IMPORTANT POINT
Sections 304B and 498A deal with two distinct offences.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. In this appeal challenge is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holding each of the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) while setting aside the conviction and the sentence imposed in respect of Section 306 IPC.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The appellants-accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. Accused No.1 Balwant Singh was father-in-law, accused No.4-Kanta Devi was mother-in-law, accused No.3-Ravinder Singh was brother-in-law and accused No.2-Anup Singh was husband of Renu Bala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). The deceased was daughter of one Gurdayal Singh and Kamla Devi. She was married to A-2, Anup Singh on July 6, 1992 in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals. After few days of her marriage, when Renu Bala visited the house of her parents, she complained as to how accused persons were treating her with cruelty by putting demands for refrigerator and scooter as dowry. It was alleged that on January 5, 1993, Kamla Devi, mother of Renu Bala came to know from Tilak Raj, her brother-in-law that Renu Bala was admitted in a hospital at Gagret. She, therefore, along with Tilak Raj went to the hospital, but Renu Bala was not there, and they came to know that Renu Bala was taken to Patohar Kalan, the village where the accused were staying. Both of them then went to the residence of the accused and found Renu Bala lying dead in verandah of the house of the accused and none of the accused was there. Kamla Devi suspected foul play that her daughter Renu Bala was either killed or was compelled to commit suicide by consuming poison on account of their unlawful demand of dowry by the accused and by treating her with cruelty. She, therefore, lodged a report with the police Ex.PW-3/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) at Police Station, Una, which was registered as formal F.I.R. vide Ex.PW-11/A. After registration of the case, the investigation started. The police went to the spot, prepared inquest report and rough spot map of the place where dead body of Renu Bala was found. The Investigating officer also took into possession vomit of Renu Bala and the clothes worn by her at the time of vomiting prior to her death. Two letters, which were produced by Devinder Singh, were also taken in possession. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. Vijay Kumar Raizda, which revealed that Renu Bala was having pregnancy of fourteen to sixteen weeks. He reserved his opinion regarding cause of death till receipt of report of Chemical Analyser. After receiving the report, Dr. Gurcharan Singh opined that cause of death was peripheral circulatory failure due to aluminum phosphide which was sufficient cause of death in natural course of events. Further investigation was conducted by ASI, Jarnail Singh, who obtained two letters produced by Gurdyal Singh, father of deceased Renu Bala. He submitted a report under Section 173 of the Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, vide his Order dated April 25, 1994.

After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned defence counsel, a charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the IPC and they were asked as to whether they plead guilty. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. In Order to prove its case the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. After the prosecution evidence was closed statements of the accused persons were recorded in terms of the Section 313 of the Code. Six witnesses were examined to establish their innocence. From the suggestions put during cross examination the accused persons tried to make out a case that deceased was suffering from