JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The correctness of the appellants conviction for an offence punishable under Section 498-A and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is questioned before us. The appellant has earlier been acquitted by the Trial Court and on an appeal by the State, his acquittal was reversed and he was convicted of the offences charged. In our opinion, the High Court was right, on merits, in convicting the appellant for the offences for which he was charged.

2. The scope of interference against an order of acquittal is also before us but in view of several decision of this Court on this subject, we are not inclined to repeat the conclusions arrived at. All we need say is that on the facts of this case the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

Brief Facts

3. The appellant Suresh Kumar married Sulochana on 18th February, 1990 at village Bal Chhappar. Since Suresh Kumar was in the Army, he was not permanently staying in the matrimonial home but would come home while on leave.

4. According to PW-4 Gian Singh (Sulochanas brother) a substantial amount was spent on Sulochanas marriage but despite this, soon after the marriage, Suresh Kumar demanded a motorcycle as dowry. He even threatened that if the demand was not met, he would not allow Sulochana to stay in the matrimonial home. When the demand was communicated to Gian Singh, he and another person from his village PW-5 Mam Chand as well as Jagdish went to Suresh Kumars residence and pacified him.

5. A few days prior to 12th September, 1993 Suresh Kumar again raised a demand for a motorcycle as dowry and started harassing Sulochana, and even went to the extent of beating her. Therefore, on 12th September, 1993 Gian Singh went and met him in the matrimonial home and again pacified him but, as it appears, only temporarily. On 16th September, 1993 Krishan (Suresh Kumars brother) came to Gian Singhs house in village Gaganheri and informed him and others in his family that Sulochana had died after having suffered an electric shock.

6. After receiving this information, Gian Singh, Mam Chand and Jagdish went to village Bal Chhappar and on reaching there, they came to know that Sulochana had already been cremated.

7. Gian Singh then made enquiries about the cause of Sulochanas death and on the basis of his enquiries he concluded that she had been killed by Suresh Kumar and his mother Leela Devi for dowry and that they had cremated Sulochanas body before Gian Singh could arrive at village Bal Chhappar.

8. On these broad facts, Gian Singh lodged a first information report with Police Station Chhappar on 19th September, 1993.

9. Pursuant to the investigation carried out by the police, Suresh Kumar was arrested on the same day while his mother Leela Devi was arrested on 20th September, 1993.

10. Subsequently, both were tried for offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 304-B of the IPC.

Decision of the Trial Court

11. It came out in the evidence recorded before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari in Sessions Case No. 72 of 1993 that Krishan had reached Gian Singhs village Gaganheri between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 16th September, 1993. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of Gian Singh's statement as well as the statement of Mam Chand and PW-6 Sardha (Sulochanas father). Gian Singh and others from his family also stated that they had gone to village Bal Chhappar, but they learnt on arrival that Sulochana had already been cremated.

12. However, the Trial Judge relied on the evidence of DW-1 Jagdish Singh, the Sarpanch of the village Bal Chhappar to conclude that several persons from Sulochanas family including her brother and father were present at the cremation and that they did not voice any suspicion about Sulochanas death.

13. The Trial Judge also doubted the correctness of Gian Singhs testimony and in fact discarded it altogether in view of various discrepancies in his statement. It was furt