ORDER

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts:

Balbir Kaur, the deceased, was married with Nachhattar Singh Appellant about five years prior to the date of occurrence. Out of the wedlock, the couple bore a female child. About 2 or 3 years after the marriage, the Appellant and his parents (the three accused) started making demands for dowry on the allegation that Balbir Kaur's parents had not given sufficient amounts at the time of marriage, but as the demands could not be satisfied she was maltreated which led the deceased to leave the matrimonial home on several occasions. It appears, however, that on the intervention of well-wishers on both sides she returned to the matrimonial home. The ill-treatment however, continued unabated and whenever Balbir Kaur's brother Sukhmander Singh, P.W. 6, would meet her she would complain that she was not being treated properly. On the 25th December, 1987 at about 7:00 a.m. information with regard to Balbir Kaur's unnatural death was received by her parents on which Sukhmander Singh, P.W., along with other family members rushed to the house of the accused. They saw Balbir Kaur lying dead on her cot. The police were informed and a First Information Report was registered. The dead body was despatched for its post mortem examination. The viscera was also sent to the Chemical Examiner who rendered an opinion that the death had been caused by poisoning. A criminal complaint was also filed by P.W. 6 Sukhmander Singh against the Appellant in the meanwhile. The complaint case as well as the case arising out of the First Information Report were clubbed together and on the completion of the investigation a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 304B IPC was framed against the accused. The prosecution relied primarily on the evidence of P.W. 6, the complainant, P.W. 1, Dr. Yashpal Garg who had performed the post mortem of the dead body, P.W. 2 the Chemical Examiner and P.W. 7 Sajjan Singh, a resident of Moga who deposed to the demands for dowry made by the accused even a day before the incident. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and they denied the allegations levelled against them and on the contrary pleaded that as Balbir Kaur was a qualified Steno-typist she wanted to join service and live at Moga but as her parents-in-law were old they had insisted that she stay at home to look after the house hold chores and this frustration had led her into a depression and finally to suicide. The trial court, on a consideration of the evidence, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 304B and awarded a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was thereafter filed by the accused before the High Court. The High court partly allowed the appeal inasmuch that it held that a case under Section 304B of the IPC was not made out but the accused were nonetheless liable to conviction under Section 306 for having abetted the suicide of Balbir Kaur. The Court found as a fact that there was absolutely no evidence to show that Balbir Kaur's suicide was a dowry death as the evidence with respect to the demands for dowry were both vague and stale and could not form the basis for conviction. This is what the Court had to say:

Analysis of statements of prosecution witnesses, referred to above, clearly indicates that allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty inflicted upon the deceased are in general terms and vague. None of the prosecution witnesses had stated as to when, in which year, date and month, any act of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry was committed by any for the Appellants against the deceased. Not even a single witness had given any specific instance in that regard. None of them except Sajjan Singh (PW &) had stated that soon before death, acts of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry were committed by the Appella