Important Points
1. Where there is no positive evidence to prove allegation of instiga­tion for demand of additional dowry or instigating his son co-accused to illtreat and harass his wife, accused mother-in-law could not be convicted.
2. Where deceased died in misterious circumstances out of asphyxia due to smothering within seven years of marriage, in absence of reasonable explanation as to cause of death by her husband strong presumption as to dowry death arose when demand of additional dowry and harassment stood proved.
3. Demand of dowry additional dowry after marriage would fall within definition of dowry.

Judgment

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-These two criminal appeals are filed by the appel­lants accused challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dates 1st September, 1997 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer RI for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default thereof to undergo RI for a period of one year. The High Court after analysing all the circumstances and the evidence on record found that the order of acquittal dated 14th October, 1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat for the aforesaid offence was unsustainable. Since the trial Court and the High Court differed in their conclusions as regards the guilt of the appellants, we have gone through both the judgments of the courts below as well as the material on record in order to satisfy whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal in respect of both the appellants.

2. Prem Singh - appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1032 of 1997 (original accused No. 1) is the son of Smt. Shanti, the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 1077 of 1997 (original accused No. 2). There is no dispute that Sumitra (since deceased) was married to A-1 on 24th June, 1988. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) is the father of Sumitra. He was serving as a teacher at the rele­vant time and celebrated the marriage of Sumitra befitting to his status. Within few days of marriage, Sumitra was complaining to him and Phool Devi (PW 5), mother of the deceased that the appellants were illtreating and harassing her on the ground of insufficient dowry. They were also taunting her that she (Sumitra) belonged to a poor family of a teacher who could not celebrate the marriage by giving sufficient gifts and dowry. Suraj Bhan then met the appellants and pleaded that whatever he could give, he had given and any further demand would be beyond his means. In the meantime, Sumitra gave birth to a baby boy and the hopes of her parents were brighten as they expected this new child would bring harmony between the daughter and the son-in-law. Since constant demand of money from the appellants was continued even after the son was born to Sumitra, Phool Devi (PW 5) suggested to Suraj Bhan (PW 4) that instead of giving any money to the appellant, they should purchase a she-buffalo which would be a source of income to them. Despite giving this she-buffalo, the appellants were not satisfied. It is alleged by the prosecution that some eight months prior to the date of incident in question which took place on 3rd August, 1990 when Sumitra had come to the house of her parents, she told about the additional demand of Rs. 5,000/- made by the appel­lants. Mr. Tek Chand (PW 6) who happened to be a common friend tried to mediate and asked A-1 to take back his wife and treat her properly. However, there was no change in the attitude of the appellants and consequently on 3rd August, 1990 during night Sumitra suffered burn injuries in the house of A-1. A-1 then removed Sumitra to Civil Hospi­tal, Sonepat and sent a message to Suraj Bhan about the burn injuries sustained by her. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) and Phool Devi (PW 5) on receipt of information of burn injuries sustained by Sumitra, went to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat where Sumitra told her parents that unless Rs. 5,000/- were paid to the appellants, they will not allow her to live peacefully. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) was unable to meet the demand immediate­ly. Unfortunately for the family of Suraj Bhan (PW 4), Sumitra died in the early hours of August 11, 1990. Om Parkash was sent to the house of Suraj Bhan (PW 4) who informed about the death of Sumitra. Suraj Bhan (PW 4), Phool Devi (PW 5) and other relatives went to the house of appellants and when they inquired from them as to how Sumitra died, none of the family members of A-1 could give satisfactory explanation. Suraj Bhan (PW 4) then proceeded to the police station.