JUDGMENT

B.P. SINGH, J.- The appellant herein has appealed by special leave impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 482-SB of 1993 dated 2-2-2005 affirming his conviction under Section 304-B and 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC and affirming the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years respectively on those counts. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, Sanjiv Kumar was married to deceased, Raj Rani about 41\2 months before the occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 24-8-1991. The case of the prosecution is that the matrimonial home of the deceased was at Village Gobindpura. Her parents resided at Village Khadayal at a distance of 150 km. One of the brothers-in-law of the deceased, namely, Balwant Rai is a resident of Village Ghunder which is at a distance of about 5 km from Village Gobindpura.

3. The case of the prosecution is that fifteen days after her marriage when the deceased came to Village Khadayal she complained to her family members that her husband, the appellant herein, as also her in-laws, namely, Sanjiv Kumar and Maya Devi (since acquitted) and Mrs Nirmala Devi, sister of the appellant (not sent up for trial) maltreated her on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry. They were pressing her to bring more dowry. The deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home but when she came again after a month, she again complained that the appellant and his sister had been maltreating her and beating her off and on. She was again persuaded to go back to her matrimonial home. She again came to her father's village a month later and this time she was not sent back to her matrimonial home. Later, the appellant assured that the deceased would not be maltreated and therefore, it was agreed that the deceased shall accompany her husband to her matrimonial home.

4. About twenty days prior to her death, the deceased complained to her family members that she was not willing to stay in her matrimonial home as they were physically torturing her and maltreating her. On this, her brother, PW 4, Ramesh Kumar went to Village Gobindpura and brought her to Village Khadayal. When he had come to Village Gobindpura, he had noticed his sister being abused by the appellant and his sister and they were making a demand of a colour television and a refrigerator as also a sum of Rs 10,000 on the pretext that they had to run a shop for the appellant. He assured them that he would send the amount to them as also the desired articles when they would be in a position to do so. However, the deceased accompanied her brother to Village Khadayal twenty days before the occurrence.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 20-8-1991 the appellant came to Village Khadayal and assured the family members of the deceased that he would stay separately from his parents and that he will establish his cwn shop and they should arrange a sum of Rs 10,000 for him. The deceased was not agreeable to the demand of the appellant. In the meantime, Jeewan Kumar, PW 6, one of the neighbours came to their house and in his presence some discussion took place. After staying for two days at Khadayal, the appellant left for Gobindpura but again came to the village on 23-8-1991 and persuaded the deceased to accompany her. The deceased accompanied the , appellant and both of them left for Village Gobindpura. PW 4 had assured the appellant that he would come to Village Gobindpura on Sunday along with Rs 10,000 as agreed. The appellant retorted by saying that if he did not come with the money on 25-8-1991 he may repent his sister's death.

6. On 24-8-1991 one Ram Sarup came and informed the family members of the deceased that the appellant and his sister had administered poison to the deceased and that the deceased was admitted in Rajendra Hospital at Patiala. On getting this news he went to the hospital along wit