- (1.) THE present appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 07.09.2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby Harmesh Singh appellant has been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') pertaining to FIR No. 141 dated 05.05.2001 registered in Police Station Rajpura for offence under Section 304 -B read with Section 34 IPC in sessions case No. 28 of 04.09.2001, extracted hereinbelow: - Convicted under Section Sentence awarded Section 304 -B IPC To undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ -. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month
(2.) THE facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal, are that on 05.05.2001, Jarnail Singh, father of the victim, suffered a statement Ex.PE that his daughter Surinder Kaur was married with Harmesh Singh accused in March 2001. He gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage, as per his capacity. After the marriage, Harmesh Singh (husband), Milakh Kaur (mother -in -law), Bhulla Singh (brother -in -law) (Jeth) and Bhupinder Kaur wife of Bhulla Singh (Jethani) started taunting the victim on account of bringing less dowry and she was given beatings as well. After about one month, the accused left his daughter in his house. Surinder Kaur told him that she was being taunted and beaten by the accused on the pretext of insufficient dowry. He went to the house of the accused along with middlemen, namely Swaran Singh and Rulda Khan and the accused told him that he (complainant) did not give any dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter and if he wanted to settle his daughter in the matrimonial home, he should give a scooter to Harmesh Singh. He told them that he was very poor and would try to meet their demand within 4 -5 months. The accused agreed to bring his daughter to their house and later his son -in -law Harmesh Singh took his daughter to his house. On 02.05.2001, Lakhwinder Singh, his son had gone to the house of the accused to meet his sister and on coming back, told him that the accused were beating Surinder Kaur and demanding a Scooter. He further told him that he (Lakhwinder Singh) rescued Surinder Kaur, talked to her and assured that he would talk to his father and they would try to meet their demand. On 05.05.2001, they received information that Surinder Kaur has died. He along with his relatives reached the house of the accused, where dead body of his daughter was lying with burn injuries and smell of kerosene oil was emanating from it. He suspected that the accused put her on fire after pouring kerosene oil. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station and formal FIR Ex. PE/2 was registered on the basis thereof. Rough site plan Ex. PG was prepared. Scene of crime was got photographed. Inquest report Ex. PH was prepared and dead body was sent for post -mortem examination. Burnt clothes i.e. chunni, bra and one chadar were taken into possession. Pair of chappal, one half containing kerosene oil, one match box and some ash were taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PJ. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Harmesh Singh, Milakh Kaur and Bhulla Singh were arrested on 13.05.2001 and Bhupinder Kaur was arrested on 26.06.2001. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for commencement of trial.
(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence under Section 304 -B IPC being exclusively triable by the said Court. After having heard counsel for the parties, charge under section 304 -B IPC was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely Dr. D S Bhullar (PW1), Jarnail Singh (PW2), Lakhwinder Singh (PW3), Constable Jaspal Singh (PW4), Satnam Singh, Draftsman (PW5), SI Jai Kishan (PW6), Bhinder Singh (PW7) and Satnam Singh (PW8). The prosecution also tendered into evidence report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PN. Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, 'the Code') were recorded wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence and pleaded their innocence. They raised a plea that they never raised any demand of dowry. They were not present in the house at the time of alleged occurrence. Bhupinder Kaur has further stated that she was present in the house of her parents in village Kauli for her medical check up on account of pregnancy. They examined Uttam Singh (DW1), Dalip Singh (DW2), Ram Gopal (DW3), Hardeep Singh (DW4) in their defence and tendered into evidence medical prescription slip mark D1 and report mark D2. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution and rival submissions made by counsel for the parties, held Harmesh Singh guilty of committing offence punishable under section 304 -B IPC, but his co -accused were acquitted of the offence with the observations that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt against Bhulla Singh, Milakh Kaur and Bhupinder Kaur.;