R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) Accused of the allegations of dowry death coupled with conviction for offences under Ss. 306/498A IPC, both the appellants were sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. They were to undergo six months RI in case of default in payment of fine. In addition, the appellants were sentenced to suffer two years RI for their conviction under Sec. 498A IPC and fine of Rs. 500/ - in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo three months RI. They are now in appeal before this Court.
(2.) On 22.6.1988. Though the marriage was initially to be performed at Amritsar, but ultimately it was held at Chandigarh at insistence of the appellants family. It was a dowry less marriage. Manohar Lal PW was the go -between in this marriage, which was performed at Khukhrain Bhawan, Chandigarh. As per the allegations, on the date of marriage, appellant Vinod Kumar, elder brother of the husband -appellant Pawan Kumar, enquired from the complainant, Raj Kumar, brother of the deceased whether the complainant was giving TV, VCR and scooter in the dowry or not. This happened in the presence of Mrs. Sarita Gupta (wife of complainant) and his friend Chaman Lal (PW -8). Though, as per complainant, Vinod Kumar was informed that complainant was not in a position to afford dowry, still on their persistence and demand, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - was paid in cash in addition to clothes worth Rs. 20,000/ -, beds valued Rs. 30,000/ - and 15 tolas of jewellery valued at Rs. 45,000/ -. Other items, like the electrical goods and pieces of decoration valued at Rs. 10,000/ - were also given in dowry. The complainant has further alleged that when his late sister did not pay a customary visit to her parental house, he came to Chandigarh to meet her. There in the presence of his sister, the appellants held out that they will not allow Kusum to visit her parental house till their demand of scooter is met. The complainant, however, requested the appellants to visit Amritsar and also promised to pay the cash within his means. It is then that appellant Pawan Kumar and Kusum had gone to Amritsar and stayed there for a day, when a sum of Rs. 7500/ - was paid to appellant Pawan Kumar.
(3.) He, still did not feel happy. It is further disclosed that the complainant did not receive any letter from his sister. When Ashok Kumar (PW 10), another brother of the complainant, was sent to Chandigarh to meet late Kusum, he was then told by appellant Vinod Kumar that sum of Rs. 7500/ - would not be enough to buy a scooter and they would at least require Rs. 13,000/ -. PW -10 promised to make up the deficiency. As per this witness, demand of VCR was repeated besides advancing a threat that it would be in the interest of late Kusum if this demand was met. PW -10 accordingly narrated all this to his brother Raj Kumar, who, while taking with him one Rajinder Pal Singh Sarna (PW -13), a resident of Mohali, came to the house of his sister at Chandigarh and paid a sum of Rs. 5500/ - in cash to appellant Pawan Kumar, husband of late Kusum. This was done in the presence of appellant Vinod Kumar and his wife. It is further alleged that subsequently also, when Raj Kumar (PW -7) and Chaman Lal (PW -8) had come to meet late Kusum, the demand for VCR etc. alongwith the threat was repeated. They had then gathered the respectables from Amritsar and had met Munshi Ram, father of the appellants, who was staying and stationed at Amritsar. It is claimed that Munshi Ram assured the complainant and the respectables that he would tell his sons (appellants) to mend their ways saying that Kusum was like his daughter. At about 8.00 P.M. on 26.12.1988, Raj Kumar (PW -7) received a telephone call to the effect that his sister Kusum was serious. He spoke to one R.K. Sexena at Chandigarh, who subsequently informed him at about 10.00 A.M. that his sister Kusum was dead. Raj Kumar accordingly reached Chandigarh and made a report, Exh. PG, making allegations of demand of dowry and alleging that the appellants were responsible for the death of his sister Kusum. Investigation followed and challan was presented leading to trial. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.;