The judgment established that the offense under Section 304b of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, and the minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment must be imposed.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT stood trial for commission of an offence under Section 304b of the Indian Penal Code in connection with unnatural death of his wife Sushma Rani.

( 2 ) THEY were married on 11. 03. 1986. An engagement ceremony took place twenty days prior thereto. A demand for dowry was made. It was met in part. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of a demand draft was handed over to the husband 's family at Mansa when shagun ceremony was performed. Allegedly another sum of Rs. 11,000/- was paid in cash, as further demand was made by the family of the appellant. However, allegedly at the time of marriage the parents of the appellant demanded a further sum of Rs. 40,000/-in cash which could not be fulfilled. For non-fulfillment of the said demand, the deceased was allegedly tortured.

( 3 ) APPELLANT had sent a telegram on 16. 04. 1988 to Des Raj stating: "mutual MISUNDERSTANDING REACH immediately - RAMESHWAR" on or about 4. 06. 1986, Sat Paul, brother of the deceased (PW-1), visited the house of his brother-in-law Raj Kumar (PW-2), which is situate in the village, where the incident took place and stayed there for the night. On the morning of the next day, both of them visited the house of the appellant. Appellant and the deceased were found quarreling with each other on account of demand of dowry of Rs. 40,000/ -. He tried to pacify them. Appellant left his house at about 9 a. m. Sat Paul and Raj Kumar also went to the town. However, when they returned after three or four hours, the house was found to be locked. On an enquiry having been made from the neighbours, they were informed that the deceased had been taken to hospital as she had consumed something. At about 1. 30 p. m. , they reached the hospital at Bhatinda and came to know that Sushma Rani had expired. She admittedly was pregnant at that time.

( 4 ) ON receipt of a report in this behalf, ASI Mal Singh visited the hospital at about 1. 20 p. m. It was at a distance of about 1 km. from the police post. Statement was made before him by Sat Paul at about 2. 45 p. m. The said statement was sent to the police station and the same was recorded at 4 p. m. on the same day on the basis whereof the F. I. R. was recorded. The statement of PW-2 Raj Kumar was also recorded on the same day. Appellant was arrested on 12. 06. 1988.

( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda convicted the appellant under section 304b of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. An appeal filed thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

( 6 ) MR. Rajiv K. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal inter alia would submit:

(i) The relation between the parties being cordial, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case of causing harassment by the appellant to his wife. (ii) The prosecution has not been able to prove demand of dowry of rs. 40,000/ -. (iii) Des Raj in his previous statement did not state about the demand of dowry of Rs. 40,000/ -. A complaint petition was later on filed under Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which ended in acquittal by a judgment dated 5. 11. 1992 and a revision petition filed thereagainst by Des Raj was withdrawn on 2. 03. 1995 which clearly establishes innocence on the part of the Appellant. (iv) The family of the deceased having suffered several deaths, the deceased started suffering from severe depression wherefor she was given a 'taveej ' which also goes to show that she had committed suicide. (v) Even after the conviction, a settlement had been arrived at by and between the parties and in fact the cousin of the deceased was married to the appellant whereafter an application for compromise had also been filed.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

( 8 ) THE fact that the deceased commit