IMPORTANT POINT
It is, but natural, that instance of cruelty, harassment of demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal knowledge of near relations and they would be the best persons to depose about the same.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 304-B, 498-A-Death of deceased due to asphyxia by throttling in matrimonial home-Prosecution of appellant husband and inlaws of deceased-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal- High Court acquitted , mother-in-law but affirmed the judgment passed by Trial Court so far as it related to appellant-Appeal- Death of deceased was caused by bodily injury which was otherwise than under normal circumstances-The death took place within few months of date of marriage , much before seven years of marriage- Soon before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband in connection with demand of Dowry-Prosecution successfully proved the ingredients necessary to attract the Provision of Section 304B IPC- The case of the prosecution mainly rested on the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, parents of the deceased-They made statements that even at the time of marriage they spent Rs,1,50,000 - Even after 7-8 days of marriage when deceased came to their parents house and conveyed that the accused were demanding dowry as the amount of "shagun" for which Rs.8,000/- was given her to hand-over to her husband -Just a day before death, she informed her mother (PW-5) that accused were torturing her and demanding Maruti Car-Accused being the husband and direct beneficiary of said demand of Maruti Car, no reason to differ with the conclusion of the Trial Court as affirmed by Appellate Court that appellant was guilty of offence under Section 304B IPC (Paras 22 to 25)
       Facts of the Case :
        Deceased herein in the instant case died due to asphyxia by throttling in matrimonial home. Appellant husband and inlaws of deceased were convicted by Trial Court. On Appeal,High Court acquitted , mother-in-law of deceased but affirmed the judgment passed by Trial Court so far as it related to appellant.
        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The case of the prosecution mainly rested on the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, parents of the deceased. They made statements that even at the time of marriage they spent Rs,1,50,000 . Even after 7-8 days of marriage when deceased came to their parents house and conveyed that the accused were demanding dowry as the amount of "shagun" for which Rs.8,000/- was given her to hand-over to her husband .Just a day before death, deceased informed her mother (PW-5) that accused were torturing her and demanding Maruti Car.Accused being the husband and direct beneficiary of said demand of Maruti Car, no reason to differ with the conclusion of the Trial Court as affirmed by Appellate Court that appellant was guilty of offence under Section 304B IPC.
       Result : Ordered Accordingly

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 303-DB of 2006. By its impugned judgment the Division Bench while acquitting one of the accused-Baldev Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased, of the charges framed against her, affirmed the sentence awarded by the Additional Session Judge, Barnala against the appellant under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC. The accused-appellant-Ranjit Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 304-B IPC and further sentenced to undergo RI for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default thereof to go RI for a further period of six months under Section 498-A IPC.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows:-

The informant Bahadur Singh got recorded his statement on 30th May, 1996 to ASI Gurcharan Singh, Police Station Tapa to the effect that he had performed marriage of his daughter Jaswinder Kaur with Ranjit Singh @ Makhan, son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Roorki Kalan in the month of January, 1996. He gave 14 tolas gold, Rs.55,000/- cash, one scooter, fridge, cooler, sofa set, bed, almirah, etc. as dowry. In total he spent 1.5 lakh in the said marriage and fulfilled all the demands so raised by Raghbir Singh, father-in-law of his daughter. After about 7 days of marriage, his daughter came to her parents house, she complained about the demand of money as “Shagun”, upon which he handed over a sum of Rs.8,000/- to her daughter which she handed over to her husband-Ranjit Singh (appellant herein). The complainant Bahadur Singh in his statement further narrated as to how and when his daughter again came to them after 20 days of marriage and told about the demand made by her in-laws and pursuant thereto he again purchased articles worth Rs.1500/- and sent to her daughter's matrimonial house at Roorki Kalan. The complainant further stated that even thereafter also demands were made by her daughter's in- laws asking for articles of good quality as the earlier purchased articles were not upto their satisfaction. The complainant, Bahadur Singh further mentioned the episode of 29th May, 1998 when his wife Gurmail Kaur went to her daughter’s matrimonial house at Village Roorki Kalan where her daughter narrated her about the harassment made by her in-laws on account of demand of a car. She further informed her mother that she apprehended that she might be killed by her-in-laws and requested to take her alongwith her. However, his wife consoled her daughter and went back to her house at village Kale Ka. On 30th May, 1996, at about 3.30P.M., they came to know about the death of their daughter Jaswinder Kaur and on reaching village Roorki Kalan they found their daughter Jaswinder Kaur lying on a cot in the courtyard of her in-laws house with injuries on her person. The complainant suspected that Raghbir Singh, father-in-law, Baldev Kaur, mother-in-law, Raj Kaur, sister-in-law and Ranjit Singh, husband of his daughter murdered her.

3. On the basis of the statement, FIR No. 60 dated 30th May, 1996 (Ex.PE) for an offence under Section 304-B/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Tapa, District Sangrur.

4. The Police Office Gurcharan Singh, ASI (PW-6) reached the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex.PC) of the dead body of Jaswinder Kaur. He took the dead body to Civil Hospital, Barnala for post-mortem examination where Dr. Bhalinder Singh(PW-2) conducted the post-mortem examination and by report (Ex.PA), he noticed as many as six injuries on the dead body and opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia by throttling.

5. Gurcharan Singh, ASI(PW-6) recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were arrested and thereafter on completion of usual formalities of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against Raghbir Singh, Baldev Kaur and Ran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 585

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAA.K.PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.RANJIT SINGH ...APPELLANTVersusSTATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENTSCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2007Decided on : July 3, 2013.

IMPORTANT POINT It is, but natural, that instance of cruelty, harassment of demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal knowledge of near relations and they would be the best persons to depose about the same.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K.PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
RANJIT SINGH ...APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2007
Decided on : July 3, 2013.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is, but natural, that instance of cruelty, harassment of demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal knowledge of near relations and they would be the best persons to depose about the same.