand of dowry. b) PW7 Darshana Devi was the mother and PW8 Rajinder Sood was the maternal uncle of the deceased. PW6 to PW8 spoke about the demand of dowry and the harassment meted out to the deceased. c) The accused have set up a plea in their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that there was no such demand of dowry from the deceased or from her parents. Deceased Sushma Rani suddenly fell ill and expired on 27.3.2000. A due intimation was sent to the parents of Sushma Rani. Only after the arrival of her parents, the cremation was done. d) On the side of the accused DW1 Simla Ram, DW2 Swaran Singh and DW3 SI Malkiat Singh were examined and the enquiry report Ex.D1 to show that accused Sonia and Rajinder Kumar were not present at the time of occurrence was also marked on the side of the accused.;